ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/11

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Connoisseur Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-69/11) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 11.A(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Costs not charged by the taxable person)

2012/C 73/19

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Connoisseur Belgium BVBA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Interpretation of Article 11.A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation 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) and of Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Hiring-out of pleasure craft — Agreement on the allocation of costs between the undertaking providing the craft for hire and the undertaking which hires them — Possibility of charging certain costs to the hiring undertaking — No charge made — National provision requiring VAT to be paid on those costs which are not charged

Operative part of the order

Article 11.A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, value added tax is not due on costs or amounts which could contractually have been charged to the other contracting party but which were not so charged.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 340/14

Order of the President of the Court of 22 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Jürgen Dörschel

(Case C-151/11) (1)

2011/C 340/26

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/5

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Auditeur du travail v Yangwei SPRL

(Case C-349/11) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 97/81/EC - Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work - Obligation to publicise and keep employment contracts and work schedules)

2012/C 109/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Auditeur du travail

Defendant: Yangwei SPRL

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998, L 14, p. 9) — Permissibility of national legislation requiring an employer to draw up documents recording departures from work schedules as well as to keep and publicise the contracts and work schedules of part-time workers — Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work

Operative part of the order

Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes employers responsible for the obligations of retention and publication of the contracts and work-schedules of part-time workers if it is established that such legislation does not lead to them being treated less favourably than full-time workers in a similar situation or, if such there is such a difference in treatment, it is established that it is justified on objective grounds and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives thus pursued. It is for the referring court to perform the necessary factual and legal investigation, particularly with regard to the applicable national law, in order to determine whether that is so in the case before it.

In the event that the referring court were to conclude that the national legislation at issue is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81, Clause 5(1) thereof would have to be interpreted as precluding such legislation.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/10

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Daiichi Sankyo Company v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

(Case C-6/11) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Articles 3 and 4 - Conditions for obtaining a certificate - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria - Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient)

2012/C 73/17

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Daiichi Sankyo Company

Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division, Patents Court) — Interpretation of Articles 3(a) and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient

Operative part of the order

Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as precluding the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate relating to active ingredients which are not identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on in support of the application for such a certificate.

(1) OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/21

Order of the President of the Court of 8 May 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxemburg Sàrl v European Commission

(Case C-504/11 P) (1)

2012/C 303/39

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 126/3

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem — Netherlands) — DHL Danzas Air & Ocean (Netherlands) BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat

(Case C-227/11) (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff positions - Network analysers - Classification - Legal value of a classification opinion of the World Customs Organisation)

2012/C 126/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DHL Danzas Air & Ocean (Netherlands) BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Haarlem — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 129/2005 of 20 January 2005 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature and amending Regulation (EC) No 955/98 (OJ 2005 L 25, p. 37) — Network analysers

Operative part of the order

The combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended, respectively by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that network analysers such as those at issue in the main proceedings may be classified in the subheading 9030 40 90 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1810/2004, or in the subheading 9030 40 00 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1719/2005, according to the date of import, on condition that such apparatus have the purpose of measuring or checking electrical quantities, which is for the national court to establish. Otherwise, those apparatus must be classified in the subheading 9031 80 39 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1810/2004, or in the subheading 9031 80 38 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1719/2005, according to the date of import.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/5

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 — Audi AG, Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-467/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Appeal which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 303/09

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Audi AG, Volkswagen AG (represented by: P. Kather, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2011 in Case T-318/09 Audi and Volkswagen v OHMI (TDI), by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 226/2007-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TDI as a Community trade mark for the goods in Class 12 (Vehicles and constructive parts thereof’) — Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Distinctive character of the word sign TDI

Operative part of the order

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

2. Audi AG and Volkswagen AG are ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/26

Order of the President of the Court of 2 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Annex Customs BVBA v Belgische Staat, KBC Bank NV

(Case C-163/11) (1)

2012/C 151/41

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/34

Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-606/11) (1)

2013/C 9/58

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/19

Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Power-One Italy SpA v European Commission

(Case C-372/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Project co-funded by the financial instrument ‘LIFE’ - Development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony (‘Pneuma project’) - Commission decision to end the project and to recover the advance paid - Compensation for the loss allegedly sustained)

2012/C 366/31

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Power-One Italy SpA (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Giussani, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and D. Recchia, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2011 in Case T-489/08 Power-One Italy v Commission by which that court dismissed an action for compensation for the loss allegedly sustained by the appellant following the Commission’s decision to end the Pneuma project (LIFE04 ENV/IT/000595) intended to co-fund development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Power-One Italy SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.09.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/2

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy)) — Danilo Debiasi v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

(Case C-560/11) (1)

(Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Reply leaving room for no reasonable doubt - Taxation - VAT - Article 17(2)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive - Deduction of input tax paid - Public or private healthcare establishments engaged in an exempt activity - National legislation excluding deduction of the tax on the purchase of goods or services used in exempt activities - Deductible proportion)

2013/C 55/02

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Danilo Debiasi

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma — Interpretation of Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation 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) — Deduction of input tax — Public or private healthcare establishments engaged in an exempt activity — National legislation excluding the deduction of tax relating to the purchase of goods or services used in the said exempt activities

Operative part of the order

Articles 17(2) and (5) and 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not permit the deduction of input value added tax paid for the purchase of goods and services used for the requirements of exempt activities and which provides, consequently, that the right of a hybrid taxable person to deduct that tax is calculated on the basis of a proportion corresponding to the ratio of the amount of the transactions in respect of which there is a right to deduct and the total amount of the transactions carried out over the course of the year, including the exempt medical-healthcare services.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/17

Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV v Sonnthurn Vertriebs GmbH

(Case C-51/11) (1)

2013/C 38/25

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/42

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-584/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Plant protection products - Active substance trifluralin - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Decision 1999/468/EC - Article 5)

2013/C 225/72

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck, advocaat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-475/07 Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products containing that substance (notified under document number C(2007) 4282) (OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S and Dow AgroSciences GmbH shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/4

Order of the Court of 13 December 2012 — Alliance One International Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-593/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions or concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies - Presumption of innocence - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 108/07

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alliance One International Inc. (represented by: G. Mastrantonio, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-25/06 Alliance One International v Commission dismissing an action for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2006/901/EC of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) (notified under document number C(2005) 4012) (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 45) concerning a cartel designed to fix prices paid to producers and other intermediaries and to share suppliers in the Italian raw tobacco market, and reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant.

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Alliance One International Inc. shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/8

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Ahmed Ettaghi

(Case C-73/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

2012/C 303/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Revere

Criminal proceedings against

Ahmed Ettaghi

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and of Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a third-country national who has entered or stayed in the country illegally — Admissibility of the criminal offence of illegal stay — Possibility of substituting the fine with an order for expulsion with immediate effect for a period of at least five years or with a home detention (‘permanenza domiciliare’) sentence — Obligations of the Member States during the period prescribed for the transposition of a directive

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is clearly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/12

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court, Huy — Belgium) — Agim Ajdini v Belgian State

(Case C-312/12) (1)

(Rules of Procedure - Articles 53(2), 93(a) and 99 - Request for a preliminary ruling - Examination of the conformity of a national provision with both European Union law and the national constitution - National legislation granting priority to an interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Failure to implement European Union law - Clear absence of jurisdiction of the Court)

2013/C 108/23

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Labour Court, Huy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agim Ajdini

Defendant: Belgian State

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Labour Court, Huy — Interpretation of Articles 20, 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 234 EC — Fundamental rights — Principle of non-discrimination — Serbian national with a disability — Admissibility of national legislation excluding certain persons from entitlement to disability benefits on grounds of nationality — National of a third country which is an official candidate for accession to the European Union — Power of a national court to refer a matter to the Court of Justice — Admissibility of national legislation requiring the national court to bring a matter to the Constitutional Court at the outset

Operative part of the order

It is clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Labour Court, Huy (Belgium).

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.