ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2010 – VAV-Autovermietung v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Zuid, kantoor Roosendaal

(Case C‑91/10)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Freedom to provide services – Articles 49 EC to 55 EC – Motor vehicles – Use in one Member State of a motor vehicle registered and hired in another Member State – Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State upon its first use on the national road network

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions (Arts 49 EC to 55 EC) (see para. 30, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rechtbank Breda – Interpretation of Articles 56 TFEU to 62 TFEU – National legislation providing for a registration tax to be levied upon a vehicle’s first being used on the national road network.

Operative part

Articles 49 EC to 55 EC must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, by virtue of which a person, residing or established in a Member State, who uses in that Member State a motor vehicle registered and leased in another Member State must, on first using that vehicle on the first Member State’s road network, pay the full amount of a tax the balance of which, computed relative to the period for which that vehicle was used on that network, is repaid, without interest, once that use has come to an end.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 March 2011 – Claro v OHIM

(Case C-349/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Refusal of registration – Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal – Failure to file a statement setting out the grounds of appeal – Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Appeal manifestly unfounded

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought – Pleading setting out the grounds lodged within the period prescribed – Condition of admissibility (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 59; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Article 1, Rule 49) (see paragraphs 39-41)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 April 2010 in Case T‑225/09 Claro v OHIM and Telefónica , by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2009 (Case R 1079/2008‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Telefónica, SA and BCP S/A

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2010 – Platis v Council and Greece

(Case C‑513/10 P)

Appeal – Action for annulment – Council regulations laying down provisions on the introduction of the euro – National legislative measures laying down provisions to implement those regulations – Manifest inadmissibility of the action – General Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction – Appeal in part clearly unfounded and in part clearly inadmissible – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure

1. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Mandatory nature – Point from which time starts to run – Date on which the measure at issue was published – Measure continuing to have effects – No bearing (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 81(1) and (2)) (see paras 8-9)

2. Procedure – Action brought by a natural or legal person seeking a declaration that a Member State has infringed Union law – Union judicature’s clear lack of jurisdiction – Inadmissibility (Arts 258 TFEU, 259 TFEU and 267 TFEU) (see paras 13-15)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 18)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2010 in Case T‑311/10 Platis v Council and Greece whereby the General Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of several Council regulations adopted in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 laying down provisions on the introduction of the euro, on unit values and technical specifications of euro coins to enter circulation, and on conversion rates between the euro and the currencies of Member States adopting the euro, and the annulment of the national laws 2842/2000 and 2948/2001 transposing the contested regulations into the Greek legal order – Clearly inadmissible – Clear lack of jurisdiction.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 June 2011 – Grúas Abril Asistencia v Commission

(Case C-521/10 P)

Appeal – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure – Alleged infringements of the provisions of European Union law on competition – Application seeking to require the Commission to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations

1. Appeals – Grounds – Plea challenging the General Court’s decision declaring the action inadmissible – Admissibility regardless of the line of argument put forward before the General Court (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 25)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings – Not included (Arts 226 EC and 230 EC) (see para. 29)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 August 2010 in Case T-386/09 Grúas Abril Asistencia v Commission , by which that court dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter of 7 August 2009 informing the appellant that the facts in respect of which it had lodged a complaint with the Commission did not permit the conclusion that there had been an infringement of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC and that no action would be taken in respect of its complaint.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Landgericht München I – Interpretation of Article 297 EC and of Article 5(1) of Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17) – Period for convocation of general meeting of a listed company – National legislation, ceasing to have effect on the expiry of the transposition period for the directive, which provides for a shorter convocation period than the minimum period under the directive – Provision likely seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive, in the light of the national legislation according to which some decisions of the general meeting remain valid after being registered in the commercial register, even in the event of annulment following legal action.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 – Micşa v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Lugoj and Others

(Case C-573/10)

Article 104(3), first indent, of the Rules of Procedure – Internal taxation – Article 110 TFEU – Pollution tax levied on first registration of motor vehicles

Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Pollution tax levies on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory – Tax applicable to imported second-hand vehicles and without any equivalent for vehicles of the same age and the same condition present on the national market – Not permissible (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 22-23, 25, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Appel Timișoara – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax on motor vehicles on their first registration in a Member State – Compatibility of national legislation with Article 110 TFEU – Validity of the exemption from payment of the tax in respect of certain categories of vehicle.

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from introducing a pollution tax on motor vehicles on first registration in that Member State if that fiscal measure is set up in such a way as to discourage the placing on the market in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of a similar age and condition on the national market.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 —

Safilo



(Case C 529/10)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Direct taxation — Conclusion of proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters — Abuse of rights — Article 4(3) TEU — Freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty — Principle of non‑discrimination — State aid — Obligation to ensure the effective application of European Union law

Member States — Obligations — Duty to cooperate in good faith — Putting the law of the Union into effect — Principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights — Free movement of capital — Principle of non-discrimination — Rules on State aid — Direct taxation in the Member States (Art. 4(3) TEU; Arts 63 TFEU and 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 23, 25, 26, 28-33 and operative part.)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Corporation tax — National legislation providing for a rate of tax on company dividends differing according to the situation of the company seat — Commercial transaction involving companies resident in Italy and companies resident elsewhere — Decision by the authorities to treat as applicable the tax due in the case of the companies resident outside Italy — Meaning of abuse of rights, as defined in Case C‑255/02 Halifax and Others — Whether applicable to unharmonised domestic taxes such as direct taxes.

Operative part

The law of the Union, in particular: the principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights, Article 4(3) TEU, the freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, the principle of non‑discrimination, the rules on State aid and the obligation to ensure the effective application of the law of the Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the application, in a case such as that in the main proceedings relating to direct taxation, of a provision of national law providing for proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters to be concluded, on payment of a sum equivalent to 5% of the value of the claim, when those proceedings arise from an application made at first instance more than 10 years before the date on which that provision entered into force and when the tax authorities have been unsuccessful at first and second instance.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 15-16)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 18, 25)

3. Officials – Administration’s duty to provide assistance – Extent – Assistance not implying that the official has been granted authorisation to plead in his own name or in the institution’s (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 24, first para.) (see paras 26-27)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the President of the General Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2011 in Case T-15/10 Mariyus Noko Ngele v Commission and Others by which that court dismissed the application seeking compensation for the material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the fact that it was impossible for him to proceed with recovery of a debt and for the non-pecuniary loss allegedly suffered by reason of the institution of criminal proceedings against him in a Member State – Lack of causal link.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Noko Ngele is ordered to bear his own costs.
Case C-220/11

Star Coaches s. r. o.

v

Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud)

‛Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — VAT Directive — Special tax scheme for travel agents — Supply to travel agents of a coach transport service but no other services’

Summary of the Order

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Special scheme for travel agencies — Scope

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 306)

A transport company which merely carries out the transport of persons by providing coach transport to travel agents and does not provide any other services such as accommodation, tour guiding or advice does not effect transactions falling within the special scheme for travel agents in Article 306 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax.

(see para. 26, operative part)

Case C-220/11

Star Coaches s. r. o.

v

Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud)

‛Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — VAT Directive — Special tax scheme for travel agents — Supply to travel agents of a coach transport service but no other services’

Summary of the Order

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Special scheme for travel agencies — Scope

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 306)

A transport company which merely carries out the transport of persons by providing coach transport to travel agents and does not provide any other services such as accommodation, tour guiding or advice does not effect transactions falling within the special scheme for travel agents in Article 306 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax.

(see para. 26, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Tresplain Investments Ltd to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 17, 31, 69-71)

2. Competition — Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption that a parent company wields decisive influence over its wholly-owned subsidiaries (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 25, 28, 30, 33, 38, 46-50, 62)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Whether permissible — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see paras 41-42)

4. Appeals — Jurisdiction of the Court — Challenge on grounds of fairness to the General Court’s assessment concerning the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking — Excluded (Art. 101 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see para. 87)
In the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, the Court can interpret EU law only within the limits of the powers conferred on it. More particularly, the Court has no jurisdiction under Article 267 TFEU to give a ruling on the interpretation of provisions of international law which bind Member States outside the framework of EU law.

Admittedly, the European Union must respect international law in the exercise of its powers. Thus, the Court must apply international law and may be required to interpret certain rules falling within the scope of that law, but solely within the context of the competence which has been conferred on the European Union by the Member States

(see paras 15, 18)
Order of the President of the Court of 29 March 2012 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case C-569/11 P(R))

‛Appeal — Application for interim measures — Privileges and immunities — Waiving of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of the operation of a measure — Urgency’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of the operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Whether the risk materialises dependent on uncertain, future events — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see para. 27)

Re:

Appeal against the Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 in Case T-346/11 R Gollnisch v Parliament.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Gollnisch is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the President of the Court of 29 March 2012 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case C-569/11 P(R))

‛Appeal — Application for interim measures — Privileges and immunities — Waiving of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of the operation of a measure — Urgency’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of the operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Whether the risk materialises dependent on uncertain, future events — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see para. 27)

Re:

Appeal against the Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 in Case T-346/11 R Gollnisch v Parliament.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1)(2) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 27, 28, 47)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1)(2) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1)) (see para. 53)

3. Judicial proceedings — No obligation on the General Court to commence the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility — (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 111 and 114(1) and (3)) (see paras 57, 58)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 in Case T-451/10 Fuchshuber Agrarhandel v Commission , by which that Court dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law the action for damages seeking to obtain compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by reason of the Commission’s failure to check the conditions governing the implementation of standing invitations to tender for the resale on the Community market of cereals, in this case maize held by the Hungarian intervention agency.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2012 — GS v Parliament and Council

(Case C-682/11 P)

‛Appeal — Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 — Authentication of euro coins — Handling of euro coins unfit for circulation — Article 8(2) — Right of Member States to refuse to reimburse euro coins unfit for circulation — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Person directly concerned’

Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para., (c)) (see paras 25, 26)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS v Parliament and Council, by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the appellant’s action seeking annulment of the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1) — Acts of direct and individual concern to natural or legal persons — Condition of direct concern

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2012 — GS v Parliament and Council

(Case C-682/11 P)

‛Appeal — Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 — Authentication of euro coins — Handling of euro coins unfit for circulation — Article 8(2) — Right of Member States to refuse to reimburse euro coins unfit for circulation — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Person directly concerned’

Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para., (c)) (see paras 25, 26)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS v Parliament and Council, by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the appellant’s action seeking annulment of the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1) — Acts of direct and individual concern to natural or legal persons — Condition of direct concern

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed;
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 October 2011 – Noko Ngele v Commission and Others

(Case C-272/11 P)

Appeal – Non-contractual liability – Causal link – Appeal in part inadmissible and in part unfounded – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 15-16)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 18, 25)

3. Officials – Administration’s duty to provide assistance – Extent – Assistance not implying that the official has been granted authorisation to plead in his own name or in the institution’s (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 24, first para.) (see paras 26-27)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the President of the General Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2011 in Case T-15/10 Mariyus Noko Ngele v Commission and Others by which that court dismissed the application seeking compensation for the material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the fact that it was impossible for him to proceed with recovery of a debt and for the non-pecuniary loss allegedly suffered by reason of the institution of criminal proceedings against him in a Member State – Lack of causal link.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.