ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Does denying the respondents the possibility of having the Netherlands fiscal unity regime applied to the activities and the assets of the sub-subsidiary/respondent [MSA Nederland], established in the Netherlands, constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 43 EC in conjunction with Article 48 EC? In that context, in the light of the objectives pursued by the Netherlands fiscal unity regime …, is the situation of the sub-subsidiary/respondent [MSA Nederland] objectively comparable … to (i) the situation of a company established in the Netherlands which is a subsidiary of an intermediate holding company established in the Netherlands which has not elected to be integrated in a fiscal unity with its parent company established in the Netherlands and which therefore, as a sub-subsidiary, similarly to [the] respondent [MSA Nederland], has no access to the fiscal unity regime with — exclusively — its grandparent company, or to (ii) the situation of a sub-subsidiary established in the Netherlands which, with its parent company/intermediate holding company established in the Netherlands, has elected to form a fiscal unity with [its] (grand)parent company established in the Netherlands and whose activities and assets therefore, in contrast to those of [the] respondent [MSA Nederland], are consolidated for tax purposes?
1.

Are the relevant provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, (1) in particular Article 50 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that an article left with a person by the customs authority for temporary storage in an approved place is deemed to have been removed from customs supervision if it is declared for an external transit procedure, but it does not in fact accompany the prepared transit papers on the transport planned and is not presented to the customs office at the place of destination?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/17

Action brought on 7 February 2013 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-65/13)

2013/C 108/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Tamás and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Implementing Decision [2012/733/EU] of 26 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the clearance of vacancies and applications for employment and the re-establishment of EURES;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action for annulment, the European Parliament raises a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 38 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union. (1) By adopting the contested decision, the Commission has misused the powers conferred upon it by the European Union legislature.

Article 38 of that regulation confers only implementing powers on the Commission, the limits of which are set out in Article 291 TFEU. In the view of the Parliament, that article must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the adoption of acts of general application which supplement certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. Only legislative acts or delegated acts within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU may supplement non-essential elements of a basic act.

The act adopted by the Commission, being an implementing act within the meaning of Article 291 TFEU, also supplements certain non-essential elements of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011. Accordingly, the Parliament submits that, if it is necessary to supplement non-essential elements of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011, the Commission, in the absence of powers to adopt delegated acts within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU, ought to have made a proposal to the legislature supplementing or amending the basic act.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).
2.

Should Article 94(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 in conjunction with Article 48(1)(a) TFEU be interpreted as permitting an exception to the rule on aggregating periods of insurance in relation to periods completed in another Member State before the regulation was applied by the Member State to which the application for a pension is made, where the said provision affords the person insured the right to choose whether he or she specifies such periods for aggregation purposes and to assess the need for aggregation if, purely according to the law of the State to which the application is made, the period completed is insufficient to create entitlement to a pension and a sufficient period of time can only be achieved by paying insurance contributions? In these circumstances does Article 48(1)(a) TFEU permit the application of Article 46(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 on the aggregation of periods of insurance following commencement of the application of Regulation No 1408/71 to be waived at the discretion of the party insured where that party does not specify periods of insurance completed in another Member State in his or her application for a pension?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 147/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2013 — Gemeente ’s-Hertogenbosch v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-92/13)

2013/C 147/19

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gemeente ’s-Hertogenbosch

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Should Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that supplies are made for consideration in a situation in which a municipality takes first occupation of a building which it has had built on its own land and which it is to use at the rate of 94 % for its activities as a public authority and at the rate of 6 % for its activities as a taxable person, including 1 % for exempt activities to which no right of deduction applies?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
2.

Do the circumstances of the present dispute constitute dependency within the meaning of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 343/2003, that is to say, where the family members are a young woman without any education, from Afghanistan, who is accompanied by two children currently of 5½ and 3 years of age who are in her care and in relation to whose care and education she cannot rely on anyone other than her husband and father of the children, and on whose asylum application, moreover, a negative decision has been taken by the defendant because her account was considered to be wholly unbelievable, and that account can be supported by the statements of the applicant and by the (copies of the) documents which he has brought with him?
1.

Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006?
1.

Does denying the respondent the opportunity of having the Netherlands fiscal unity regime applied to the activities and the assets of the (sub-)sub-subsidiaries established in the Netherlands — that is to say, Alphabet Holding, HP Holding and Alpha Holding — constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 43 EC in conjunction with Article 48 EC? In that context, in the light of the objectives pursued by the Netherlands fiscal unity regime …, is the situation of the (sub-)sub-subsidiaries Alphabet Holding, HP Holding and Alpha Holding objectively comparable … to (i) the situation of companies established in the Netherlands which are (sub-)subsidiaries of an intermediate holding company established in the Netherlands which has not elected to be integrated in a fiscal unity with its parent company established in the Netherlands, and which therefore, as sub-subsidiaries, similarly to Alphabet Holding, HP Holding and Alpha Holding, have no access to the fiscal unity regime with — exclusively — its grandparent company, or to (ii) the situation of sub-subsidiaries established in the Netherlands which, together with their parent company/intermediate holding company established in the Netherlands, have elected to form a fiscal unity with their (grand-)parent company established in the Netherlands and whose activities and assets therefore, unlike those of Alphabet Holding, HP Holding and Alpha Holding, are consolidated for tax purposes?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 January 2013 — Ferenc Tibor Kovács v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

(Case C-5/13)

2013/C 114/35

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferenc Tibor Kovács

Defendant: Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

Question referred

Should the law on non-discrimination, freedom of movement for workers and the right to a fair trial, be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as Paragraph 25/B of Law I of 1988, according to which only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the Hungarian authorities may be used on the roads in Hungary, and the fulfilment of the requirements which allow exemption from that provision may be established only during the inspection?
1.

Do Article L. 24 and Article R. 37, read in conjunction, of the Civil and Military Retirement Pensions Code, as amended by the Finance (Amendment) Law No 2004-1485 of 30 December 2004 and by Decree No 2005-449 of 10 May 2005, indirectly discriminate between men and women, within the meaning of Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
5.

If the fourth question is answered in the negative: by reason of the protection afforded to a person’s name under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 8 ECHR, is a Member State, in accordance with whose Law on names a person’s name comprises his first name and surname and under whose Law on passports the fields on the machine readable personal data page of a passport are also to be given in English and French and in Field 6 of that page the name at birth is also to be provided on a single line, preceded by the abbreviation ‘geb.’ of the word ‘geboren’ (born), also required to provide a translation in English and French of the abbreviation ‘geb.’?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-150/13)

2013/C 171/34

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Question referred

What limits do Article 4 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 3 and 7 thereof, impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and are those limits different from the limits which apply to assessment of the credibility of the other grounds of persecution and, if so, in what respect?

(1) OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/12

Action brought on 30 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-243/13)

2013/C 189/23

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-607/10, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

— Order Sweden to pay to the Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a fine of EUR 14 912 per day for each day that the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-607/10 have not been adopted, with effect from the date on which the judgment in that case was delivered until the date on which the judgment in Case C-607/10 is complied with;

— Order Sweden to pay to the Commission, into the same account, a lump sum of EUR 4 893 per day for each day that the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-607/10 have not been adopted, with effect from the date on which the judgment in that case was delivered until the date on which judgment is given in the present case or the date on which the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-607/10 are adopted, if that is earlier;

— order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its judgment of 29 March 2012 in Case C-607/10 European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden, the Court held that ‘1. … by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent national authorities see to it, by means of permits issued in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that all existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive.’

The Kingdom of Sweden has not yet adopted any measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-607/10. The Commission has therefore brought this action in accordance with Article 260(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and seeks an order imposing economic sanctions on the Kingdom of Sweden.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Bright Service, S.A. v Repsol Comercial de productos petrolíferos, S.A.

(Case C-142/13)

2013/C 178/02

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bright Service, S.A.

Defendant: Repsol Comercial de productos petrolíferos, S.A.

Questions referred

When examining a vertical agreement — containing a non-compete obligation — which [was] already in force on 31 May 2000 and which satisfies the conditions laid down in Regulation No 1984/1983, (1) but which does not satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in Regulation No 2790/1999, (2) given that the supplier which is a party to the agreement holds a market share which exceeds 30 % (Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2790/1999) and the duration of the non-compete obligation exceeds five years and the contract goods are sold by the buyer from premises and land which are not owned by the supplier (Article 5(a) of Regulation No 2790/1999):

(a) must Article 12(2) of Regulation No 2790/1999 be interpreted as meaning that, as of 1 January 2002, the agreement and, more specifically, the non-compete obligation, are not covered by the exemptions provided for in Regulations Nos 1984/1983 and 2790/1999, and must it be examined on an individual basis whether they are consistent with Article 81(1) EC?

(b) or, must Article 12(2) of Regulation No 2790/1999 be interpreted as meaning that the maximum duration of five years for a non-compete obligation laid down in Article 5(a) of Regulation No 2790/19999 is to be applied to the agreement, with the result that the agreement and, in particular, the non-compete obligation are covered, from 1 January 2002, for a further period of five years expiring on 31 December 2006?

(c) or, finally, must Article 12(2) of Regulation No 2790/1999 be interpreted as meaning that the agreement containing a non-compete obligation is covered, from 1 January 2002, for a further period of five years, expiring on 31 December 2006, where the remaining validity of the non-compete obligation — until 1 January 2002 — does not exceed five years, but is not, by contrast, covered by the exemptions, and that it needs to be determined on an individual basis whether it is consistent with Article 81(1) EC where the remaining validity of the non-compete obligation — until 1 January 2002 — exceeds five years?

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21).
1.

Does the obligation concerning the mutual recognition of driving licences issued by Member States which is laid down in Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC preclude national legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany under which the right to use a foreign driving licence in Germany must be revoked ex post facto by the administrative authorities if the holder of the foreign driving licence drives a motor vehicle on that licence in Germany while under the influence of illegal drugs and thereafter under the relevant German provisions is no longer fit to drive?
3.

In the event that, under the abovementioned conditions, the time at which the application was filed is also relevant: Is the trade mark to be declared invalid if it is not clarified, and can no longer be clarified, whether it had acquired a distinctive character, following the use made of it, at the time when the application was filed? Or does the declaration of invalidity require the applicant seeking that declaration to prove that the trade mark had not acquired a distinctive character, following the use made of it, at the time when the application was filed?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2013 — Stanislav Gross v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

(Case C-165/13)

2013/C 207/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stanislav Gross

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

Question referred

Does the second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, notwithstanding its schematic connection with Article 7(3) of that directive, preclude legislation of a Member State under which a person who, for commercial purposes, holds products subject to excise duty which have been released for consumption in another Member State is not liable for duty in circumstances where he did not acquire those products from another person until after the entry process had been completed?

(1) OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/25

Action brought on 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-252/13)

2013/C 207/40

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and M. van Beek, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by maintaining in force provisions of Netherlands legislation contrary to Article 1(2)(a) and (b), Article 15 and Article 28(2) of Directive 2006/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that Netherlands employment law does not establish sufficiently clearly that, if female workers returning after the end of the period of maternity leave are confronted with less favourable employment conditions, this is contrary to the prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood.

In its view, that prohibition is not established sufficiently clearly by the mere fact that an employer who unilaterally alters the duties and employment conditions agreed in the employment contract fails to fulfil his obligations.

The Commission regards as insufficient the argument that, when a legal right to leave is recognised, that automatically implies that that any less favourable treatment is unlawful. Equally, the possibility of bringing an action on the basis of the general prohibition of discrimination and the principle of sound employer practice, which are contained in the Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil Code), does not amount to a sufficiently clear and precise transposition of those provisions of the Directive. Those general principles of Netherlands law do not constitute sufficiently clear transposition of the provisions of the Directive.

That state of affairs does not fulfil the requirements relating to transparency and legal certainty laid down by the Court of Justice for the transposition of a directive in the national legal order.

(1) OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.