ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S

(Case C-234/09) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 204(1)(a) - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 859 - External transit procedure - Authorised consignor - Creation of a customs debt - Transit document relating to non-existent goods)

2010/C 246/14

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: DSV Road A/S

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Articles 1, 4(9) and (10), 92, 96 and 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Authorised consignor generating by mistake two transit documents for the same consignment of goods in the New Computerised Transit System (NCTS), thus assigning two different movement reference numbers to a single consignment — Customs debt arising following the impossibility of discharging the external Community transit procedure by presenting the goods to the customs office of destination — Charging of customs duty on goods which have been declared but do not physically exist

Operative part of the judgment

Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, is to be interpreted as not applying to a situation such as that of the case before the referring court, where an authorised consignor generated by mistake two external transit procedures for one and the same consignment of goods, because the goods covered by the extra procedure do not exist and, as a consequence, that procedure cannot entail the creation of a customs debt pursuant to the above provision.

(1) OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2010 — Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Zafra Marroquineros SL

(Case C-254/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Word mark CK CREACIONES KENNYA - Opposition by the proprietor of inter alia the Community figurative mark CK Calvin Klein and national marks CK - Opposition rejected)

(2010/C 288/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Calvin Klein Trademark Trust (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent), Zafra Marroquineros SL (represented by: J.E. Martín Álvarez, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 2009 in Case T 185/07 Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v OHIM and Zafra Marroquineros, SL dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2007 (Case R 314/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Zafra Marroquineros, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal

2. Orders Calvin Klein Trademark Trust to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.
2.

Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which recipients of pensions payable under the legislation of that State who reside in another Member State in which they are entitled under Articles 28 and 28a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, to the sickness benefits in kind provided by the competent institution of the latter Member State must pay, in the form of a deduction from their pension, a contribution in respect of those benefits even if they are not registered with the competent institution of their Member State of residence. On the other hand, Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding such national legislation in so far as it induces or provides for — this being for the national court to ascertain — an unjustified difference of treatment between residents and non-residents as regards ensuring the continuity of the overall protection against the risk of sickness enjoyed by them under insurance contracts concluded before the entry into force of that legislation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-49/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Later accession of Member States - Transitional provisions - Temporal application - Application of a reduced rate - Clothing and clothing accessories for babies and children’s footwear)

2010/C 346/15

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, M. Dowgielewicz, M. Jarosz and A. Rutkowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), in conjunction with Annex III thereto — Application of a reduced rate of VAT to clothing and clothing accessories for babies and children’s footwear

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by applying a reduced value added tax rate of 7 % to supplies, import and intra-Community acquisition of clothing and clothing accessories for babies and of children’s footwear, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.
2.

Article 10 of Directive 92/85 is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits a member of a capital company’s Board of Directors to be removed from that post without restriction, where the person concerned is a ‘pregnant worker’ within the meaning of that directive and the decision to remove her was taken essentially on account of her pregnancy. Even if the Board Member concerned is not a ‘pregnant worker’ within the meaning of Directive 92/85, the fact remains that the removal, on account of pregnancy or essentially on account of pregnancy, of a member of a Board of Directors who performs duties such as those described in the main proceedings can affect only women and therefore constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Article 2(1) and (7) and Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Marc Michel Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht

(Case C-137/09) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Free movement of goods - Principle of non-discrimination - Measure adopted by a local public authority which restricts access to coffee-shops to Netherlands residents - Marketing of ‘soft’ drugs - Marketing of non-alcoholic beverages and of food - Objective of combating drug tourism and the accompanying public nuisance - Public order - Protection of public health - Coherence - Proportionality)

2011/C 55/09

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marc Michel Josemans

Defendant: Burgemeester van Maastricht

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 18 EC, 29 EC and 49 EC — Drug tourism — General municipal regulation prohibiting the admission of non-residents to coffee-shops selling narcotic drugs — Public order — Different treatment

Operative part of the judgment

1. In the course of marketing narcotic drugs which are not distributed through channels strictly controlled by the competent authorities with a view to use for medical or scientific purposes, a coffee-shop proprietor may not rely on Articles 12 EC, 18 EC, 29 EC or 49 EC to object to municipal rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibit the admission of persons who are non-resident in the Netherlands to such establishments. As regards the activity of marketing non-alcoholic beverages and food in those establishments, Article 49 EC et seq. may be relied on by such a proprietor.

2. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services laid down by the EC Treaty. That restriction is, however, justified by the objective of combating drug tourism and the accompanying public nuisance.

(1) OJ C 141, 20.06.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom)) — Everything Everywhere Ltd (formerly T-Mobile UK Ltd) v The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-276/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Exemption - Article 13B(d)(1) and (3) - Negotiation of credit - Transactions concerning payments and transfers - Existence of two separate supplies of services or of a single supply - Additional charges invoiced where certain methods of payment are used for mobile telephone services)

2011/C 30/09

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Everything Everywhere Limited (formerly T-Mobile UK Ltd)

Defendant: The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division — Interpretation of Art. 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions — Scope — Meaning of ‘services having the effect of transferring funds and entailing changes in the legal and financial situation’ — Services debiting one account and crediting another account by the corresponding amount — Services not including the carrying out of tasks consisting in debiting one account and crediting another with the corresponding amount but which, where a transfer of funds results, may be seen as having been the cause of that transfer — System of payment for calls from a mobile telephone

Operative part of the judgment

For the purposes of collecting value added tax, the additional charges invoiced by a provider of telecommunications services to its customers, where the latter pay for those services not by Direct Debit or by Bankers’ Automated Clearing System transfer but by credit card, debit card, cheque or cash over the counter at a bank or authorised payment agent acting on behalf of that service provider, do not constitute consideration for a supply of services distinct and independent from the principal supply of services consisting in the supply of telecommunications services.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium)) — Omalet NV v Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid

(Case C-245/09) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Article 49 EC - Contractor established in a Member State - Recourse to contracting partners established in the same Member State - Purely internal situation - Inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)

2011/C 63/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Omalet NV

Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — Social legislation — Undertaking established in Belgium and having recourse to subcontractors which are also established in that Member State but are not registered with the national authorities — Whether or not Article 49 EC is applicable

Operative part of the judgment

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), made by decision of 25 June 2009, is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht, Berlin — Germany) — DEB Deutsche Energiehandels-und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-279/09) (1)

(Effective judicial protection of rights derived from European Union law - Right of access to a court - Legal aid - National legislation refusing legal aid to legal persons in the absence of ‘public interest’)

2011/C 55/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht, Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DEB Deutsche Energiehandels-und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Kammergericht Berlin — Interpretation of the principle of effectiveness — Compatibility with that principle of national rules refusing legal aid to legal persons in the absence of ‘public interest’ — Action seeking to establish the liability of a Member State for delay in transposing Community directives

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it is not impossible for legal persons to rely on that principle and that aid granted pursuant to that principle may cover, inter alia, dispensation from advance payment of the costs of proceedings and/or the assistance of a lawyer.

In that connection, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the conditions for granting legal aid constitute a limitation on the right of access to the courts which undermines the very core of that right; whether they pursue a legitimate aim; and whether there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim which it is sought to achieve.

In making that assessment, the national court must take into consideration the subject matter of the litigation; whether the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success; the importance of what is at stake for the applicant in the proceedings; the complexity of the relevant law and procedure; and the applicant’s capacity to represent himself effectively. In order to assess the proportionality, the national court may also take account of the amount of the costs of the proceedings in respect of which advance payment must be made and whether or not those costs might represent an insurmountable obstacle to access to the courts.

With regard more specifically to legal persons, the national court may take account of their situation. The court may therefore take into consideration, inter alia, the form of the legal person in question and whether it is profit-making or non-profit-making; the financial capacity of the partners or shareholders; and the ability of those partners or shareholders to obtain the sums necessary to institute legal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Warszawa — Republic of Poland) — Artur Weryński v Mediatel 4B Spółka z o.o.

(Case C-283/09) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Taking of evidence - Examination of a witness by the requested court upon application by the requesting court - Payment of witness expenses)

2011/C 103/06

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Warszawa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Artur Weryński

Defendant: Mediatel 4B Spółka z o.o.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1) — Hearing of a witness by a court of a Member State at the request of a court of another Member State — Witness expenses — Possibility for the requested court to demand from the requesting court payment of an advance for the witness heard

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 14 and 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a requesting court is not obliged to pay an advance to the requested court for the expenses of a witness or to reimburse the expenses paid to the witness examined.

(1) OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Bogusław Juliusz Dankowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

(Case C-438/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Right to deduct input VAT - Services provided - Taxable person not registered for VAT - Details required on the VAT invoice - National tax legislation - Exclusion of right to deduct under Article 17(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive)

2011/C 63/15

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bogusław Juliusz Dankowski

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Compatibility with this provision of national legislation excluding the right to deduct input tax paid for supply of a service on the basis of an invoice issued, in breach of national law, by a person not on the register of taxable persons for the purposes of VAT

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 18(1)(a) and 22(3)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2006/18/EC of 14 February 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person has the right to deduct value added tax paid in respect of services supplied by another taxable person who is not registered for that tax, where the relevant invoices contain all the information required by Article 22(3)(b), in particular the information needed to identify the person who drew up those invoices and to ascertain the nature of the services provided;

2. Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 as amended by Directive 2006/18 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes the right to deduct value added tax paid by a taxable person to another taxable person, who has provided services, where the latter has not registered for the purposes of that tax.

(1) OJ C 37, 13.02.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Périgueux (France)) — AG2R Prévoyance v Beaudout Père et Fils SARL

(Case C-437/09) (1)

(Competition - Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU - Scheme for supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs - Collective agreement - Compulsory affiliation to a specific insuring body - Express exclusion of any possibility of exemption from affiliation - Concept of an undertaking)

2011/C 130/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Périgueux

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AG2R Prévoyance

Defendant: Beaudout Père et Fils SARL

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Grande Instance de Périgueux — Competition — National legislation making affiliation to a single designated insurer compulsory for all undertakings in a given professional sector — Concept of undertaking within the meaning of Article 81 EC — Body claiming payment of contributions from an undertaking which had already entered into a contract of insurance offering better cover — Explicit exclusion of any possibility of waiver of the affiliation obligation — Whether such an affiliation scheme is compatible with Articles 81 EC and 82 EC — Possible risk of abuse of a dominant position

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) EU, must be interpreted as not precluding the decision by the public authorities to make compulsory, at the request of the organisations representing employers and employees within a given occupational sector, an agreement which is the result of collective bargaining and which provides for compulsory affiliation to a scheme for supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs for all undertakings within the sector concerned, without any possibility of exemption.

2. Inasmuch as the activity consisting in the management of a scheme for supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs such as that at issue in the main proceedings is to be classified as economic — this being a matter for the national court to determine — Articles 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, public authorities from granting a provident society an exclusive right to manage that scheme, without any possibility for undertakings within the occupational sector concerned to be exempted from affiliation to that scheme.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.