ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Aurubis Balgaria AD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna, formerly Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Sofia

(Case C-546/09) (1)

(Customs Code - Customs duties - Customs debt on importation - Interest on arrears - Period for the collection of interest on arrears - Compensatory interest)

2011/C 152/12

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aurubis Balgaria AD

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna, formerly Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Sofia

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Varhoven Administrativen Sad — Interpretation of Articles 214(3), 222(1)(a) and 232(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Charging by the national authorities of interest on arrears in respect of the amount of additional customs duties, for the period which follows the initial entry of customs duties in the accounts — Charging of compensatory interest in respect of the period from the date of the customs declaration until the subsequent entry in the accounts of the amount payable — Possibility of an increase, when customs debts are subsequently entered in the accounts, equal to the amount of interest on arrears calculated from the date on which the debt is incurred until the date of subsequent entry in the accounts

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 232(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that interest on arrears in relation to customs duties still to be recovered may be charged under that provision only in respect of the period falling after the deadline by which those duties were to be paid.

2. In the absence of corresponding provisions in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007 of 28 February 2007, Article 214(3) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that national authorities may not, on the basis of that provision, charge the person owing the customs debt compensatory interest in respect of the period between the date of the original customs declaration and the date of the subsequent entry in the accounts.

3. The general principles of EU law and, in particular, the principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties preclude national authorities from applying, to a customs offence, a penalty for which no express provision is made under the national legislation.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-176/09) (1)

(Action for annulment - Directive 2009/12/EC - Airport charges - Scope - Airports whose annual traffic is over 5 million passenger movements per year and those with the highest passenger movements in each Member State - Validity - Principles of equal treatment, proportionality and subsidiarity)

2011/C 204/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent, and by P. Kinsch, avocat)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and A. Neergaard, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and M. Moore, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Simonsson and C. Vrignon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of the end of Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (OJ 2009 L 70, p. 11) — Application of the directive to airports with the highest passenger movement in each Member State — Luxembourg-Findel airport — Breach of the principles of equal treatment, subsidiarity and proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Slovak Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Ralph James Bartlett, Natalio Gonzalez Ramos, Jason Michael Taylor v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-537/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Mobility component of Disability Living Allowance - Separate benefit - Special non-contributory benefit - Non-exportability)

2011/C 186/09

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ralph James Bartlett, Natalio Gonzalez Ramos, Jason Michael Taylor

Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), in the version in force before 5 May 2005 — Subsistence allowance for disabled persons consisting of a ‘care’ component granted to those needing personal assistance and a ‘mobility’ component intended for those needing help in order to move around (‘Disability living allowance’) — Possibility, for the purposes of applying the regulation, of regarding the mobility component as a separate benefit — Categorisation of that benefit

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(2a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and of Regulation No 1408/71, in the latter version, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance constitutes a special non-contributory cash benefit within the meaning of that provision, referred to in Annex IIa to those regulations.;

2. Consideration of the third question has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 in either of the versions applicable in the main proceedings, inasmuch as that article allows the award of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to be made subject to conditions as to residence and presence in Great Britain.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal)) — José Maria Ambrósio Lavrador, Maria Cândida Olival Ferreira Bonifácio v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA

(Case C-409/09) (1)

(Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC - Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Conditions for limitation - Victim’s contribution to his own loss or injury - Liability for risk - Provisions applicable to a child third party who is the victim of an accident)

2011/C 226/06

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: José Maria Ambrósio Lavrador, Maria Cândida Olival Ferreira Bonifácio

Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Interpretation of Article 1 of the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) — Extent of compulsory third party insurance cover — Provisions applicable to third party victims of an accident who are minors

Operative part of the judgment

The Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:

Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions falling within civil liability law that allow exclusion or limitation of the right of the victim of an accident to claim compensation under the civil liability insurance of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, on the basis of an individual assessment of the exclusive or partial contribution of that victim to his own loss or injury.

(1) OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

(Case C-544/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Introduction of digital terrestrial television in the Berlin-Brandenburg region - Article 87(3)(c) EC - Market failure - Proportionality - Technological neutrality - Incentive effect)

2011/C 319/07

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, J. Möller and B. Klein, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Gross, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2009 in Case T-21/06 Germany v Commission by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14) — Infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom)) — Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-503/09) (1)

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 4, 10 and 10a - Short-term incapacity benefit in youth - Sickness benefit or invalidity benefit - Conditions of residence, presence on the date on which the claim is made and past presence - Citizenship of the Union - Proportionality)

2011/C 269/09

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lucy Stewart

Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal — Interpretation of Articles 10, 19, 28, 29 and 95a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Payments made to unemployed persons from 16 to 25 years of age who are resident in the United Kingdom and have been incapable of work for at least seven months (‘short-term incapacity benefit in youth’) — Classification as a sickness benefit or as an invalidity benefit — Benefit subject to a residence condition

Operative part of the judgment

1. Short-term incapacity benefit in youth, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is an invalidity benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, if it is clear that, on the date on which the claim is made, the claimant has a permanent or long-term disability.

2. The first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, in that version, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, precludes a Member State from making the award of short-term incapacity benefit in youth, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, subject to a condition of ordinary residence by the claimant in that State. Article 21(1) TFEU precludes a Member State from making the award of such a benefit subject: — to a condition of past presence of the claimant in that State to the exclusion of any other element enabling the existence of a genuine link between the claimant and that Member State to be established, or — to a condition of presence of the claimant in that State on the date on which the claim is made.

(1) OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 340/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission

(Case C-521/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market for monochloroacetic acid - Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 340/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, S. Thibault-Liger and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 in Case T-174/05 Elf Aquitaine v Commission, by which the Court dismissed Elf Aquitaine’s application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for monochloroacetic acid and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it — Failure to comply with the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender, and with the rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the obligation to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 in Case T-174/05 Elf Aquitaine v Commission;

2. Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — AMCA), in so far as it imputes the infringement in question to Elf Aquitaine SA and imposes a fine on it;

3. Orders Elf Aquitaine SA and the European Commission each to pay its own costs relating to this appeal;

4. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance.

(1) OJ C 37, 13.02.2010.
1.

Declares that, by maintaining in force Articles 143, 136(3) and 136a(2) of the Law of 28 August 1997 on the organisation and operation of pension funds (Ustawa o organizacji i funkcjonowaniu funduszy emerytalnych), as amended, in that they limit investments by Polish open pension funds in the other Member States, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-539/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Court of Auditors’ declared intention to carry out audits in a Member State - Member State’s objection - Powers of the Court of Auditors - Article 248 EC - Audit of the cooperation of the national administrative authorities in the field of value added tax - Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 - Community revenue - Own resources accruing from value added tax)

(2012/C 25/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B. Conte, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C. Blaschke and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents)

Intervening parties in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos and E. Waldherr, acting as Agents), Court of Auditors of the European Union, (represented initially by R. Crowe, and subsequently by T. Kennedy and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 10 EC and Article 248(1), (2) and (3) EC, and of Article 140(2) and Article 142(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1) — Refusal to allow the Court of Auditors to carry out checks in Germany concerning administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax — Scope of the Court of Auditors’ audit powers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by objecting to the conduct by the Court of Auditors of the European Union of audits in Germany concerning administrative cooperation under Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax and the provisions for its implementation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 248(1) to (3) EC;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

4. Orders the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors of the European Union to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni, Cremonini SpA v European Commission

Case C-460/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Finding of irregularities in the refunds for beef and veal exported to Jordan - OLAF investigation - Communication of OLAF’s findings to the national authorities - Provision of guarantees - Claim for the reimbursement of the related costs - Causal link - Cross-appeal - Limitation period - Point from which time starts to run)

2013/C 114/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni, Cremonini SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone and C. D’Andria, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and P. Rossi, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of 4 September 2009 in Case T-174/06 Inalca and Cremonini v Commission by which the by which the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Sixth Chamber) dismissed an action seeking to establish non-contractual liability by which compensation was sought for the damage purportedly suffered by the appellants following the communication to the Italian authorities of findings which cast doubts upon the appellants in the context of an investigation conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) with a view to determining the lawfulness of a number of export refunds relating to beef and veal exported to Jordan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni and Cremonini SpA to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2012 — Portuguese Republic v Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA, European Commission

(Case C-506/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Remission of import duties - Consignments of tobacco and ethyl alcohol for third countries - Fraud committed by an employee of the company liable)

2012/C 133/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA (represented by: M. López Garrido, advogada), European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Bouyon, Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 in Case T-385/05 Transnáutica v Commission, by which that court annulled Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005 informing the Portuguese authorities that the remission of import duties for the applicant was not justified in relation to a certain amount and that import duties could not be reimbursed to it in relation to another amount since the fact that the applicant was unaware that one of its employees was acting fraudulently did not constitute a special situation which may justify the remission and reimbursement of import duties to it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.