ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — X v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Utrecht

(Case C-639/22)

(2023/C 35/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Utrecht

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard:

— whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results?

— what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is?

— to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
5.

Could the characterisation of the mere combining of two products — one financial product and one insurance product — as an aggressive practice result in an unlawful regulatory measure, and would this place on the trader (rather than on the AGCM, as it should be) the burden — a difficult one to discharge — of demonstrating that that combining of two products is not an aggressive practice in breach of Directive 2005/29/EC (especially as, under that directive, Member States may not adopt stricter rules than those provided for therein, even in order to achieve a higher level of consumer protection), or, on the contrary, does such a reversal of the burden of proof not exist, provided that, on the basis of objective evidence, there is deemed to be a real risk that the consumer in need of a loan will be influenced by a complex combined offer?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 4 April 2022 by Beata Sołowicz against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 28 January 2022 in Case T-725/21, Sołowicz v Commission

(Case C-236/22 P)

(2023/C 45/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Beata Sołowicz (represented by: M. Korpalski, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 23 November 2022, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered Ms Beata Sołowicz to bear her own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Katowice — Wschód w Katowicach (Poland) lodged on 2 November 2022 — Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe A. v P. S.A.

(Case C-677/22)

(2023/C 35/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Katowice — Wschód w Katowicach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe A.

Defendant: P. S.A.

Question referred

Must Article 3(5) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (recast) (1) be interpreted as meaning that a period for payment longer than 60 days may be expressly stipulated by undertakings only in contracts in which the contractual terms are not determined unilaterally by one of the contracting parties?

(1) OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 November 2022 — criminal proceedings

(Case C-722/22)

(2023/C 45/21)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 2 of Framework Decision 2005/212, (1) read in conjunction with the third indent of Article 1 thereof, to interpret a national law as meaning that a heavy goods vehicle (tractor unit and trailer) which members of an organised crime group used for the holding and transport of large quantities of excise goods (cigarettes) without tax markings should not be confiscated as an instrumentality?

(1) Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (OJ 2005 L 68, p. 49).
(a)

Does Article 5(3) of Council [Framework Decision] 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, (1) interpreted in the light of Article 1(3) of that decision and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude legislation, such as the Italian legislation, that — in the context of a European arrest warrant procedure for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution — absolutely and automatically precludes the executing judicial authorities from refusing to surrender third-country nationals staying or residing in Italian territory, irrespective of the links those individuals have with that territory?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-532/03) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public procurement - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Emergency ambulance services)

(2008/C 51/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Wiedner and X. Lewis, Agents, and J. Flynn QC))

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, A. Collins SC, E. Regan SC and C. O'Toole, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster, C. Wissels and P. van Ginneken, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Arrangements for the provision of an emergency ambulance service — Obligation to arrange prior advertising — Principles of transparency, equality and non-discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 85, 3.4.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-393/05) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 - Organic production of agricultural products - Private inspection bodies - Requirement of an establishment or permanent infrastructure in the Member State where the services are provided - Justifications - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Article 55 EC - Consumer protection)

(2008/C 22/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Requirement for inspection bodies in the field of organic production of agricultural products which are approved in another Member State to have a place of business or permanent infrastructure in Austria

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by requiring of private inspection bodies of organically-farmed products approved in another Member State that they maintain an establishment in Austria in order to be able to provide inspection services there, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

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

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Criminal proceedings against Ioannis Doulamis

(Case C-446/05) (1)

(Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC - National legislation prohibiting advertising of dental care services)

(2008/C 116/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles

Party in the main criminal proceedings

Ioannis Doulamis

Intervening parties: Union des Dentistes et Stomatologistes de Belgique (UPR), Jean Totolidis

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 81 EC, the second paragraph of Article 10 EC and Article 3(1)(g) EC — National legislation prohibiting all advertising in the dental care sector

Operative part of the judgment

Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, does not preclude a national law, such as the Law of 15 April 1958, which prohibits any person or dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind in the dental care sector.

(1) OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

(Case C-77/05) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 - Establishment of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union - Validity)

(2008/C 51/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by E. O'Neill and C. Gibbs, Agents, and A. Dashwood, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by D. O'Hagan, Agent, and A. Collins, SC, and P. McGarry, BL), Republic of Poland (represented by J. Pietras, Agent), Slovak Republic (represented by R. Procházka, J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by J. Schutte and R. Szostak, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent), Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. O'Reilly, Agent)

Re:

Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (OJ 2004 L 349, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, Ireland, the Republic of Poland, the Slovak Republic and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.
1.

Declares that, by exempting imports of material capable of use both for civil and military purposes from customs duties during the period from 1 January 1999 until 31 December 2002 and by refusing to calculate, declare and make available to the European Commission the own resources which were not collected because of that exemption and the default interest payable because of the failure to make those own resources available to the European Commission in good time, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under, on the one hand, Article 26 EC, Article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and, consequently, the Common Customs Tariff and, on the other, Articles 2, 9, 10 and 17(1) of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, and the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. arl, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale Marmilla — Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari

(Case C-51/05 P) (1)

(Appeals - Common organisation of the market in wine - Aid for distillation - Actions for damages - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Limitation period - Point from which time starts to run)

(2008/C 223/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. rl, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. rl, Cantina sociale Marmilla — Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. rl, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. rl, Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. rl Monti-Sassari (represented by: C. Dore and G. Dore, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2004 in Case T-166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. Coop. and Others v Commission ordering the Commission to compensate the applicants for damage incurred as a result of Decision No VI B-I-3 M 4/97PVP of 31 July 1998 rejecting the applicants' requests for the payment of distillation aid for 1982/1983

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 23 November 2004 in Case T 166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission to the extent to which it declared admissible the action to establish non-contractual liability brought by Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. arl, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale Marmilla — Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. arl and Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari and ordered the Commission of the European Communities to make good the damage suffered by them as a result of the insolvency of Distilleria Agricola Industriale di Terralba by reason of the absence of a procedure capable of guaranteeing, under the system introduced by Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 of 15 September 1982 laying down provisions concerning preventive distillation for the 1982/1983 wine year, payment to the producers concerned of the Community aid provided for by that regulation.

2. Dismisses the action in Case T-166/98.

3. Orders Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. arl, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale Marmilla — Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. arl and Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien (Austria)) — Gabriele Walderdorff v Finanzamt Waldviertel

(Case C-451/06) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(b) - Exemption - Leasing and letting of immovable property - Letting of fishing rights)

(2008/C 22/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gabriele Walderdorff

Defendant: Finanzamt Waldviertel

Re:

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien — Interpretation of Article 13B(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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) — Exemption from VAT —Supply of services connected with immovable property — Letting and granting for consideration of fishing rights.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 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 must be interpreted to mean that the grant for consideration, under a contract of let for a period of 10 years, of the right to fish, by the landowner in waters owned by that person, and by the holder of fishing rights in publicly owned waters, does not constitute either a leasing or a letting of immovable property, inasmuch as that grant does not confer the right to occupy the immovable property concerned and to exclude any other person from it.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/14

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-184/06) (1)

(Fisheries - Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 - Allocation of catch quotas among Member States - Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain - End of the transitional period - Requirement of relative stability - Principle of non-discrimination - New fishing opportunities)

(2008/C 51/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. De Gregorio Merino and A. Westerhof Löfflerova, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 of 22 December 2005 fixing for 2006 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2006 L 16, p. 1) — Discrimination — Application of Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Greece) — Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonymi Techniki Etairia Meleton kai Epivlepseon, Nikolaos Vlachopoulos v Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki AE, Aikaterini Georgoula, Dimitrios Vasios, N. Loukatos kai Synergates AE Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki AE, A. Pantazis — Pan. Kyriopoulos kai syn/tes OS Filon OE, Nikolaos Sideris

(Case C-532/06) (1)

(Directive 92/50/EEC - Public service contracts - Carrying out of a project in respect of the cadastre, town plan and implementing measure for a residential area - Criteria which may be accepted as ‘criteria for qualitative selection’ or ‘award criteria’ - Economically most advantageous tender - Compliance with the award criteria set out in the contract documents or contract notice - Subsequent determination of weighting factors and sub-criteria in respect of the award criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract notice - Principle of equal treatment of economic operators and obligation of transparency)

(2008/C 64/15)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonymi Techniki Etairia Meleton kai Epivlepseon, Nikolaos Vlachopoulos

Defendants: Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki AE, Aikaterini Georgoula, Dimitrios Vasios, N. Loukatos kai Synergates AE Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki AE, A. Pantazis — Pan. Kyriopoulos kai syn/tes OS Filon OE, Nikolaos Sideris

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 36 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — Criteria for awarding contract — Subsequent fixing of the specific weighting for each criterion when the award procedure was already under way

Operative part of the judgment

Read in the light of the principle of equal treatment of economic operators and the ensuing obligation of transparency, Article 36(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, precludes the contracting authority in a tendering procedure from stipulating at a later date the weighting factors and sub-criteria to be applied to the award criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract notice.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-248/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Research and development - Rules for the deduction of costs incurred abroad)

(2008/C 116/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Escobar Guerrero, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC, 48 EC and 49 EC and Articles 31 EEA and 36 EEA — Rules for deducting costs for research and development and technological innovation incurred abroad more rigorous than those applicable to costs incurred in Spain

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force rules for the deduction of costs relating to research and development and technological innovation which are less favourable in respect of costs incurred abroad than costs incurred in Spain — such rules deriving from Article 35 of the Law on corporation tax, as amended by Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March 2004 — the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, and the corresponding articles in the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, namely Articles 31 and 36 of that Agreement;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.