ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/35

Action brought on 3 March 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-118/10)

2010/C 113/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, K. Walkerová, A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2009/991/EU (1) of 16 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council, by adopting the contested decision, has overturned the Commission's decision resulting from the proposal for appropriate measures in Point 196 of the 2007 Agricultural Guidelines and from its unconditional acceptance by Latvia, obliging the latter to bring to an end an existing aid scheme for the purchase ofagricultural land by 31 December 2009 at the latest. Under the guise of exceptional circumstances, the Council has in fact allowed Latvia to maintain that scheme until the expiry of the 2007 Agricultural Guidelines on 31 December 2013. The circumstances put forward by the Council as the grounds for its decision are self evidently not exceptional circumstances of such a nature as to justify the decision taken and make no allowance for the Commission's decision on that scheme. In support of its action for annulment, the Commission will put forward four pleas in law:

a) In the first place, it considers that the Council was not competent to act under the third subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU because the aid which it approved was existing aid which Latvia had committed to eliminating by the end of 2009 when it accepted the appropriate measures proposed to it by the Commission.

b) Secondly, the Council has misused its powers, seeking to neutralise the determination that aid measures which Latvia was free to retain until the end of 2009 but not after that date could be kept in place until 2013.

c) Next, in its third plea, the contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation which applies to Member States and also between institutions. By its decision, the Council has released Latvia from its obligation of cooperation with the Commission in relation to the appropriate measures accepted by that Member State regarding existing aid for purchase of agricultural land in the context of the cooperation established by Article 108(1) TFEU.

d) By its final plea, the Commission will argue that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment insofar it found that exceptional circumstances existed which justify the adoption of the approved measure.

(1) OJ L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 34
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/24

Action brought on 29 January 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-50/10)

2010/C 100/36

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and C. Zadra, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, (1) by failing to take the necessary measures ‘to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of that directive or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions’, that all existing installations within the meaning of Article 2(4) of Directive 2008/1/EC operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of that directive;

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC lays down that Member States are to take the necessary measures ‘to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions’, that not later than 30 October 2007 existing installations, as referred to in Article 2(4) of Directive 2008/1/EC, operate in accordance with the requirements set out in that directive.

However, in January 2010 — and, more specifically, at the time when the present action was brought — the Italian Government had still not fully complied with the obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC.

(1) OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/20

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 8 February 2010 — Office of Communications v The Information Commissioner

(Case C-71/10)

2010/C 113/31

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Office of Communications

Defendant: The Information Commissioner

Question referred

Under Council Directive 2003/4/EC (1), where a public authority holds environmental information, disclosure of which would have some adverse effects on the separate interests served by more than one exception (in casu, the interests of public security served by article 4(2)(b) and those of intellectual property rights served by article 4(2)(e)), but it would not do so, in the case of either exception viewed separately, to any extent sufficient to outweigh the public interest in disclosure, does the Directive require a further exercise involving the cumulation of the separate interests served by the two exceptions and their weighing together against the public interest in disclosure?

(1) 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

OJ L 41, p. 26
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság lodged on 13 January 2010 — Károly Nagy v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

(Case C-21/10)

2010/C 113/23

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nagy Károly

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

Questions referred

1. May Articles 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) and [68] of Commission Regulation No 817/2004 (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of specific programmes for grassland by way of agri-environmental aid under the first article mentioned, the checks on the data contained in the ENAR (Egységes Nyilvántartási és Azonosítási Rendszer — Integrated Identification and Registration System), pursuant to Article 68 of Regulation No 817/2004, must also be extended to area aid specifying a certain density of livestock?

2. May the above provisions be interpreted as meaning that cross-checks under the integrated administration and control system must be carried out also in cases where the pre-condition for aid is the density of livestock, although the aid is not for animals?

3. May those provisions be interpreted as meaning that, in assessing area aid, the competent authority may or must check whether the conditions for aid are met, independently of the ENAR?

4. On the basis of the interpretation of the above provisions, what monitoring obligation arises for the competent authority from the requirement in the above Community provisions for checks and cross-checks? May the monitoring be limited exclusively to review of the data contained in the ENAR?

5. Do those provisions impose an obligation on the national authority to provide information concerning the pre-conditions for aid (for example, registration in the ENAR)? If so, in what way and to what extent?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

(2) Commission Regulation(EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 30).
2.

In order to justify a reformatio in pejus of the previous rules on fixed-term contracts and to preclude the operation of the prohibition laid down in Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC, is it sufficient for the national legislature to pursue any objective, provided that it is an objective other than that of implementing that directive, or is it necessary for such an objective not only to merit at least equal protection to the objective in respect of which penalties are imposed but also for it to be expressly ‘stated’?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/25

Action brought on 16 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-90/10)

2010/C 113/40

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— Declare that: — by failing to establish conservation priorities in relation to the special areas of conservation corresponding to the sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region identified by Decision 2002/11/EC, (1) in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC, (2) and — by failing to adopt and apply the appropriate conservation measures and a protection system to prevent the deterioration of habitats and significant disruption to species, ensuring the legal protection of the special areas of conservation corresponding to the sites referred to in Decision 2002/11/EC situated in Spanish territory, in accordance with Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 92/43/EEC;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In so far as concerns the special areas of conservation corresponding to the sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region in its territory identified by Decision 2002/11/EC, the Commission considers that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to:

— satisfy the requirement to establish conservation priorities in accordance with Article 4(4) of the directive, and

— satisfy the requirement to adopt and apply the appropriate conservation measures and a protection system to prevent the deterioration of habitats and significant disruption to species, ensuring the legal protection of those special areas of conservation, in accordance with Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive.

(1) Commission Decision of 28 December 2001 adopting the list of sites of Community importance for the Macaronesian biogeographical region, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC (OJ 2002 L 5, p. 16).

(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).
1.

Must the concept of ‘operating restriction’ in Article 2(e) of Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (1) be interpreted as including rules imposing limits on noise levels, as measured on the ground, to be complied with by aircraft overflying territories located near the airport and providing that any person responsible for exceeding those limits may incur a penalty, it being understood that aircraft are required to keep to the designated routes and comply with the landing and take-off procedures laid down by other administrative authorities without taking account of the need to comply with those noise limitations?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/28

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 17 March 2010 — Prism Investments BV v J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV

(Case C-139/10)

2010/C 134/43

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Prism Investments BV

Respondent: J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV

Question referred

Does Article 45 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) preclude the court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 of that regulation from refusing or revoking the declaration of enforceability on a ground, other than one of those specified in Articles 34 and 35 of that regulation, which has been advanced against enforcement of the judgment declared enforceable and which arose after that judgment had been delivered, such as the ground that there has been compliance with that judgment?

(1) 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).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 2 April 2010 — Williams and others v British Airways plc

(Case C-155/10)

(2010/C 161/32)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Williams and others

Defendant: British Airways plc

Questions referred

(i) Under (a) articles 7 of Council Directives 93/104/EC (1) and 2003/88/EC (2) and (b) clause 3 of the European Agreement annexed to the Council Directive 2000/79/EC (3): (1) to what, if any, extent does European law define or lay down any requirements as to the nature and/or level of the payments required to be made in respect of periods of paid annual leave; and (2) to what, if any, extent may Member States determine how such payments are to be calculated?

(ii) In particular, is it sufficient that, under national law and/or practice and/or under the collective agreements and/or contractual arrangements negotiated between employers and workers, the payment made enables and encourages the worker to take and to enjoy, in the fullest sense of these words, his or her annual leave; and does not involve any sensible risk that the worker will not do so?

(iii) Or is it required that the pay should either (a) correspond precisely with or (b) be broadly comparable to the worker's ‘normal’ pay?

Further, in the event of an affirmative answer to question (iii)(a) or (b):

(iv) Is the relevant measure or comparison (a) pay that the worker would have earned during the particular leave period if he or she had been working, instead of on leave, or (b) pay which he or she was earning during some other, and if so what, period when he or she was working?

(v) How should ‘normal’ or ‘comparable’ pay be assessed in circumstances where (a) a worker's remuneration while working is supplemented if and to the extent that he or she engages in a particular activity, (b) where there is an annual or other limit on the extent to which, or time during which, the worker may engage in that activity, and that limit has been already exceeded or almost exceeded at the time(s) when annual leave is taken, so that the worker would not in fact have been permitted to engage in that activity had he been working, instead of on leave?

(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time, OJ L 307, p. 18

(2) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 299, p. 9

(3) Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 302
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/21

Appeal brought on 26 April 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 February 2010 in Case T-340/07: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-200/10 P)

2010/C 179/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, Δικηγόρος)

Other party: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the decision of the General Court, to order the Commission to make good the damage suffered by the Appellant as a result of its failure to comply with contractual obligations in the context of the performance of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract relating to the project entitled ‘e-Content Exposure and business Opportunities’ and to order the Commission to pay the Applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the General Court did not give a sufficiently clear statement of reasons for rejecting the a series of arguments put forward by the Appellant.

The Appellant submits the General Court committed an error in law in adopting a wrong interpretation of the wording of article 7 (6) of the contract which refers to the obligation of the contractors to take appropriate action to cancel or reduce their commitments upon receipt of the letter from the Commission notifying them of the termination of the contract.
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (1) and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad na Republika Balgaria (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 April 2010 — Deputy Director of the Appeals and Enforcement Management Directorate at the Central Administration of the National Revenue Agency v Auto Nikolovi OOD

(Case C-203/10)

2010/C 195/09

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad na Republika Balgaria

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deputy Director of the Appeals and Enforcement Management Directorate at the Central Administration of the National Revenue Agency

Respondent: Auto Nikolovi OOD

Questions referred

1. Does the term ‘second-hand goods’ set out in Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) also cover second-hand movable property which is not individualised (by mark, model, serial number, year of manufacture etc.) in such a way that it can be distinguished from goods of the same variety but is instead identified by generic features?

2. Does the phrase ‘as defined by the Member States’ contained in Article 311(1)(1) of Council Regulation 2006/112/EC grant Member States the possibility of defining the term ‘second-hand goods’ themselves, or must the definition of this term in the directive be reproduced strictly in national law?

3. Is the requirement, incorporated into national law, that second-goods be individually identified, consistent with the spirit and purpose of the definition of ‘second-hand goods’ in Community law?

4. Having regard to the aims set out in recital (51) of the preamble to Council Directive 2006/112/EC, can it be concluded that the phrase ‘where those goods have been supplied to him within the Community’ contained in Article 314(1) thereof also covers the importation of second-hand goods which the taxable dealer has imported himself?

5. If the arrangements under the margin scheme are also applicable to the supply of second-hand goods by a taxable dealer who has imported those goods himself, must the person from whom the taxable dealer has acquired those goods belong to one of the categories of person referred to in Article 314(a) to (d)?

6. Is the list of goods contained in Article 320(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC exhaustive?

7. Are the first subparagraph of Article 320(1) and Article 320(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national provision under which the taxable dealer’s right to deduct as input tax the VAT paid by him on the importation of second-hand goods arises and is exercised in the period during which those goods were supplied in connection with a subsequent taxable supply to which the taxable dealer applies the normal tax arrangements?

8. Do Articles 314(a) to (d), the first subparagraph of Article 320(1), and Article 320(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC have direct effect and can the national court rely on them directly in a case such as the present?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Republic of Poland), lodged on 3 May 2010 — Logstor ROR Polska Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach

(Case C-212/10)

()

2010/C 209/20

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Logstor ROR Polska Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach

Question referred

Did Article 4(2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, (1) as amended with effect from 17 June 1985 by Article 1(1) of Directive 85/303/EEC (2) of 10 June 1985, entitle a Member State to reintroduce, as from 1 January 2007, capital duty on a loan taken up by a capital company, if the creditor is entitled to a share in the profits of that company, in the case where the Member State had previously waived the charging of that duty as from the date of accession, that is to say, from 1 May 2004?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.

(2) Council Directive amending Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1985 L 156, pp. 23-24).
2.

However, it emerges from the voluminous correspondence between the Italian authorities and the Commission, following notification of Decision 2008/854, that at a point almost 2 years on from the adoption of that decision, the Italian authorities still have to recover the unlawful and incompatible aid granted under that scheme, together with interest. Manifestly, therefore, the national procedures which have been followed have not been such as to enable ‘immediate and effective’ recovery and, accordingly, Italy has failed to meet its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of Decision 2008/854.