ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

In the light of the general principle which prohibits any abuse of rights and Article 4(2) TEU, relating to respect for national identities, is Article 3 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (1) to be interpreted as obliging national administrative authorities to register in the register of lawyers qualifying abroad Italian nationals who have conducted themselves in a manner which abuses Union law, and as precluding a national practice which allows such authorities to reject applications for registration in the register of lawyers qualifying abroad where there are objective circumstances to indicate that there has been an abuse of Union law, without prejudice either to respect of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination or to the right of the person concerned to institute legal proceedings in order to argue a possible infringement of the right of establishment and, consequently, the possibility of judicial review of the administrative action in question?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 January 2013 — Nordea Bank Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Taxation)

(Case C-48/13)

2013/C 101/24

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nordea Bank Danmark A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Taxation)

Question referred

Are Article 49 TFEU, read together with Article 54 (formerly Article 43 EC, read together with Article 48) and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, read together with Article 34, to be interpreted as precluding a Member State, which allows a company situated in that State to deduct losses on an ongoing basis from a permanent establishment situated in another Member State, from making full recapture from the company of the losses arising from the permanent establishment (in so far as they are not matched with profits in future years) in the event of the permanent establishment closing down, in connection with which part of the establishment’s business is transferred to an affiliated company within the group which is resident in the same State as the permanent establishment, and where it must be assumed that the possibilities for applying the losses in question have been exhausted?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 March 2013 — Société Mac GmbH v Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt

(Case C-108/13)

2013/C 141/27

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Mac GmbH

Defendant: Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt

Question referred

Do Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude national legislation which makes, inter alia, the grant of a parallel import marketing authorisation for a plant protection product subject to the condition that the product in question have, in the exporting State, a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, (1) and which consequently does not permit the grant of a parallel import marketing authorisation for a product which has, in the exporting State, a parallel import marketing authorisation and which is identical to a product authorised in the importing State?

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/7

Appeal brought on 26 February 2013 by Alfier Costruzioni Srl and Others against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2012 in Case T-261/00 Sacaim SpA and Others v European Commission

(Case C-95/13 P)

2013/C 129/14

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Alfier Costruzioni Srl and Others (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Veronese, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Italian Republic, Sacaim SpA and Others

Form of order sought

— Annul and/or vary the order under appeal and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants allege errors of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in the judgment in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’, first, with regard to the obligation to state reasons for the Commission’s decisions on State aid and, second, with regard to the allocation of the burden of proof as regards the conditions set out in Article 107(1) TFEU.

By the order under appeal, the General Court did not follow the rulings of the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 9 June 2011 in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’, in so far as that judgment states that the Commission’s decision ‘must contain in itself all the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities’. Even though the decision lacked the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities, the General Court failed to point to any deficiency in the method used by the Commission in the contested decision, and consequently erred in law.

On the basis of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in the judgment in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’, when aid is being recovered, it is the Member State — and not, therefore, the individual beneficiary — which is required to show, in each individual case, that the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) are met. In the present case, however, in the contested decision the Commission failed to specify the ‘modalities’ for any such verification. Consequently, since it did not have available to it, at the time when the aid was to be recovered, the matters essential for the purpose of showing whether the advantages granted constituted, in the hands of the beneficiaries, State aid, the Italian Republic — by Law No 228 of 24 December 2012 (Article 1, paragraphs 351 et seq.) — decided to reverse the burden of proof, in breach of Community case law. According to the Italian legislature, in particular, it is not for the State but for the individual beneficiaries of aid granted in the form of relief to prove that the advantages in question do not distort competition or affect trade between Member States. In the absence of any such proof, there is a presumption that the advantage granted was likely to distort trade and affect trade between Member States. That is clearly contrary to the principles outlined by the Court in its judgment in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17, Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 21 January 2013 — France Telecom España, S.A. v Diputación de Barcelona

(Case C-25/13)

2013/C 108/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17, Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: France Telecom España, S.A.

Defendant: Diputación de Barcelona

Questions referred

1. May the restriction of the applicability of the fees referred to in Article 13 of the Authorisation Directive (1) to the proprietors of telecommunications networks alone, as held in the judgment of 12 July 2012, (2) be extended to cover any other remuneration or consideration that the owners of public or private property may receive as consideration for the installation on their land or property of facilities associated with telecommunications networks?

2. Is such remuneration, and the question of who is liable to pay it, to be determined by the domestic law of the Member State?

(1) Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) in Joined Cases C-55/11, C-57/11 and C-58/11, not yet published in the ECR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 15 March 2013 — Paola C. v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-122/13)

2013/C 141/28

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paola C.

Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Question referred

Must Article 12 of Directive 2004/80/EC (1) be interpreted as permitting Member States to make provision for compensation only for the victims of certain categories of violent or intentional crime or, instead, as imposing an obligation on Member States, for the purposes of the implementation of the directive, to adopt a compensation scheme for victims of all violent or intentional crime?

(1) Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15).
1.

Where an action is brought by an insolvency administrator, acting in the interests of all the creditors of the undertaking and seeking to restore the undertaking’s solvency and to increase the amount of the assets of the insolvent undertaking so that as many creditors’ claims as possible may be satisfied — whilst it should be noted that the same effects are also sought, for instance, by an insolvency administrator’s actions to set transactions aside (actio Pauliana), which have been recognised as closely connected with the insolvency proceedings — and given the fact that in the case at issue payment of a sum owed is claimed under the CMR Convention and the Lithuanian Civil Code (general provisions of civil law) for the international carriage of goods that was performed, is that action to be considered to be connected closely (by direct link) with the claimant’s insolvency proceedings, must jurisdiction to hear it be determined in accordance with the rules of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) and does it fall within the exception to application of Regulation No 44/2001? (2)
1.

It is submitted that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission had acted in breach of ENI’s rights of defence, applying an increase for repeated infringement to the fine imposed jointly and severally on ENI and Versalis for two past infringements committed by companies wholly owned — or almost wholly owned — by ENI, even though the two decisions establishing those infringements had not been addressed to ENI (which therefore had not received a statement of objections in relation to those infringements). Specifically, it is submitted that the General Court disregarded the fact that, with reference to the imputation of repeated infringement, the rights of the defence are guaranteed if, at the time when the Commission declares its intention of imputing repeated infringement, it gives the parties an opportunity to demonstrate that the relevant conditions have not been satisfied. It is also argued that the General Court failed to consider that, by imputing repeated infringement in the case of a subsequent infringement of the competition rules, the Commission is not retroactively penalising the first infringement, but simply drawing the proper inferences from the fact that the same undertaking (economic entity) has committed a new infringement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com Mobile Phone’s BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-164/13)

2013/C 171/38

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Turbo.com Mobile Phone’s BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Should the national authorities and judicial bodies, on the basis of the law of the European Union, refuse the right to deduct where it is established, on the basis of objective evidence, that there was VAT fraud in respect of the goods concerned and that the taxable person knew or should have known that he was participating therein, even if the national law does not make provision under those circumstances for refusing the right to deduct?
2.

Does European Union law on public tendering — in the case under examination concerning excluded contracts and the general principles of free competition, non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality — preclude national legislation which permits the direct awarding of ambulance services on the ground that a framework contract such as that contested in this case, which provides for the reimbursement also of fixed and ongoing costs, must be classified as having a pecuniary interest?
—

declare that, by adopting and retaining provisions under which only a low tax-free allowance is granted when inheritance and gift tax are applied to immoveable property situated in Germany if the donor or the deceased person and the acquiring party were resident in another Member State at the time of the inheritance or gift, whereas a considerably higher tax-free allowance is granted if at least one of the two parties concerned was resident in Germany at that time, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 25 March 2013 — Le Rayon d’Or SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-151/13)

2013/C 171/35

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Le Rayon d’Or SARL

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Question referred

Must Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive, (1) incorporated in Article 73 of Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the ‘healthcare lump sum’ disbursed by sickness insurance funds to residential care homes for the elderly pursuant to Article L. 174-7 of the Code de la sécurité sociale and exempted from value added tax under Article 261(4)(1b) of the Code général des impôts represents a subsidy which is directly linked to the price of the healthcare services provided to residents and which thus falls within the scope of value added tax?

(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).

(2) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
3.

In Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of the Directive, does the phrase ‘at least 20’ refer to the number of dismissals across all of the employer's establishments, or does it instead refer to the number of dismissals per establishment? (In other words, is the reference to ‘20’ a reference to 20 in any particular establishment, or to 20 overall?)
1.

Is Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13/EEC’), in conjunction with Article 47 and Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the present case, which does not allow a legal person whose purpose is the protection of consumers’ rights to intervene in court enforcement proceedings, to defend a consumer against whom enforcement proceedings are being brought for the recovery of a claim under a consumer contract, where that consumer is not represented by a lawyer?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/10

Action brought on 25 April 2013 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Commission

(Case C-223/13)

2013/C 189/20

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices (OJ 2013 L 33, p. 14) in so far as Article 4(1) of Regulation No 93/2013 cannot be separated from the other provisions of that regulation;

— in the alternative, annul Article 4(1) of Regulation No 93/2013;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: Infringement of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 2494/95 (1) and/or of the case-law of the Court of Justice as, under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 93/2013, Eurostat is designated the entity that is to establish a legally binding manual, and not the Commission as an EU institution.

Second plea: Infringement of Article 338(1) TFEU by the use in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 93/2013, for the purposes of the compilation of statistical information, of a handbook instead of one of the legal instruments listed in Article 288 TFEU.

Third plea: Infringement of Articles 5(3) and 14(3) of Regulation No 2494/95, read in conjunction with Article 5a of Decision 1999/468, (2) in that a different procedure is laid down in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 93/2013 than the regulatory procedure with scrutiny required under Regulation No 2494/95.

Fourth plea: Infringement of Articles 290 TFEU and 291 TFEU, read in conjunction with Regulation No 182/2011, (3) in that the procedure laid down with regard to the establishment and updating of a handbook is not the procedure under Article 290 TFEU or one of the procedures provided for in Regulation No 182/2011.

(1) OJ 1995 L 257, p. 1.

(2) Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23).

(3) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13).
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws and regulations to transpose Article 2(10), (20) and (22), Article 3(3) and (4), Article 7(3), Article 9(5), (7) and (12), Article 10(5), Article 11(5)(a) and (b), Articles 12, 13, 15 and 16, Article 26(2)(b), the second, fourth and fifth sentences of Article 26(2)(c), the third and fourth sentences of Article 26(2)(d), Article 26(3), Article 27(2), Article 33, the second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 36(4), Article 36(6) and (8), the third subparagraph of Article 36(9), Article 41(1)(d), (e), (i), (k), (n), (p), (q) and (s), Article 41(6)(c), the second and third sentences of Article 41(9), Article 41(10), Article 44(3), the second, third, fifth and seventh indents of the first subparagraph of point 1(a) of Annex I, the second subparagraph of point 1(a) of Annex I, point 1(b), (d), (f). (h), (i) and (j) of Annex I and point 2 of Annex I of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of the necessary provisions for transposition of the directive, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of the directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/24

Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Bonvecchiati Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

(Case C-239/13 P)

2013/C 207/37

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Bonvecchiati Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, European Commission

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

— Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly, — annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995; — in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
—

Error of law in the review of the reliability, consistency, relevance and appropriateness of the extrapolation applied by the Commission . The review by the General Court with respect to the representativeness of the sample used for the application of the financial correction by extrapolation was not carried out in accordance with the Tetra Laval (2) case-law.