ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)) — ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-300/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Directive 2004/38/EC - Decision refusing a citizen of the European Union admission to a Member State on public security grounds - Article 30(2) of the directive - Obligation to inform the citizen concerned of the grounds of that decision - Disclosure contrary to the interests of State security - Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)

2013/C 225/10

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ZZ

Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) in the light of Article 346(1)(a) TFEU — Right to effective judicial protection — Decision to exclude a citizen of a Member State from the territory of another Member State on grounds of public security — Obligation to inform the citizen concerned of the reasons for his exclusion in spite of the fact that the authorities responsible consider such disclosure contrary to the interests of State security

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 30(2) and 31 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as requiring the national court with jurisdiction to ensure that failure by the competent national authority to disclose to the person concerned, precisely and in full, the grounds on which a decision taken under Article 27 of that directive is based and to disclose the related evidence to him is limited to that which is strictly necessary, and that he is informed, in any event, of the essence of those grounds in a manner which takes due account of the necessary confidentiality of the evidence.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
1.

Declares that, by authorising the operation of the Žilina-Považský Chlmec waste site without a site conditioning plan and in the absence of a final decision on the continued operation on the basis of an approved site conditioning plan, the Slovak Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 14(a) to (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/17

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — HGA Srl. and Others v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-630/11 P to C-633/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Regional State aid - Aid to the hotel industry in Sardinia - New aid - Alteration to an existing aid scheme - Corrective decision - Possibility of adopting such a decision - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 4(5), 7(6), 10(1), 13(2), 16 and 20(1) - Incentive effect of the aid - Protection of legitimate expectations)

2013/C 225/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: HGA Srl., Gimar srl, Coghene Costruzioni srl, Camping Pini e Mare di Cogoni Franco & C. Sas, Immobiliare 92 srl, Gardena srl, Hotel Stella 2000 srl, Vadis srl, Macpep srl, San Marco srl, Due lune SpA, Hotel Mistral di Bruno Madeddu & C. Sas, L’Esagono di Mario Azara & C. Snc, Le Buganville srl, (formerly Le Buganville di Cogoni Giuseppe & C. Snc), Le Dune srl, (formerly Le Dune di Stefanelli Vincenzo & C. Snc) (represented by: G. Dore, F. Ciulli and A. Vinci, avvocati) (C-630/11 P), Regione autonoma della Sardegna (represented by: A. Fantozzi and G. Mameli, avvocati) (C-631/11 P), Timsas srl (represented by: D. Dodaro and S. Pinna, avvocati) (C-632/11 P), Grand Hotel Abi d’Oru SpA (represented by: D. Dodaro and R. Masuri, avvocati) (C-633/11 P)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, C. Urraca Caviedes and G. Conte, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-394/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission by which that court dismissed the applications for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 concerning aid schemes ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid No 272/98’ (OJ 2008 L 302, p. 9) by which the Regione autonoma della Sardegna granted subsidies for initial investments in the hotel industry in Sardinia — Obligation to state reasons — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders the appellants, jointly and severally, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-515/11) (1)

(Public access to environmental information - Directive 2003/4/EC - Power of the Member States to exclude bodies acting in a legislative capacity from the definition of ‘public authority’ under that directive - Limits)

2013/C 260/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26) — Obligation of public authorities to make available environmental information held by them to any applicant — National legislation exempting the supreme federal authorities from the obligation to provide information where they act in the context of the legislative process — Limits of the power of the Member States to exclude bodies acting in a legislative capacity from the definition of ‘public authority’ under Directive 2003/4/EC

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the option given to Member States by that provision of not regarding ‘bodies or institutions acting in a … legislative capacity’ as public authorities, required to allow access to the environmental information which they hold, may not be applied to ministries when they prepare and adopt normative regulations which are of a lower rank than a law.

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Ziegler SA v European Commission

(Case C-439/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - International removal services market in Belgium - Guidelines on the effect on trade between Member States - Legal status - Requirement to define the relevant market - Scope - Right to fair legal process - Principle of good administration - Objective impartiality on the part of the Commission - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Proportion of the value of sales - Obligation to state reasons - Fine reduced on grounds of inability to pay or the special circumstances of the case - Equal treatment)

2013/C 252/12

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ziegler SA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, M. Favart and A. Bailleux, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-199/08 Ziegler v Commission, by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services) — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Errors in law — Appreciable effect on trade between Member States — Fine — Infringement of the right to fair legal process and the principle of equality and non-discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ziegler SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen v Experian A/S

(Case C-476/11) (1)

(Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21(1) - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) and (2) - Occupational pension scheme - Increases in the amount of contributions on the basis of age)

2013/C 344/18

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen

Defendant: Experian A/S

Intervener: Beskæftigelsesministeriet

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Article 6(2) 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) — Justification for differences of treatment on grounds of age — Fixing, for occupational social security schemes, of ages for admission or entitlement to retirement or invalidity benefits — General exception for occupational social security schemes provided that there is no discrimination on grounds of sex, or exception solely for affiliation to social security schemes — National legal situation in which an employer can pay, as part of pay, pension contributions which increase with the age of the employee

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and given specific expression by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and, in particular, Articles 2 and 6(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding an occupational pension scheme under which an employer pays, as part of pay, pension contributions which increase with age, provided that the difference in treatment on grounds of age that arises therefrom is appropriate and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, which it is for the national court to establish.

(1) OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-261/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Article 31 of the EEA Agreement - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Transfer of assets to another Member State - Immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains)

2013/C 260/07

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: K. Petersen and T. Henze, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Schillemans, C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and U. Persson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 EEA — Tax provisions laying down immediate taxation on exit for companies transferring assets to another Member State but not laying down an equivalent tax on transfers of assets within national territory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Paragraph 8(4) of the Law on taxation of the income of share companies and other matters (Lov om indkomstbeskatning af aktieselskaber m.v., lovbekendtgørelse nr. 1376, 7 December 2010), concerning the immediate taxation of the income of share companies, and consequently a tax system providing for the immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains relating to a transfer of assets by a company established in Denmark to another Member State of the European Union or to a non-member country party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-193/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’)

2013/C 344/04

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Kraińska, A. Kramarczyk, M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 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 providing for the application of the special travel agency taxation scheme to transactions that travel agencies make in favour of recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Republic of Poland;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 204, 09.07.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund, acting on behalf of Erik Toftgaard v Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet

(Case C-546/11) (1)

(Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) and (2) - Refusal to grant availability pay to civil servants who have reached the age of 65 and are entitled to a pension)

2013/C 344/21

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund, acting on behalf of Erik Toftgaard

Defendant: Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet

Interveners: Centralorganisationernes Fællesudvalg (CFU), Kommunale Tjenestemænd og Overenskomstansatte (KTO), Personalestyrelsen, Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), Danske Regioner

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Art. 6(1) and (2) 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) — Fixing of age limits for access or entitlement to retirement or invalidity benefits under occupational social security schemes — Discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation providing, in the event that a worker’s post ceases to exist, for compensation up to the amount of his salary for three years or until he has reached retirement age — Retirement pension paid to a worker who has reached the age of 65 whose post has ceased to exist, irrespective of his entitlement to continue working after the age of 65

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as being applicable only to retirement or invalidity benefits under an occupational social security scheme.

2. Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which a civil servant who has reached the age at which he is able to receive a retirement pension is denied, solely for that reason, entitlement to availability pay intended for civil servants dismissed on grounds of redundancy.

(1) OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — SNIA Spa, under special administration v European Commission

(Case C-448/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputation of liability in the field of competition - Economic continuity test - Infringement of the rights of defence - Duty to state reasons)

2014/C 45/08

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: SNIA Spa, under special administration (represented by: A. Santa Maria, C. Biscaretti di Ruffia and E. Gambaro, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Malferrari and B. Gencarelli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-194/06 SNIA v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), to the extent that the Commission imposed a fine jointly and severally on Caffaro Srl and on SNIA SpA — Rules relating to the imputability of anti-competitive practices in the case of a merger — Infringement of the rights of defence and of the duty to state reasons.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders SNIA SpA, under special administration, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN), Republic of Finland v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to the documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Environmental information - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) - Documents relating to the pre-litigation stage of infringement procedures - Refusal of access - Obligation to examine specifically and individually the documents referred to in the request for access - Overriding public interest)

2014/C 9/04

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellants: Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) (represented by: P. Vinagre e Silva and L. Rossi, advogadas), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, M. Pere and J. Leppo, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Republic of Estonia, (represented by: M. Linntam, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and D. Recchia, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Thorning, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the European Commission: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Wiedmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeals brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-29/08 LPN v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by LPN in so far as it relates to documents and parts of documents to which access was refused to the Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) in Commission Decision SG.E.3/MIB/psi D(2008) 8639 of 24 October 2008.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders the Liga para a Protecção da Natureza and the Republic of Finland to pay the costs in equal parts;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.
1)

Declares that, by having adopted the provisions of Article 46(c) of Royal Legislative Decree 1/2002 approving the consolidated text of the Law governing pension schemes and funds (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2002, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Regulación de los Planes y Fondos de Pensiones) of 29 November 2002, and Article 86(1) of Royal Legislative Decree 6/2004 approving the consolidated text of the Law on the organisation and supervision of private insurance (Real Decreto Legislativo 6/2004, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de ordenación y supervisión de los seguros privados) of 29 October 2004, pursuant to which pension funds established in Member States other than the Kingdom of Spain and offering occupational pension schemes in that Member State and insurance companies operating in Spain under the freedom to provide services are required to appoint a tax representative resident in that Member State, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;