ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany)) — Galina Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH

(Case C-415/10) (1)

(Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC and 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Worker showing that he meets the requirements listed in a job advertisement - Right of that worker to have access to information indicating whether the employer has recruited another applicant)

2012/C 165/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Galina Meister

Defendant: Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23), Article 8(1) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22) and Article 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Equal treatment in the area of employment and work — Burden of proof — Right of a person whose application for a job in a private company was unsuccessful to receive full information concerning the selection procedure in order to be able to prove discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, Article 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as not entitling a worker who claims plausibly that he meets the requirements listed in a job advertisement and whose application was rejected to have access to information indicating whether the employer engaged another applicant at the end of the recruitment process.

Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that a defendant’s refusal to grant any access to information may be one of the factors to take into account in the context of establishing facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings, taking into account all the circumstances of the case before it.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
1.

Declares that by applying to farmers a special scheme which does not comply with the scheme established by Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, because it exempts farmers from payment of value added tax and involves the application of a flat-rate compensation percentage at a nil rate, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 296 to 298 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against Łukasz Marcin Bonda

(Case C-489/10) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Single area payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 - Article 138(1) - Exclusion from receiving aid if the area declared is not correct - Administrative or criminal nature of that penalty - Rule against the overlapping of criminal penalties - Ne bis in idem principle)

2012/C 217/03

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Party to the main criminal proceedings

Łukasz Marcin Bonda

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Najwyższy — Interpretation of Article 138 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that Regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials (OJ 2004 L 345, p. 1) — Single area payment — Grant of aid excluded if the area declared is incorrect — Administrative or criminal nature of that penalty

Operative part of the judgment

Article 138(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials must be interpreted as meaning that the measures provided for in the second and third subparagraphs of that provision, consisting in excluding a farmer from receiving aid for the year in which he made a false declaration of the eligible area and reducing the aid he can claim within the following three calendar years by an amount corresponding to the difference between the area declared and the area determined, do not constitute criminal penalties.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel, Mons — Belgium) — Belgian State v BLM SA

(Case C-436/10) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a), and Article 13(B)(b) - Right of deduction - Business assets which belong to a taxable person which is a legal person and which are placed at the disposal of its staff for their private use)

2012/C 151/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel, Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgian State — SPF Finances

Defendant: BLM SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Mons — Interpretation of point (a) of the first paragraph of Articles 6(2) and Article 13B(b) 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 1997 L 145, p. 1) — Capital asset made available and given over in part for private use by the director of a legal person and his family, where the input tax on that asset is deductible — Exclusion of the right to deduct tax

Operative part of the judgment

Point (a) of the first paragraph of Articles 6(2) and Article 13(B)(b) 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 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which — despite the fact that the characteristics of the leasing or the letting of immovable property for the purposes of Article 13(B)(b) are not present — treats as a supply of services exempt from VAT under that provision the private use, by the staff of a taxable person which is a legal person, of part of a building constructed or owned by virtue of a right in rem in immovable property, held by that taxable person, where the input tax on that business asset is deductible;

It is for the referring court to determine whether, in a situation such as that at issue in the case before it, a finding can be made that there is a letting of immoveable property for the purposes of Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth Directive.

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
1.

Article 6(1) 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 a situation where two or more companies established in different Member States, in proceedings pending before a court of one of those Member States, are each separately accused of committing an infringement of the same national part of a European patent which is in force in yet another Member State by virtue of their performance of reserved actions with regard to the same product, is capable of leading to ‘irreconcilable judgments’ resulting from separate proceedings as referred to in that provision. It is for the referring court to assess whether such a risk exists, taking into account all the relevant information in the file.
1.

Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary in order to implement Commission Decision 2009/610/EC of 2 July 2008 on aid C 16/04 (ex NN 29/04, CP 71/02 and CP 133/05) granted by Greece to Hellenic Shipyards SA, and by failing to provide the information listed in Article 19 of that decision to the European Commission, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 to 19 of that decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Elenca Srl v Ministero dell’Interno

(Case C-385/10) (1)

(Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect - Internal liners in flues and chimney pipes - Lack of CE conformity marking - Marketing precluded)

2012/C 379/04

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elenca Srl

Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4(2), 5 and 6 of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 12) — Products not covered by harmonised standards as provided for in the directive — National rules that preclude the marketing of plastic internal flue or chimney pipe linings not bearing EC marking

Operative part of the judgment

1. Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as precluding national provisions which automatically make the marketing of construction products, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, originating from another Member State, subject to the affixing of CE marking.

2. Articles 34 TFEU to 37 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national provisions which automatically make the marketing of construction products, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, originating from another Member State, subject to the affixing of CE marking.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-490/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 - Notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union - Choice of legal basis - Article 337 TFEU and Article 187 EA - Article 194 TFEU)

(2012/C 331/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Gómez-Leal, J. Rodrigues and L. Visaggio, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and A. Lo Monaco, Agents)

Intervening parties in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Adam, Agents); European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and O. Beynet, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96 (OJ 2010 L 180, p. 7) — Choice of the dual legal basis of Articles 337 TFEU and 187 EA — Measures falling within the specific responsibilities of the Union in relation to energy and requiring the legal basis of Article 194 TFEU only

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96;

2. Maintains the effects of Regulation No 617/2010 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation adopted on the appropriate legal basis, namely Article 194(2) TFEU;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs except those of the French Republic and the European Commission;

4. Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-342/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - EEA Agreement - Article 40 - Taxation of dividends paid to non-resident pension funds)

2013/C 9/06

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by H. Walker, acting as Agent, and G. Facenna, Barrister)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Art. 63 TFEU and Art. 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax discrimination — National legislation making dividends paid by resident companies to foreign pension funds subject to a stricter tax regime than that applicable to national pension funds

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force a scheme under which dividends paid to foreign pension funds are taxed in a discriminatory manner, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992.

2. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-117/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Article 88(1) and (2) EC - Aid granted by the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union - Aid granted before accession - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)

2014/C 45/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, K. Walkerová and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by G. Koós, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2010/10/EC of 20 November 2009 on the granting of a State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Poland for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2010 L 4, p. 89) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-480/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 11 - National legislation restricting the possibility of forming a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes to undertakings in the financial and insurance sector)

2013/C 171/02

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, and by G. Clohessy, SC, and N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation limiting application of the rules on VAT groups only to undertakings carrying out activities in the financial sector

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders Ireland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2012 — Legris Industries SA v European Commission

(Case C-289/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - Copper fittings and Copper alloy fittings Sector - Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Parent companies and subsidiaries - Whether unlawful conduct attributable)

2012/C 174/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Legris Industries SA (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, avocates)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-376/06 Legris Industries v Commission, by which the Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final 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) — Copper Fittings and Copper Alloy Fittings Sector — Infringement of the right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal — Whether unlawful conduct attributable — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment, personal liability and the principle that the penalty must be specific to the offender — Distortion of evidence

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Legris Industries SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/9

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação SA v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-25/11) (1)

(Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Deduction of input tax - Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 - ‘Subsidies’ used for the purchase of goods and services - Restriction of the right to deduct)

2012/C 98/11

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação SA

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 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) — Deduction of input tax — Restriction of the right to deduct

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 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, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, where it authorises mixed taxable persons to make the deduction provided for in those provisions on the basis of the use of all or part of the goods and services, from calculating the deductible amount, for sectors in which such taxable persons carry out taxable transactions only, by including untaxed ‘subsidies’ in the denominator of the fraction used to determine the deductible proportion.

(1) OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.