ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/14

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland v Diether Schenkel

(Case C-173/07) (1)

(Carriage by air - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation for passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight - Scope - Article 3(1)(a) - Concept of ‘flight’)

(2008/C 223/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland

Defendant: Diether Schenkel

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main –Interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Concept of ‘departure’ — Outward and return ticket from a Member State to a non-member country — Cancellation of the return flight

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as not applying to the case of an outward and return journey in which passengers who have originally departed from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the EC Treaty applies travel back to that airport on a flight from an airport located in a non-member country. The fact that the outward and return flights are the subject of a single booking has no effect on the interpretation of that provision.

(1) OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.
3.

For the purposes of applying Article 15 of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, to the accidental spillage of hydrocarbons at sea causing pollution of the coastline of a Member State: — the national court may regard the seller of those hydrocarbons and charterer of the ship carrying them as a producer of that waste within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, and thereby as a ‘previous holder’ for the purposes of applying the first part of the second indent of Article 15 of that directive, if that court, in the light of the elements which it alone is in a position to assess, reaches the conclusion that that seller-charterer contributed to the risk that the pollution caused by the shipwreck would occur, in particular if he failed to take measures to prevent such an incident, such as measures concerning the choice of ship; — if it happens that the cost of disposing of the waste produced by an accidental spillage of hydrocarbons at sea is not borne by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, or cannot be borne because the ceiling for compensation for that accident has been reached, and that, in accordance with the limitations and/or exemptions of liability laid down, the national law of a Member State, including the law derived from international agreements, prevents that cost from being borne by the shipowner and/or the charterer, even though they are to be regarded as ‘holders’ within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, such a national law will then, in order to ensure that Article 15 of that directive is correctly transposed, have to make provision for that cost to be borne by the producer of the product from which the waste thus spread came. In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, however, such a producer cannot be liable to bear that cost unless he has contributed by his conduct to the risk that the pollution caused by the shipwreck will occur.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/9

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — (United Kingdom)) — The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, West Berkshire District Council

(Case C-288/07) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 4(5) - Activities engaged in by bodies governed by public law - Provision of off-street car-parking facilities for which a charge is made - Distortions of competition - Meaning of ‘would lead to’ and ‘significant’)

(2008/C 301/16)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents: Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, West Berkshire District Council

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 4(5) 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) — Activities or transactions engaged in by a body governed by public law in its capacity as a public authority — Off-street parking facilities for which a charge is made — Non-application of VAT leading to distortions of competition — Concept of ‘distortion of competition’ — Criteria for determination

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(5) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that the significant distortions of competition, to which the treatment as non-taxable persons of bodies governed by private law acting as public authorities would lead, must be evaluated by reference to the activity in question, as such, without such evaluation relating to any local market in particular.

2. The expression ‘would lead to’ is, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, to be interpreted as encompassing not only actual competition, but also potential competition, provided that the possibility of a private operator entering the relevant market is real, and not purely hypothetical.

3. The word ‘significant’ is, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, to be understood as meaning that the actual or potential distortions of competition must be more than negligible.

(1) OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland)) — Alicja Sosnowska v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

(Case C-25/07) (1)

(VAT - Directives 67/227/EEC and 77/388/EEC - National legislation determining conditions for repayment of excess VAT - Principles of tax neutrality and proportionality - Special derogating measures)

(2008/C 260/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alicja Sosnowska

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 5 EC, Article 2 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition, 1967, p. 14), and Articles 18(4) and 27(1) 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) — National VAT legislation laying down, in relation to the period for refunding overpayments, less favourable rules for taxpayers beginning to carry out taxable operations and registered as taxpayers making intra-Community supplies — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 18(4) 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 2005/92/EC of 2 December 2005, and the principle of proportionality preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to allow investigations required to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, extends from 60 to 180 days, as from the date of submission of the taxable person's VAT return, the period available to the national tax office for repayment of excess VAT to a category of taxable persons, unless those persons lodge a security deposit to a value of PLN 250 000;

2. Provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings do not constitute ‘special measures for derogation’ intended to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2005/92.

(1) OJ C 69, 24.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 327/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 November 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-155/07) (1)

(Action for annulment - Decision 2006/1016/EC - Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community - Choice of legal basis - Article 179 EC - Article 181a EC - Compatibility)

(2008/C 327/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Baas and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz, M. Sims and D. Canga Fano, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Aresu and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Council Decision 2006/1016/EC of 19 December 2006 granting a Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community (OJ 2006 L 414, p. 95) — Choice of legal basis — Article 181a EC — Decision essentially concerning developing countries — Need to have recourse to a dual legal basis — Articles 179 EC and 181a EC

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2006/1016/EC of 19 December 2006 granting a Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community;

2. Orders that the effects of Decision 2006/1016 be maintained for European Investment Bank financing arrangements entered into before the entry into force, within a period of 12 months from the date of delivery of this judgment, of a new decision adopted on the appropriate legal basis, namely Articles 179 EC and 181a EC together;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs except those of the Commission of the European Communities;

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

(1) OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division), United Kingdom) — Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-253/07) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Exemption - Services linked to sport - Services supplied to persons taking part in sport - Services supplied to unincorporated associations and to corporate persons - Included - Conditions)

(2008/C 313/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(m) 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) — Exemption of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education — Meaning of ‘persons taking part in sport or physical education’ — Scope of persons covered

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 13A(1)(m) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of persons taking part in sport, it includes services supplied to corporate persons and to unincorporated associations, provided that — which it is for the national court to establish — those services are closely linked and essential to sport, that they are supplied by non-profit-making organisations and that their true beneficiaries are persons taking part in sport;

2. The expression ‘certain services closely linked to sport’, in Article 13A(1)(m) of Sixth Directive 77/388, does not allow the Member States to limit the exemption under that provision by reference to the recipients of the services in question.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien — Austria) — Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Amstetten Melk Scheibbs

(Case C-330/07) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Investment premium - National legislation conferring a tax advantage only on assets used in a domestic place of business - Exclusion of assets hired out for remuneration primarily used in other Member States - Leasing of vehicles - Prevention of abuse)

(2009/C 19/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Amstetten Melk Scheibbs

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — National legislation reserving a tax advantage in respect of the acquisition of unused tangible assets (Investitionszuwachsprämie) to traders using those assets in a domestic place of business

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC precludes Member State legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which undertakings which acquire tangible assets are refused the benefit of an investment premium solely because the assets in respect of which that premium is claimed, which are hired out for remuneration, are used primarily in other Member States.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 — Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-38/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Remission of import duties - Commission decision - Article 239 of the Customs Code - Existence of a special situation - Absence of deception - Obvious negligence on the part of the importer)

(2009/C 6/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV (represented by: H. de Bie, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent, assisted by F. Tuytschaever, advocaat)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 in Case T-382/04 Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 19/2002 of 17 June 2004 finding that remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/17

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Austria) — Verein Radetzky-Orden v Bundesvereinigung Kameradschaft ‘Feldmarschall Radetzky’

(Case C-442/07) (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 12 - Revocation - Marks registered by a non-profit-making association - Concept of ‘genuine use’ of a trade mark - Charitable activities)

(2009/C 44/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verein Radetzky-Orden

Defendant: Bundesvereinigung Kameradschaft ‘Feldmarschall Radetzky’

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Interpretation of Article 12(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Trade marks used on business papers, writing paper, on advertising material and in the form of badges by a non-profit-making association in the context of its activity of seeking to preserve military traditions and collecting and distributing donations — Classification of that use as ‘genuine use’ capable of preserving the rights attached to the mark?

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be construed as meaning that a trade mark is put to genuine use where a non-profit-making association uses the trade mark, in its relations with the public, in announcements of forthcoming events, on business papers and on advertising material and where the association's members wear badges featuring that trade mark when collecting and distributing donations.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
1.

Declares that by requiring, for the purposes of their first registration in Austria, that motor vehicles previously registered in other Member States, which have not undergone, because of their age, a Community type-approval procedure, comply with limit values in respect of pollutant emissions and noise which are stricter than those they initially had to comply with, in particular, the limits laid down in Council Directive 93/59/EEC of 28 June 1993 amending Directive 70/220/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles, and Council Directive 92/97/EEC of 10 November 1992 amending Directive 70/157/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles, although vehicles having the same characteristics and which are already authorised to use the roads in Austria are not subject to that requirement in cases of their re-registration in that Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge — SPF Finances v Truck Center SA

(Case C-282/07) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, following amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) - Free movement of capital - Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) - Taxation of legal persons - Income from capital and movable property - Retention of tax at source - Withholding tax - Charging of withholding tax on interest paid to non-resident companies - No charging of withholding tax on interest paid to resident companies - Double taxation convention - Restriction - None)

(2009/C 44/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: État belge — SPF Finances

Respondent: Truck Center SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Free movement of capital — Taxation of legal persons — Withholding tax deducted by the tax authorities of one Member State on income from capital allocated by a company established in that State to a company established in another Member State — No deduction of withholding tax where that income is allocated to a company established in the same Member State — Unjustified difference in treatment or difference in situation justifying different treatment? — Effect, in that respect, of a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, following amendment, Article 43 EC), 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC), 73b of the EC Treaty and 73d of the Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the retention of tax at source on interest paid by a company resident in that Member State to a recipient company resident in another Member State, while exempting from that retention interest paid to a recipient company resident in the first Member State, the income of which is taxed in that Member State by way of corporation tax.

(1) OJ C 199 of 25.8.2007.