ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Is the exemption from tax on dividends granted by the Hungarian legislation to a recipient of dividends resident in Hungary compatible with the provisions of the EU Treaties on the principle of freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU), the principle of equal treatment (Article 54 TFEU) and the principle of free movement of capital (Article 56 TFEU (sic)), given that (a) a non-resident recipient of dividends is exempt from tax on dividends only if it meets certain legal requirements, namely that its holding (in the case of shares, the proportion of its registered shares) in the company capital of the resident company at the time of distribution (allocation) of dividends amounted permanently to at least 20 % for at least two consecutive years, taking account of the fact that, in the event that the permanent holding of 20 % is maintained for less than two consecutive years, the company distributing the dividends is not obliged to withhold the tax on the dividends and the company which receives the dividends or, in the event of non-monetary allocations, the company which distributes them are not obliged to pay that tax on submission of their tax return if another person or the party distributing the dividends has guaranteed the payment of the tax; (b) further, a non-resident recipient of dividends does not meet the requirements of the national legislation for exemption from tax when its holding (in the case of shares the proportion of its registered shares) in the company capital of a resident company at the time of distribution (allocation) of dividends is below the minimum level of 20 % required by law, or when it has not maintained that percentage permanently for at least two consecutive years, or, in the event that the permanent holding of 20 % has been maintained for less than two consecutive years, if payment of the tax was not guaranteed by any third party or by the party distributing the dividends;
1.

Should Article 2 of Regulation No 44/2001, (1) where appropriate in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) and (b), be interpreted as precluding a rule of jurisdiction, such as that set out in Article 4 of the Belgian Law of 27 July 1961, which provides for the jurisdiction of Belgian courts where the exclusive distributor has its registered office in Belgian territory and where the distribution agreement covers all or part of that territory, irrespective of where the grantor of the exclusive distribution rights has its registered office, where the latter is the defendant?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/10

Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-109/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-121/12 P)

2012/C 165/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court (Court of First Instance) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-109/09;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the ground that the General Court infringed Article 74(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) (CMTR) [now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2)] and on the ground of misuse of power. According to the appellant the General Court wrongly interpreted Article 74/2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 by deciding that the Board of Appeal was right in not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the appellant. The General Court wrongly decided that the Board lawfully refused to exercise discretion when refusing to take the aforementioned documents into account.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 11, p. 1

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 78, p. 1
2.

If an entity such as the OTOC is required by law to implement a mandatory training system for its members, may the present Article 101 TFEU be interpreted as allowing the possibility of challenging the setting up of a training system legally imposed by the OTOC and by the Regulation governing that system, in so far as the latter strictly confines itself to giving effect to the legal requirement? Or, on the contrary, does this matter fall outside the scope of Article 101 and must it be examined under the present Article 56 et seq. TFEU?
4.

In that context, may the data subject rely directly on Article 41(2)(b) of the EU Charter, and if so, must the phrase ‘while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality [in decision-making]’ included therein be interpreted in such a way that the right of access to the minute may be refused on that ground?
—

Declare that, with regard to its intracommunal river basins, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(8), 7(2) and 10(1) and (2), and Sections 1.3 and 1.4 of Annex V, of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy; (1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 157/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2012 — Maria Rosa Gramegna v A.S.L. Lodi and Others

(Case C-160/12)

2012/C 157/08

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Rosa Gramegna

Defendants: A.S.L. Lodi and Others

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and the preservation of competition under Article 49 et seq TFEU preclude national legislation which does not allow a pharmacist, who is qualified and entered in the relevant professional register but does not own a pharmacy on the ‘pianta organica’ [territorial grid], also to offer for retail sale, in the para-pharmacy owned by that pharmacist, pharmaceutical products which are subject to a prescription in the form of a ‘ricetta bianca’ — that is to say, pharmaceutical products the cost of which is borne not by the [national health service] but wholly by the citizen — and which accordingly also establishes in that sector a prohibition on the sale of certain categories of pharmaceutical product, as well as a quota in relation to the number of commercial outlets which may be established in the national territory?
2.

If the reply to the first question is in the negative, do Articles 18 and 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 12 and Article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community), Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (3) or Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 preclude a national regulation such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, under which the granting of a benefit such as that set out in the Law of 21 December 2007 on the Child Bonus, to workers who carry out their professional activity in the territory of the Member State concerned and who reside with members of their family in the territory of another Member State, is suspended up to the amount of the family benefits provided for the members of their family by the legislation of the Member State of residence, the national regulation requiring the application, to the benefit at issue, of the rules concerning non-cumulation of family benefits set out in Article 76 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (4) as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97?
1.

Is Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged infringement of copyright committed by means of content placed online on a website, — the person who considers that his rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action to establish liability before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible, in order to obtain compensation solely in respect of the damage suffered on the territory of the Member State before which the action is brought, or — does that content also have to be, or to have been, directed at the public located in the territory of that Member State, or must some other clear connecting factor be present?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 27 January 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Vu Thang Dang

(Case C-39/12)

2012/C 118/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party to the main proceedings

Vu Thang Dang

Question referred

Are Articles 21 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, (1) which regulate the issue and annulment of a uniform visa, to be interpreted as precluding criminal liability, resulting from the application of national legislation, for the smuggling of foreign nationals in cases where, although they hold visas, the persons smuggled obtained those visas by deceiving the competent authorities of another Member State as to the true purpose of their journey?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1).
1.

Is Article 143b(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, for 2008, the sloping sides of dykes and embankments constructed in order to prevent flooding are excluded from the single area payment scheme (SAPS) financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, even in cases where, as at 30 June 2003 and thereafter, the pasture planted on it has been well kept, by being mown regularly and used for grazing, and constitutes area which is maintained in good agricultural condition?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/6

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 April 2012 — Melvin West v Virallinen syyttäjä

(Case C-192/12)

2012/C 184/10

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Melvin West

Defendant: Virallinen syyttäjä

Question referred

In applying Article 28(2) of the Framework Decision, does ‘executing Member State’ mean the Member State from which a person was originally surrendered to another Member State on the basis of a European arrest warrant, or that second Member State from which the person was surrendered to a third Member State which is now requested to surrender the person onward to a fourth Member State? Or is consent perhaps required from both Member States?
1.

Is Article 7(1) of the Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the whole or a qualitatively or quantitatively substantial part of the contents of a database offered on a website (on line) is re-utilised (made available) by a third party if that third party makes it possible for the public to search the whole contents of the database or a substantial part thereof in real time with the aid of a dedicated meta search engine provided by that third party, by means of a query entered by a user in “translated” form into the search engine of the website on which the database is offered?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 126/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 24 January 2012 — Körös-Vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

(Case C-33/12)

2012/C 126/07

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Körös-Vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

Question referred

In the case of use as permanent grassland, do dykes constitute utilised agricultural areas within the meaning of Article 143b(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) although their agricultural use is not the primary one but they are also used for water management and flood prevention purposes?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 May 2012 — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Fianzsenat Außenstelle Linz

(Case C-219/12)

2012/C 243/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Defendant: Unabhängiger Fianzsenat Außenstelle Linz

Interested party: Thomas Fuchs

Question referred

Is the operation of a network-connected photovoltaic installation with no independent power storage capability on or adjacent to a privately owned house used for private residential purposes, which is technically designed such that the power generated by the installation is, on a continuing basis, below the total quantity of power privately consumed by the installation operator in the privately owned house, an ‘economic activity’ of the installation operator within the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)

(1) 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.
1.

Are the principle of effectiveness set out in the case-law [of the Court of Justice] of the European Union and the principle of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as not permitting a national procedural rule such as Article 133(1) of the Code of administrative procedure which makes jurisdiction for administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the European Union’s common agricultural policy dependent solely on the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act, considering that that rule does not take into consideration the place in which the properties are located and the place of residence of the person seeking justice?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/12

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Constructora Principado, S.A. v José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez

(Case C-226/12)

2012/C 227/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Constructora Principado, S.A.

Defendant: José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez

Question referred

In the case of a contractual term which passes on to the consumer payment of an amount which by law is payable by the seller or supplier, is the imbalance referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) to be interpreted as arising merely from the act of passing on to the consumer an obligation to pay which by law falls on the seller or supplier, or does the fact that the Directive requires the imbalance to be significant mean that, in addition, the financial burden on the consumer must be significant in relation to the total amount of the transaction?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/8

Appeal brought on 11 May 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 2 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-29/10 and T-33/10 Netherlands and ING Groep v Commission

(Case C-224/12 P)

2012/C 258/14

Languages of the case: Dutch and English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and H. Van Vliet, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Kingdom of the Netherlands

ING Groep NV

De Nederlandsche Bank NV

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 March 2012, notified to the Commission on 6 March 2012, in Joined Cases T-29/10 and T-33/10 Netherlands and ING Groep v Commission; and

— dismiss the applications for partial annulment of the decision of the European Commission (1) of 18 November 2009 on State aid C 10/09 (ex N 138/2009) implemented by the Netherlands for ING’s Illiquid Assets Back-up Facility and Restructuring Plan;

— order the applicants to pay the costs;

— in the alternative, — refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; — reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal, or, in the further alternative, — annul the third paragraph of Article 2 of the decision at issue;

— order the applicants to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds:

First , there is no requirement in law to apply the market economy investor principle in relation to an amendment of repayment conditions for a measure that itself constituted State aid.

Second , the General Court wrongly evaluated the loss of revenue to the Member State resulting from the modified repayment conditions examined in the Commission’s decision of 18 November 2009 on State aid C 10/09 (ex N 138/09) implemented by the Netherlands for ING’s Illiquid Assets Back-up Facility and Restructuring Plan (‘the decision at issue’).

Third , even if the Commission was wrong to treat the modified repayment conditions as State aid, the General Court was not entitled to annul the first paragraph of Article 2 of the decision at issue in its entirety.

Fourth , the General Court erred in law in finding that the second paragraph of Article 2 of the decision at issue was necessarily unlawful because the Commission had erred in finding that the modified repayment conditions constituted State aid.

Fifth , the General Court ruled ultra petita in annulling the second paragraph of Article 2 of the decision at issue and Annex II thereto.

Sixth , in the alternative, if the General Court was correct to annul the first and second paragraphs of Article 2 of the decision at issue and Annex II thereto, it also had to annul the third paragraph of Article 2 of the decision at issue.

(1) Decision 2010/608/EC (OJ 2010 L 274, p. 139).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2012 — Criminal proceedings against EBS Le relais Nord-Pas-De-Calais

(Case C-240/12)

2012/C 243/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank te Rotterdam

Party to the main proceedings

EBS Le relais Nord-Pas-De-Calais

Questions referred

1. Where waste is shipped by vessel from an EU Member State (in this case France) to a State in which the OECD-Decision does not apply (in this case the United Arab Emirates), is there ‘transit’ within the meaning of the former (1) and the new (2) Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) if under way the vessel puts in at a port of another EU Member State (in this case the Port of Rotterdam)?

2. Does it make any difference to the answer to question 1 if: — there is storage and/or transhipment of that waste at that port and/or — that waste is taken ashore and/or — that waste is declared for import at customs?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (former WSR) (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1)

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (new WSR) (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1)
2.

Does Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and does the principle of pluralism in the media, in particular, preclude the rules in Article 38(5) of Legislative Decree No 177/2005 which lay down shorter hourly advertising limits for pay-TV broadcasters than for free-to-air broadcasters, distorting competition and creating — or rather strengthening — dominant positions in the television advertising market?
2.

Does Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union and with Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council (or Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) prevent the authorities in the Czech Republic, in circumstances such as those of the present case, from offering preferential treatment (a supplement to old age benefit where the amount of that benefit granted under Article 20 of the Agreement on social security concluded on 29.10.1992 between the Czech [Republic] and the Slovak Republic and under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council (Regulation No 883/2004) is lower than the benefit which would have been received if the retirement pension had been calculated according to the legislation of the Czech Republic) only to citizens of the Czech Republic, where the fundamental right to security in old age interpreted by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic specifically in relation to periods of pension benefit acquired in the former CSFR, and perceived as a part of the national identity, leads to that treatment, and where that treatment is not such as to interfere with the right of freedom of movement for workers as a basic right of the Union, in the situation where offering similar treatment to all other citizens of Member States of the EU who also acquired similar periods of pension benefit in the former CSFR would lead to a significant threat to the financial stability of the Czech Republic’s system of pensions insurance? If the answer to question (2) is in the affirmative: