ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Folien Fischer AG, Fofitec AG v Ritrama SpA

(Case C-133/11) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict - Action for a negative declaration («negative Feststellungsklage») - Whether a person alleged to have committed a harmful act may bring a person who might be adversely affected, before the courts with jurisdiction for the place where the act allegedly occurred or may occur, seeking a declaration that there is no liability in tort or delict)

2012/C 399/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Folien Fischer AG, Fofitec AG

Defendant: Ritrama SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of point (3) of Article 5 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Action for a negative declaration (negative Feststellungsklage) — Whether a person who may have committed a harmful act may bring the person potentially adversely affected before the courts with jurisdiction for the place where the act occurred or may occur, seeking a declaration that there is no liability in tort or delict.

Operative part of the judgment

Point (3) of Article 5 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for a negative declaration seeking to establish the absence of liability in tort, delict, or quasi-delict falls within the scope of that provision.

(1) OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/9

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Rosanna Valenza (C-302/11 and C-304/11), Maria Laura Altavista (C-303/11), Laura Marsella, Simonetta Schettini, Sabrina Tomassini (C-305/11) v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

(Joined Cases C-302/11 to C-305/11) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - National Competition Authority - Stabilisation procedure - Recruitment of workers employed for a fixed term as career civil servants without a public competition - Determination of length of service - Complete disregard of periods of service completed under fixed-term employment contracts - Principle of non-discrimination)

2012/C 379/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rosanna Valenza (C-302/11 and C-304/11), Maria Laura Altavista (C-303/11), Laura Marsella, Simonetta Schettini, Sabrina Tomassini (C-305/11)

Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Clauses 4 and 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — National legislation under which it is possible, in derogation from the principle that public officials must be recruited by means of an open competition, for the public administrative authorities to enter into permanent work contracts with workers who have been in the employ of those authorities under fixed-term contracts — No account taken of the length of service accrued on the basis of the earlier, fixed-term contract, even where there is no interruption of the employment relationship

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be understood as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which completely prohibits periods of service completed by a fixed-term worker for a public authority being taken into account in order to determine the length of service of that worker upon his recruitment on a permanent basis by that same authority as a career civil servant under a stabilisation procedure specific to his employment relationship, unless that prohibition is justified on ‘objective grounds’ for the purposes of clause 4(1) and/or (4). The mere fact that the fixed-term worker completed those periods of service on the basis of a fixed-term employment contract or relationship does not constitute such an objective ground.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Yoshikazu Iida v Stadt Ulm

(Case C-40/11) (1)

(Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 51 - Directive 2003/109/EC - Third-country nationals - Right of residence in a Member State - Directive 2004/38/EC - Third-country nationals who are family members of Union citizens - Third-country national neither accompanying nor joining a Union citizen in the host Member State and remaining in the citizen’s Member State of origin - Right of residence of a third-country national in the Member State of origin of a citizen residing in another Member State - Citizenship of the Union - Fundamental rights)

2013/C 9/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Yoshikazu Iida

Defendant: Stadt Ulm

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation, in the light of Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, of Article 21(1) TFEU and Articles 2(2)(d), 3(1), 7(2) and 10(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Interpretation of Article 6(1) and (3) TEU, and Article 24(3), Article 45(1) and the first sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National of a Member State (a minor), who has moved her principal place of residence together with her mother to another Member State — Right to reside, in the Member State of origin of the child, of the father, a third-country national with custody rights — Scope of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Concept of ‘implementation of Union law’

Operative part of the judgment

Outside the situations governed by Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC and where there is no other connection with the provisions on citizenship of European Union law, a third-country national cannot claim a right of residence derived from a Union citizen.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/19

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Lagura Vermögensverwaltung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

(Case C-438/11) (1)

(Community customs code - Article 220(2)(b) - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Legitimate expectations - Impossibility of verifying the accuracy of a certificate of origin - Notion of ‘certificate based on an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter’ - Burden of proof - Scheme of generalised tariff preferences)

2013/C 9/29

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lagura Vermögensverwaltung GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17) — Export of goods from a non-member country to the European Union — Subsequent verification of the proof of origin — Impossibility of retroactively establishing whether the content of a certificate of origin issued by the competent authorities of that non-member country is correct — Protection of the importer’s legitimate expectations

Operative part of the judgment

Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that if, owing to the fact that the exporter has ceased production, the competent authorities of the non-member country are unable, through a subsequent verification, to determine whether the certificate of origin Form A that they issued is based on a correct account of the facts by the exporter, the burden of proving that the certificate was based on a correct account of the facts by the exporter rests with the person liable for payment.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság) — Hungary) — Bericap Záródástechnikai bt v Plastinnova 2000 kft

(Case C-180/11) (1)

(Directive 2004/48/EC - Rules governing the examination of evidence in a dispute before a national court before which an application for annulment of the protection of a utility model has been brought - Powers of the national court - Paris Convention - TRIPS Agreement)

2013/C 9/19

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bericap Záródástechnikai bt

Defendant: Plastinnova 2000 kft

Intervener: Magyar Szabadalmi Hivatal

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights in Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed in Paris on 20 March 1883, and of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45) — Rules for the examination of evidence in a dispute before a national court before which an application for annulment of the protection of a utility model has been brought — Powers of the national court

Operative part of the judgment

Inasmuch as the provisions of Articles 2(1) and 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, interpreted in the light of Article 2(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed in Paris on 20 March 1883, last revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967 and amended on 28 September 1979, and of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which constitutes Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO) signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986 to 1994), are not applicable to an invalidation procedure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, those provisions do not preclude that, in such judicial proceedings, the court:

— is not bound by the claims and other statements made by the parties and is entitled to order of its own motion the production of any evidence that it may deem necessary;

— is not bound by an administrative decision made in relation to an application for invalidation or by the findings of fact in that decision, and

— is not entitled to re-examine evidence which was already submitted in connection with a previous application for invalidation.

(1) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — BONIK (EOOD) v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-285/11) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right of deduction - Refusal)

2013/C 26/17

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BONIK (EOOD)

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Articles 14, 62, 63, 167, 168 and 178(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Formalities laid down by Member States in relation to the right to deduct VAT — Measures taken to prevent certain forms of tax evasion or avoidance — Refusal of the right to deduct VAT in the case of a taxable person in receipt of intra-Community supplies, on the ground that there was no evidence that supplies of goods had actually been carried out as between the preceding suppliers, despite the existence of evidence establishing that supplies of goods had been carried out by the last supplier direct to the taxable person

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 9, 14, 62, 63, 167, 168 and 178 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, a taxable person may not be refused the right to deduct VAT in relation to a supply of goods on the ground that, in view of fraud or irregularities committed upstream or downstream of that supply, the supply is considered not to have actually taken place, where it has not been established on the basis of objective evidence that the taxable person knew, or should have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right of deduction was connected with VAT fraud committed upstream or downstream in the chain of supply — a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2013 — European Commission v Tomkins plc

(Case C-286/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for copper and copper alloy fittings - Liability of the parent company stemming solely from the unlawful conduct of its subsidiary - Principle of ‘ne ultra petita’ - Effect on the legal situation of the parent company of an annulment determined by a judgment concerning a subsidiary)

2013/C 71/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, V. Bottka and R. Sauer, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Tomkins plc (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, instructed by S. Jordan, Solicitor)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-382/06 Tomkins v Commission annulling in part Commission Decision 2007/691/EC of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) (notified under C(2006) 4180) concerning a cartel relating to fixing prices, agreeing on discounts and rebates, agreeing on implementation mechanisms for introducing price increases, allocating customers and exchanging commercial information, in the European market for copper fittings, particularly copper alloy fittings (OJ 2007 L 283, p.63), and reducing the fine imposed on Tomkins plc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie — Poland) — Krystyna Alder, Ewald Alder v Sabina Orłowska, Czesław Orłowski

(Case C-325/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Service of documents - Party domiciled in the territory of another Member State - Representative domiciled in national territory - None - Procedural documents placed in the case file - Presumption of knowledge)

2013/C 46/12

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Krystyna Alder, Ewald Alder

Defendants: Sabina Orłowska, Czesław Orłowski

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie (Poland) — Interpretation of Article 18 TFEU and of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ L 324 of 10 December 2007, p. 79) — National legislation which establishes, for a party who is resident in another Member State and has not appointed a representative resident in national territory, a presumption that that party is aware of procedural documents which have been placed in the case file

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that judicial documents addressed to a party whose place of residence or habitual abode is in another Member State are placed in the case file, and deemed to have been effectively served, if that party has failed to appoint a representative who is authorised to accept service and is resident in the first Member State, in which the judicial proceedings are taking place.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission

(Case C-246/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 - Article 13(3) - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Article 21(1) - Global grant for local development in Portugal - Reduction in financing)

2013/C 114/13

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, S. Rodrigues and A. Gattini, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, A. Steiblytė and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Case T-387/07 Portugal v Commission by which that court dismissed the application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the final assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) towards the global grant for local development in Portugal pursuant to Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of 28 July 1995

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 March 2011 in Case T-387/07;

2. Annuls Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the final assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) towards the global grant for local development in Portugal pursuant to Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of 28 July 1995;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.
2.

European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that Articles 167 and 168(a) of Directive 2006/112 and the principles of fiscal neutrality, legal certainty and equal treatment do not preclude the recipient of an invoice from being refused the right to deduct input value added tax because there is no actual taxable transaction even though, in the tax adjustment notice addressed to the issuer of that invoice, the value added tax declared by the latter was not adjusted. However, if, in the light of fraud or irregularities, committed by the issuer of the invoice or upstream of the transaction relied upon as the basis for the right of deduction, that transaction is considered not to have been actually carried out, it must be established, on the basis of objective factors and without requiring of the recipient of the invoice checks which are not his responsibility, that he knew or should have known that that transaction was connected with value added tax fraud, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.