ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-582/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value-added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 169 to 171 - Thirteenth Directive 86/560/EEC - Article 2 - Refund - Taxable person not established in the European Union - Insurance transactions - Financial transactions)

2010/C 246/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: I. Rao and S. Hathaway, acting as Agents, and K. Lasok QC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 169, 170 and 171 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) and of Article 2(1) of Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory (OJ 1986 L 326, p. 40) — National legislation which does not permit the recovery of input tax paid in respect of certain insurance and financial transactions carried out by taxable persons not established in Community territory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-507/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Partial write-off of a company’s tax liability as part of an arrangement with creditors - Commission decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Failure to execute)

2011/C 63/03

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, J. Javorský and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 [notified under number C(2006) 2082], which found that aid granted by the Slovak Republic in favour of Frucona Košice in the form of a write-off of a tax debt by the tax office under an arrangement with creditors was incompatible with the common market and ordered its recovery (State Aid No C-25/2005 (ex NN 21/2005) (OJ 2007 L 112, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 on State aid C 25/2005 (ex NN 21/2005) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s., the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 2 of that decision;

2. Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 102, 01.05.2009.
1.

Declares that by maintaining for the Portuguese State and other public bodies special rights in EDP — Energias de Portugal such as those provided for in this instance by Law No 11/90 of 5 April 1990 concerning the framework law on privatisations (Lei No 11/90, Lei Quadro das Privatizações), by Decree-Law No 141/2000 of 15 July 2000 approving the fourth phase of the re-privatisation of the share capital of EDP — Electricidade de Portugal SA, and by the articles of association of that company, allocated in connection with golden shares held by the Portuguese State in the share capital of that company, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-250/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of persons - Purchase of immovable property intended as a new principal residence - Calculation of a tax advantage - Registration duties - Cohesion of the tax system)

2012/C 32/02

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. van Nuffel, R. Lyal and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agent, and by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, advocaat)

Intervening party in support of the defendant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: R. Somssich, K. Borvölgyi and M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 18 EC, 43 EC and 56 EC and of Articles 31 EEA and 40 EEA — Calculation of a tax advantage upon purchase of immovable property intended as a new principal place of residence — Registration fees paid upon the purchase of a previous principal place of residence taken into account only if that place of residence was situated in the Flemish Region

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-47/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Civil-law notaries - Nationality condition - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Directive 89/48/EEC)

2011/C 204/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, H. Støvlbæk and G. Zavvos, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and L. Van den Broeck, Agents, and H. Gilliams and L. Goossens, avocats)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: L. Ostrovska, K. Drēviņa and J. Barbale, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent), Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas, R. Somssich, K. Veres and M. Fehér, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 45 EC — National legislation making access to the profession of notary and its practice subject to a nationality requirement — Restriction on freedom of establishment — Scope of the exception relating to activities connected with the exercise of official authority — Requirement of direct and specific connection with such exercise — Failure to transpose, in respect of the profession of notary, Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing a nationality condition for access to the profession of notary, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

2. Dismisses the action as the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/16

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-211/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/24/EC - Electronic communications - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 24/27

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Balta and M. Karanasou Apostolopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou and K. Vasiliki, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ L 105, p. 54)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed periods, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 193 of 15.08.2009
1.

Declares that, by authorising, in the Walloon Region, the operation of existing installations which do not comply with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, despite the time-limit of 30 October 2007 as laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Hava Genc v Land Berlin

(Case C-14/09) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘worker’ - Exercise of minor employment - Condition governing loss of acquired rights)

2010/C 80/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hava Genc

Defendant: Land Berlin

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council — Right to remain of a Turkish national whose entry into the territory of the host Member State was based on a ground which no longer exists and whose professional activity, amounting to 5.5 hours per week, is merely minor — Minimum characteristics of a working relationship required for it to be considered ‘regular employment’ within the meaning of Decision No 1/80

Operative part of the judgment

1. A person in a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings is a worker within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, provided that the employment in question is real and genuine. It is for the national court to carry out the examinations of fact necessary to determine whether that is so in the case pending before it.

2. A Turkish worker, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, may rely on the right to free movement which he derives from the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, even if the purpose for which he entered the host Member State no longer exists. Where such a worker satisfies the conditions set out in Article 6(1) of that decision, his right of residence in the host Member State cannot be made subject to additional conditions as to the existence of interests capable of justifying residence or as to the nature of the employment.

(1) OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/11

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Chebu — Czech Republic) — Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas

(Case C-111/09) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Action brought by an insurer before the court of its place of domicile seeking the payment of an insurance premium by the policyholder, domiciled in a different Member State - Appearance of the defendant entered before the court seised - Jurisdiction not contested and defence as to substance - Entering an appearance conferring jurisdiction)

2010/C 179/17

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Chebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group

Defendant: Michal Bilas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Okresní soud v Cheb — Interpretation of Articles 13(1), 24 and 26 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) — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — Action seeking the payment of an insurance premium by the policyholder, domiciled in a different Member State from the insurer — Defence of the policyholder’s case as to substance in the forum of the insurer’s domicile.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24 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 the court seised, where the rules in Section 3 of Chapter II of that regulation were not complied with, must declare itself to have jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction, since entering an appearance in that way amounts to a tacit prorogation of jurisdiction.

(1) OJ C 141, 20.06.2009.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Dimos Agiou Nikolaou Kritis v Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon

(Case C-82/09) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 - Monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the European Union - Definitions - Terms ‘forest’ and ‘other wooded land’ - Field of application)

(2010/C 161/15)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dimos Agiou Nikolaou Kritis

Defendant: Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) (OJ 2003 L 324, p. 1) — Definitions of ‘forest’ and ‘other wooded land’ — Divergent definitions

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus), which define, for the purposes of that regulation, the terms ‘forest’ and ‘wooded land’, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which contain different definitions of those terms as regards actions which are not governed by the regulation.

(1) OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.
1.

Where activities consisting in the dispatch of a kit for collecting blood from the umbilical cord of newborn children and in the testing and processing of that blood and, where appropriate, in the storage of stem cells contained in it for possible future therapeutic use, are intended only to ensure that a particular resource will be available for medical treatment in the uncertain event that treatment becomes necessary but not, as such, to diagnose, treat or cure diseases or health disorders, such activities, whether taken together or separately, do not come within the concept of ‘hospital and medical care’ in Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, or within that of ‘the provision of medical care’ in Article 132(1)(c) of that directive. It would be otherwise, as regards the analysis of umbilical cord blood, only if such analysis were actually intended to enable a medical diagnosis to be made, which it is for the referring court, if need be, to determine.
1.

Clause 8(3) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 contained in 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, must be interpreted as not precluding domestic legislation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which has abolished the requirement for the employer to indicate in fixed-term contracts concluded for the purpose of replacing absent workers the names of those workers and the reasons for their replacement, and which merely provides that such fixed-term contracts must be in writing and must indicate the reasons for the use of those contracts, in so far as those new conditions are offset by the adoption of other safeguards or protective measures or concern only a limited category of workers having entered into a fixed-term employment contract, which it is for the national court to ascertain.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/10

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Oasis East sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów

(Case C-395/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Accession of a new Member State - Right to deduct input tax - National legislation excluding the right to deduct tax on the provision of certain services - Commercial partners established in a territory classified as a ‘tax haven’ - Option for Member States to retain rules excluding the right to deduct at the time when the Sixth VAT Directive entered into force)

2010/C 317/19

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oasis East sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Article 17(6) 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) and of Article 176 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, already in force prior to accession, which excluded a right to a reduction of tax relating to the provision of services in respect of which payment is made in favour of a person having its place of residence, registered office or central management in a territory regarded as being a ‘tax haven’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(6) 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, the provisions of which have, in essence, been reproduced in Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be construed as not authorising the retention of national legislation, applicable when Sixth Directive 77/388 entered into force in the Member State concerned, which excludes in general the right to deduct input value added tax paid at the time of the purchase of imported services, the price of which is directly or indirectly paid to a person established in a State or territory classified as a ‘tax haven’ by that national legislation.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/14

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Volvo Car Company GmbH v Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH

(Case C-203/09) (1)

(Directive 86/653/EEC - Self-employed commercial agents - Termination of the agency contract by the principal - Agent’s entitlement to an indemnity)

2010/C 346/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Volvo Car Company GmbH

Defendant: Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 18(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — Termination of agency contract by the principal — Agent’s entitlement to indemnity — National legislation providing for loss of that entitlement in the event of default by the agent justifying immediate termination of the contract, even where the default occurs after termination of the agency contract but before the end of that contract and the principal became aware of the default only after the expiry of the contract

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents precludes a self-employed commercial agent from being deprived of his goodwill indemnity where the principal establishes a default by that agent which occurred after notice of termination of the contract was given but before the contract expired and which was such as to justify immediate termination of the contract in question

(1) OJ C 180, 01.08.2009.