ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

For the interpretation of Article 2(1) and Article 4 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC): Does the sale (purchase) of defaulted debts constitute, on account of the assumption of responsibility for debt recovery and the risk of loss, a service for consideration and an economic activity on the part of the purchaser of the debts even if the purchase price — is not based on the face value of the debts, with a flat-rate reduction agreed for the assumption of responsibility for debt recovery and the risk of loss, but — is set by reference to the risk of loss estimated for the debt concerned, with only secondary importance attached to the recovery of the debt compared to the reduction for the risk of loss?
—

on the sole condition that there is between the harmful act and the territory of the first Member State a link which is sufficient, substantial or significant and, in that case, whether that link can be created by: — the number of hits on the page at issue made from the first Member State, as an absolute figure or as a proportion of all hits on that page, — the residence, or nationality, of the person who complains of the infringement of his or her personal rights or, more generally, of the persons concerned, — the language in which the information at issue is broadcast or any other factor which may demonstrate the site publisher’s intention to address specifically the public of the first Member State, — the place where the events described occurred and/or where the photographic-images put on line were taken, — other criteria?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2010 — Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-196/10)

(2010/C 161/56)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Question referred

Is the Combined Nomenclature, in the version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 (1) and in the version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a product described as a ‘malt beer base’ with an alcoholic strength by volume of approximately 14 %, obtained from brewed beer which has been clarified and then subjected to ultrafiltration, by which the concentration of ingredients such as bitter substances and proteins has been reduced, is to be classified under heading 2208?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, amending Annex I to Council

Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, amending Annex I to Council

Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/16

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A. v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-157/10)

2010/C 179/26

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Question referred

Must Articles 63 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national rules (enacted unilaterally or under a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation) which, in the context of corporation tax and within the framework of provisions for the avoidance of such double taxation, prohibit the deduction of amounts of tax due in other Member States of the European Union on income subject to corporation tax and obtained in their territory where those amounts, though due, are not paid by virtue of an exemption, a credit or any other tax benefit?
4.

If Questions 1 and 2 or Question 3.1. are/is answered in the negative: Does a judgment delivered by a court in the second State and regarded as enforceable under the law of that State, by which provisional custody was awarded to the abducting parent preclude an earlier return order made by the first State under Article 11(8) of Brussels II bis, in accordance with Article 47(2) of Brussels II bis, even if it did not prevent the enforcement of a return order made by the second State under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the ‘Hague Convention’)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo lodged on 26 April 2010 — Secilpar v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-199/10)

2010/C 195/08

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secilpar

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Question referred

Having regard to the provisions of the Double Taxation Convention concluded between Portugal and Spain, does the deduction at source of [corporate] income tax for the year 2003, applied to a company not resident within national territory at the rate of 15 %, as the result of cash dividends made available to it in its capacity of shareholder of a company resident in a Member State, in accordance with Articles 80(2)(c) and 88(3)(b), (4) and (5) of the Código do IRC, Article 71(a) and (d) of the Código do IRS and Article 59 of the EBF as then worded, breach the principles of non-discrimination, freedom of establishment and free movement of capital embodied in Articles 12, 43, 46, 56 and 58(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 5(1) of Directive 90/435/EEC? (1)

(1) Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/12

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Cível da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2010 — Maria Alice Pendão Lapa Costa Ferreira, Alexandra Pendão Lapa Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

(Case C-229/10)

2010/C 195/17

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Cível da Comarca do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Maria Alice Pendão Lapa Costa Ferreira, Alexandra Pendão Lapa Ferreira

Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

Questions referred

1. Is the interpretation of Article 505 of the Código Civil (Portuguese Civil Code) which, in the case of an accident caused by the conduct of the pedestrian alone, excludes the liability for risk posed by the use of motor vehicles, compatible with the European directives [72/166/EEC, (1) 84/5/EEC, (2) 90/232/EEC, (3) 2000/26/EC, (4) and 2005/14/EC (5)] on compulsory motor vehicle insurance, and in particular with Article 1a of Directive 90/232/EEC?

2. Is the interpretation of Article 570 of the Código Civil, whereby compensation may be reduced or excluded according to the degree of fault of both parties, when a wrongful act of the victim has contributed to or exacerbated the loss, compatible with those directives?

3. And, if the answer is in the affirmative, do those directives preclude an interpretation which allows compensation to be limited or reduced, having regard to the fault of the pedestrian, on the one hand, and the risk posed by the motor vehicle, on the other, in the causation of the accident?

(1) Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

(2) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

(3) Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

(4) Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65).

(5) Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/30

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 28 May 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Gheorghe Kita

(Case C-264/10)

()

2010/C 209/41

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Gheorghe Kita

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) of 13 June 2002 to be interpreted as meaning that the return (transfer) of the sentenced person, surrendered earlier in accordance with a European arrest warrant for the purposes of criminal proceedings, to the State of which he is a national takes place automatically, even without his consent, consent that is a condition imposed by the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons?

(1) Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/24

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 28 May 2010 — Société Accor Services France v Le Chèque Déjeuner CCR, Etablissement Public de Santé de Ville-Evrard

(Case C-269/10)

()

2010/C 221/38

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Accor Services France

Defendants: Le Chèque Déjeuner CCR, Etablissement Public de Santé de Ville-Evrard

Question referred

Are the provisions of Article 53 of the Code des marchés publics (Public Procurement Code) compatible with those of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contract (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/27

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Roma (Italy), made on 23 March 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Alessandro Sacchi

(Case C-255/10)

()

2010/C 209/38

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Roma

Party to the main proceedings

Alessandro Sacchi

Question referred

What interpretation is to be given to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC with reference to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the sector of betting on sports events, regard being had also to the principle of effective judicial protection, in order to establish whether or not those Treaty provisions permit national rules establishing a State monopoly and a system of licences and authorisations which, within the context of a given number of licences,: (a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators; (b) ensure the de facto maintenance of commercial positions acquired at the conclusion of a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their betting outlets within a specified distance from those already in existence); (c) lay down cases in which the licence may lapse, with forfeiture of large guarantee deposits, including the case in which the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?
—

Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/47/EC (1) of 18 July 2005 on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector and, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of the Directive.
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the penalties for infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, or in any event in failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006;
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Council Directive 2005/47/EC of 18 July 2005 on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector (1) and, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/20

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2010 — Mesopotamia Broadcast A/S METV v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-244/10)

()

2010/C 234/32

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mesopotamia Broadcast A/S METV

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Question referred

A ruling is sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union on whether and, if so, the circumstances under which the application of national legislation concerning the prohibition of an association for infringement of the principles of international understanding falls within the field coordinated by Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC (2) of 30 June 1997 and, thus, is precluded by Article 2a of the directive?

(1) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).

(2) Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60).
—

declare that, since it did not take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary for the refund of the aid that was found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market, under Article 1(1) (except as referred to in Article 1(2) and Articles 2 and 3) of the Commission decision of 18 July 2007 (C(2007) 3251) concerning the tax-exempt reserve fund (aid number C 37/2005), or in any event has not informed the Commission sufficiently of the measures which it has taken under the article, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 5 and 6 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/6

Action brought on 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-341/10)

()

2010/C 260/08

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and Ł. Habiak, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

— declare that, by reason of the defective and incomplete implementation of Article 3(1)(d) to (h) and Article 9 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, (1) the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of that directive;

— order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The material scope of Directive 2000/43/EC covers a range of areas which are mentioned in Article 3(1) thereof. Under Article 16 of the directive, Member States are under an obligation to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure implementation of the directive in all of those areas (or to ensure that those provisions are adopted by management and labour) and to inform the European Commission accordingly. It is the Commission’s view that the Republic of Poland has to date complied with that obligation only in part. In the present action the Commission alleges that Poland has carried out a defective and incomplete implementation of the directive with regard to the following matters: membership of and/or involvement in an organisation of workers or employers, or any organisation the members of which carry on a particular profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations, social protection, including social security and health care, social advantages, education, access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public, including housing (Article 3(1)(d) to (h) of the directive). The Commission rejects the assertion of the Polish authorities that the implementation of the directive in these areas is ensured by provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, by legislation and by international agreements indicated in the course of the procedure prior to the bringing of the action.

The European Commission also alleges that Poland transposed Article 9 of Directive 2000/43/EC into national law in a manner which is defective and incomplete. That provision, which refers to measures which are necessary to protect individuals from any adverse treatment or adverse consequence as a reaction to a complaint or to proceedings aimed at enforcing compliance with the principle of equal treatment, relates to all persons and to all situations coming within the scope of the directive. The provisions thus far communicated by the Polish authorities, however, indicate, in the Commission’s view, that measures of this kind exist only in respect of employees and the employment relationship.

(1) OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22.
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure application of Council Directive 2004/82/EC of 29 April 2004 on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data, (1) or, in any event, by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/6

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Doux Geflügel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-325/10)

()

2010/C 274/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Doux Geflügel GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Question referred

Do chickens under subheading 0207 12 10 (1) of the Combined Nomenclature have to be plucked without any residue or may some small quill feathers, plumage feathers, quill ends and hairs still be attached after going through a mechanical plucking process?

(1) OJ 1999 L 338, p. 1.
2.

Is the first paragraph of Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 90 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a tax with the characteristics of the pollution tax introduced by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, as amended by Government Emergency Order No 218/2008, from which motor vehicles in category M1 and pollution class Euro 4, with a cylinder capacity of not more than 2 000 cc, are exempt, as are all motor vehicles in category N1 and pollution class Euro 4 which were registered for the first time in Romania or in another Member State between 15 December 2008 and 31 December 2009, but which applies to motor vehicles with different technical characteristics from those indicated above, which were registered during the same period in other Member States, in that such a tax could amount to a domestic tax on goods from other Member States which is indirectly discriminatory when compared with the tax treatment of domestic goods, thus protecting the domestic manufacture of new motor vehicles?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2010 — Suiker Unie GmbH — Zuckerfabrik Anklam v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-392/10)

()

(2010/C 288/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Suiker Unie GmbH — Zuckerfabrik Anklam

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Question referred

Is the condition for receipt of a differentiated refund established in Article 15(1) in conjunction with Article 15(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11), that is, completion of the customs import formalities, satisfied, when in the third country of destination following release for inward processing without collection of import duties the product undergoes a substantial processing or working within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1, as amended) and the product resulting from that processing or working is exported to a third country?
4.

Is the host Member State entitled to decide on the application for company registration lodged in the host Member State by the company carrying out international conversion within the Community in accordance with the rules of company law of the host Member State as they relate to the conversion of domestic companies, and to require the company to fulfil all the conditions (e.g. drawing up lists of assets and liabilities and property inventories) laid down by the company law of the host Member State in respect of domestic conversion, or is the host Member State obliged under Articles 43 and 48 EC to distinguish international conversion within the Community from domestic conversion and, if so, to what extent?