ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/2

Appeal brought on 27 May 2010 by Sistemul electronic de arhivare, criptare și indexare digitalizată Srl (Seacid) against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 March 2010 in Case T-530/09: Sistemul electronic de arhivare, criptare și indexare digitalizată Srl (Seacid) v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-266/10 P)

2011/C 72/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sistemul electronic de arhivare, criptare și indexare digitalizată Srl (Seacid) (represented by: N.O. Curelea, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

By order of 22 October 2010 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/12

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 30 December 2010 — Danilo Debiasi v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

(Case C-613/10)

2011/C 80/23

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Parma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Danilo Debiasi

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

Question referred

Is there a conflict between, on the one hand, Articles 19(5) and 19a of Presidential Decree No 633/72 and, on the other hand, Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC, and the documents COM(2001) 260 final of 23.05.2001 and COM(2000) 348 final of 07.06.2000, and is there also unequal treatment of the VAT rules at Community level and consequently a need of harmonisation with the other European systems, given that various Member States apply, subject to certain conditions, a system of taxation at a lower rate?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/3

Appeal brought on 26 November 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-387/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-561/10 P)

2011/C 72/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis, Attorneys at Law)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the General Court;

— annul OPOCE's (Publications Office of the European Union) decision to reject the bid of the Appellant, and to award the same Call for Tender to another bidder and to award damages;

— refer the case to the General Court in order that the latter examines the remaining issues in both Lots, including the request for Damages, not examined yet by the General Court;

— order the OPOCE to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those 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 in the contested Judgment the General Court erred in law and wrongly interpreted Article 100 (2) of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 149 of the Implementing Rules by accepting that, since the Appellant's tender did not reach the 70 % threshold, the Commission rightfully did not communicate to the Appellant the relative merits of the winning tenderer. Furthermore, the Appellant submits that the Judgment is insufficiently motivated since the General Court failed to examine thoroughly and individually the plea concerning the infringement of the principle of transparency and equal treatment.

The Appellant also submits that the General Court breached the obligation to state reasons, since, although it acknowledged that in numerous sub-criteria the comments in the contested decision were vague and generic and do not explain the marks awarded to the applicant's tender, and that the contested decision is vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to specific award sub-criteria, it concluded that the ‘statement of reasons in respect of numerous other award criteria and sub-criteria is adequate’. Further, the General Court erred in its interpretation of the obligation to state reasons, by considering that several of the comments of the Evaluation Committee fulfilled its obligation to state reasons, and it did not examine thoroughly and failed to motivate individually and sufficiently the arguments of the Appellant concerning the infringement of the principle of transparency and equal treatment.

(1) 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 L 248, p. 1
1.

Is the interpretation that, under Article 51, in conjunction with Article 2, of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, taking account of the principle of non discrimination and transparency in the award of public contracts, the contracting authority is obliged to seek clarification of a tender, respecting the subjective procedural right of the individual to be requested to supplement or clarify certificates and documents submitted pursuant to Articles 45 to 50 of the Directive, if a disputable or unclear understanding of the tenderer’s bid could result in the exclusion of that tenderer, in conformity with the above Directive in the wording in effect in the relevant period?
If the answer to the first question is in the negative:

Must Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 be interpreted as meaning that under all circumstances a State which is not the competent Member State on whose territory a worker is posted has the right to grant family benefits only where it has been determined that in the other Member State no entitlement to comparable family benefits exists?
1.

Is it in breach of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (1) for a national provision, which — like point 3 of the second sentence of Paragraph 14(1) of the Teilzeit- und Befristungsgesetz (Law on part-time working and fixed-term contracts, ‘the TzBfG’) — provides that there are objective grounds for repeated fixed-term work where one employee replaces another, to be interpreted and applied to mean that there are also objective grounds where there is a permanent need for a replacement although the need for a replacement could also be met by the employee concerned being employed for an indefinite duration and the replacement duties of one of the regular staff lost being assigned to him, but the employer reserves the right to decide anew in each case how it is to respond to a specific loss of staff?
Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case C-528/11

( Official Journal of the European Union C 370 of 17 December 2011 )

2012/C 133/64

The text of the notice in Case C-528/11 Halaf is to be replaced by the following text:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 October 2011 — Zuheyr Freyeh Halaf v Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerski savet

(Case C-528/11)

2012/C 133/64

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen Sad Sofia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zuheyr Freyeh Halaf

Defendant: Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerski savet

Questions referred

1. Is Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 (1) of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national to be interpreted as meaning that it permits a Member State to assume responsibility for examining an asylum application where no personal circumstances exist in relation to the asylum seeker which establish the applicability of the humanitarian clause in Article 15 of that regulation and where the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(1) of that regulation has not responded to a request to take back the applicant pursuant to Article 20(1) of Regulation No 343/2003, given that that regulation does not contain any provisions concerning compliance with the principle of solidarity pursuant to Article 80 TFEU?

2. What is the content of the right to asylum under Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 53 of that Charter and in conjunction with the definition in Article 2(c) and recital 12 of Regulation No 343/2003?

3. Is Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003, in relation to the obligation under Article 78(1) TFEU to comply with instruments under international law on asylum, to be interpreted as meaning that in the procedure for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Regulation No 343/2003, the Member States are obliged to request the Office of the UNHCR to present its views, where facts and conclusions therefrom are set out in documents of that Office to the effect that the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 343/2003 is in breach of provisions of European Union law on asylum?

If this question is answered in the affirmative, the following question might also be answered:

If such a request is not made to the Office of the UNHCR to present its views, does this constitute a substantial infringement of the procedure for determining the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 343/2003 and an infringement of the right to good administration and the right to an effective legal remedy pursuant to Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, specifically also in the light of Article 21 of Directive 2005/85/EC, which provides that that Office has the right to present its views when individual applications for asylum are examined?
1.

Does Article 49 EC prelude the application of a national provision such as Article 29(2)(d) of the Law of 11 April 1983, in so far as: first, that provision permits the grant of a tax credit, the notional withholding tax, to the recipients of income from debt-claims or loans granted to a coordination centre, within the meaning of Royal Decree No 187 of 30 December 1982 on the creation of coordination centres, when the company which uses the funds borrowed by or through the coordination centre in order to acquire a tangible asset which it uses in Belgium in the exercise of its business activity, confers the right to use that asset on a company which forms part of the same group of companies and which is resident in Belgium, whereas, second, that provision does not permit the grant of a tax credit when the same company confers a right to use the same tangible asset on a company which also forms part of the same group of companies but which is resident in a Member State other than Belgium?
1.

Is Article 77(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use to be construed as meaning that pharmacists are included among the persons who must obtain authorisation for the wholesale distribution of medicinal products or was it the Community legislature’s intention, instead, to exempt pharmacists from the requirement to apply for that authorisation, as would appear to be suggested by a reading of recital 36 in the preamble to the directive? It is appropriate to set out the arguments put forward by the suspect’s lawyer in support of the latter interpretation.
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does Union law, in particular Article 17 of the Student Directive, preclude a national rule which, like the provisions of the Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz which are relevant in the main proceedings, provides in all cases for an examination of the situation of the labour market prior to the grant of a work permit for an employer to employ a student who has already resided in Austria for more than one year (Article 17(3) of the Student Directive) and additionally makes the grant of a work permit subject to further conditions if the fixed maximum number of foreign nationals employed has been exceeded.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/9

Action brought on 21 February 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-74/11)

2011/C 113/18

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

— declare that, by allowing persons other than taxable persons to join a value added tax group and by limiting the group registration system to providers of finance and insurance services, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; (1)

— order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 11 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax allows Member States to treat as a single taxable person several persons who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links. Article 9(1) of the directive defines ‘taxable person’ for the purposes of value added tax.

The Commission submits that Directive 2006/112/EC does not allow persons who are not taxable persons to be included in a value added tax group and the rights and obligations of taxable persons thereby to be extended to non-taxable persons. The Finnish legislation which allows the inclusion of non-taxable persons in value added tax groups is therefore in conflict with the directive. The Commission’s interpretation is also consistent with the objective of Article 11 of simplifying administration and preventing abuse.

The group registration laid down in the Finnish legislation is also contrary to Article 11 of Directive 2006/112/EC in so far as the Finnish value added tax legislation limits the scope of group registration to undertakings active in the finance and insurance sector. The Commission submits that the group registration system should be applicable to all undertakings established in a Member State, regardless of the kind of activity the undertaking carries on. The common system of value added tax is a uniform system, and if a special arrangement is brought into use within that system the principle is that the arrangement must be generally applicable. Nothing in the wording of Article 11 of Directive 2006/112/EC indicates that a Member State may limit the application of the value added tax group registration system to certain groups active in certain sectors. Also on the basis of the objective of Article 11, the provision must be interpreted as concerning all undertakings regardless of sector. By limiting group registration to certain groups, the provisions of the Finnish value added tax legislation are also in conflict with the general European Union law principle of equal treatment.

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2011 — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Case C-28/11)

2011/C 130/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eurogate Distribution GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Question referred

On a proper interpretation of Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) (‘the Customs Code’) does infringement of the obligation, in the case of non-Community goods which were in the customs warehousing procedure and acquired a new customs destination at the termination of that procedure, to record the removal of the goods from the customs warehouse in the apposite computer programme forthwith upon termination of the customs warehousing procedure — rather than considerably later — cause a customs debt to arise in respect of the goods?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 120/8

Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-497/09 LG Electronics v OHIM (KOMPRESSOR PLUS)

(Case C-88/11 P)

2011/C 120/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: LG Electronics, Inc. (represented by J. Blanchard, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Form of order sought

— declare the appeal admissible;

— set aside the judgment of the Second Chamber of the General Court of 16 December 2010;

— set aside in part the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 in so far as it dismissed in part the appeal brought by LG Electronics against the decision of 5 February 2009 refusing the application for registration of Community trade mark No 007282924 in so far as it designated ‘electric vacuum cleaners’;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant pleads an infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark. (1)

The appellant observes, first, that the General Court relied on new facts, communicated for the first time by OHIM before the Court, which had not been relied on before the Board of Appeal.

The appellant submits, second, that the General Court erred by distorting the facts and evidence submitted to it, leading to conclude wrongly that vacuum cleaners could be used as compressors.

Finally, it observes that, since vacuum cleaners do not in any event contain a compressor and cannot be used as compressors, the mark KOMPRESSOR PLUS cannot in any case be regarded as consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the services, or other characteristics of the goods or service.

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
1.

Is the management of securities-based assets (portfolio management), where a taxable person determines for remuneration the purchase and sale of securities and implements that determination by buying and selling the securities, exempt from tax — only in so far as it consists in the management of investment funds for a number of investors collectively within the meaning of Article 135(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) or also — in so far as it consists in individual portfolio management for individual investors within the meaning of Article 135(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (transactions in securities or the negotiation of such transactions)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/14

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 3 March 2011 — Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Caltanissetta v Massimiliano Rizzo

(Case C-107/11)

2011/C 139/27

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Caltanissetta

Defendant: Massimiliano Rizzo

Questions referred

Is the national legislation introduced initially by the Bersani Decree — namely, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006 — compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, and specifically as regards the national rules which, inter alia:

(a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure under which some operators were unlawfully excluded;

(b) ensure de facto the maintenance of commercial positions already acquired (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks at a distance from existing kiosks which falls short of the specified minimum);
3.

By its third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that there has been a distortion of evidence by the General Court and thus an infringement of the principles of logic, the general principle of the rule of law and a further infringement of the duty on the General Court to state reasons. In that regard, the appellant submits in particular that the General Court is weighing the evidence of the ‘act documenting apposition of the seal’ on the assumption that it will provide sufficient evidence of the correct apposition of the seal, an explanation which cannot be deduced therefrom.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/11

Action brought on 24 February 2011 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-86/11)

2011/C 145/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, Agent)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by permitting non-taxable persons to be members of a VAT group (a single taxable person for VAT purposes), the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

— order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

For reasons of facility and in order to combat possible abuses, the VAT directive allows Member States to treat two or more taxable persons together as a single taxable person. It is submitted that the directive does not allow them to include non-taxable persons in such a group, thus extending the rights and obligations of taxable persons to non-taxable persons. The United Kingdom legislation which permits the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a VAT group is thus contrary to the directive.

(1) OJ L 347, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 173/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 5 April 2011 — Angel Lorenzo González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros S.A.E

(Case C-166/11)

2011/C 173/14

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Angel Lorenzo González Alonso

Defendant: Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros S.A.E.

Question referred

Must Article 3(2)(d) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC (1) of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises be interpreted restrictively so as not to cover a contract, concluded away from business premises, under which life assurance is offered in return for payment of a monthly premium to be invested, in varying proportions, in fixed-rate investments, variable-rate investments and financial investment products of the company itself?

(1) OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31.