ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — European Commission v Électricité de France (EDF), French Republic, Iberdrola SA

(Case C-124/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Waiver of a tax claim - Exemption from corporation tax - Increase in share capital - Conduct of a State acting as a prudent private investor in a market economy - Criteria to distinguish between the State as shareholder and the State exercising public power - Definition of ‘reference private investor’ - Principle of equal treatment - Burden of proof)

2012/C 217/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Électricité de France (EDF) (represented by: M. Debroux, avocat), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents), Iberdrola SA (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and É. Barbier de La Serre, avocats)

Supported by: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: X. Lewis and B. Alterskjær, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 15 December 2009, by which the General Court (Third Chamber) annulled Articles 3 and 4 of the decision of the Commission of 16 December 2003 on the State aid granted to EDF and the electricity and gas industries (C 68/2002, N 504/2003 and C 25/2003) — Aid granted in the form of a selective tax exemption linked to an increase in share capital during a recapitalisation of the undertaking — Conduct of a State acting as a prudent private investor in a market economy — Criteria to distinguish between the State as shareholder and the State exercising public power — Principle of equal tax treatment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the French Republic and Iberdrola SA to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet

(Case C-209/10) (1)

(Article 82 EC - Postal undertaking with a dominant position subject to a universal service obligation with regard to certain addressed mail - Low prices charged to certain former customers of a competitor - No evidence relating to intention - Price discrimination - Selectively low prices - Actual or likely exclusion of a competitor - Effect on competition and, thereby, on consumers - Objective justification)

2012/C 151/06

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Post Danmark A/S

Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

Intervener: Forbruger-Kontakt a-s

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 82 EC (now Article 102 TFEU) — Abuse of a dominant position — Postal undertaking holding a dominant position and subject to the obligation to distribute addressed letters and parcels, applying selective price reductions for distribution of unaddressed mail at levels lower than its overall average costs, but higher than its incremental average costs — Abuse aimed at eliminating a competitor

Operative part of the judgment

Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a policy by which a dominant undertaking charges low prices to certain major customers of a competitor may not be considered to amount to an exclusionary abuse merely because the price that undertaking charges one of those customers is lower than the average total costs attributed to the activity concerned, but higher than the average incremental costs pertaining to that activity, as estimated in the procedure giving rise to the case in the main proceedings. In order to assess the existence of anti-competitive effects in circumstances such as those of that case, it is necessary to consider whether that pricing policy, without objective justification, produces an actual or likely exclusionary effect, to the detriment of competition and, thereby, of consumers’ interests.

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
2.

Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU are to be interpreted, in the context of cross border company conversions, as meaning that the host Member State is entitled to determine the national law applicable to such operations and thus to apply the provisions of its national law on the conversion of national companies governing the incorporation and functioning of companies, such as the requirements relating to the drawing up of lists of assets and liabilities and property inventories. However, the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, respectively, preclude the host Member State from — refusing, in relation to cross border conversions, to record the company which has applied to convert as the ‘predecessor in law’, if such a record is made of the predecessor company in the commercial register for domestic conversions, and — refusing to take due account, when examining a company’s application for registration, of documents obtained from the authorities of the Member State of origin.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — European Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, Lagardère SCA

(Case C-404/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to merger control proceedings - Regulations (EEC) No 4064/89 and (EC) No 139/2004 - Refusal to grant access - Exceptions relating to the protection of investigations, commercial interests, legal advice and the decision-making process of the institutions - Duty of the institution concerned to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the application for access)

2012/C 258/04

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, O. Beynet and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: J. Gstalter, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: O. Fréget and L. Eskenazi, avocats), Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J.-B. Pinçon, avocats)

Interveners in support of Éditions Odile Jacob SAS: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: S. Juul Jørgensen and C. Vang, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Petkovska, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2010, Éditions Jacob v Commission (T-237/05), annulling the Commission’s decision of 7 April 2005 (D(2005) 3286), to the extent that it refuses the appellant access to the documents concerning the merger control proceedings COMP/M.2978 Lagardère/Natexis/VUP — Documents relating to merger control procedures — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations — Duty of the institution concerned to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the application for access

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside paragraphs 2 to 6 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-237/05 Éditions Jacob v Commission;

2. Dismisses the cross-appeal;

3. Dismisses the action brought before the General Court of the European Union seeking annulment of Commission Decision D(2005) 3286 of 7 April 2005, dismissing the application of Éditions Odile Jacob SAS for access to documents relating to merger control procedure COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP;

4. Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission and Lagardère both at first instance and on appeal;

5. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-301/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Pollution and nuisance - Urban waste water treatment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3, 4 and 10 - Annex I(A) and (B))

2012/C 379/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, A.-A. Gilly and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth, acting as Agent, D. Anderson QC, and S. Ford and B. McGurk, Barristers)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3(1) and (2), 4(1) and (3) and 10 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) and of Annex I(A) and (B) thereto — Failure to have ensured the appropriate treatment of urban waste water from several parts of London (Whitburn, Beckton, Crossness and Mogden)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure: — appropriate collection of the urban waste water of the agglomerations, with a population equivalent of more than 15 000, of Sunderland (Whitburn) and London (Beckton and Crossness collecting systems), in accordance with Article 3(1) and (2) of, and Annex I(A) to, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, and — appropriate treatment of the urban waste water of the agglomeration, with a population equivalent of more than 15 000, of London (Beckton, Crossness and Mogden treatment plants), in accordance with Article 4(1) and (3) and Article 10 of, and Annex I(B) to, Directive 91/271, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-38/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Tax legislation - Transfer of residence for tax purposes - Transfer of assets - Immediate exit tax)

2012/C 355/02

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, G. Braga da Cruz and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and J. Menezes Leitão, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C. Blaschke and K. Petersen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez and A. Rubio González, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. de Ree, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Hathaway and A. Robinson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 TFEU and of Article 31 of the EEA Agreement — Provisions of tax legislation by virtue of which companies ceasing to be resident for tax purposes in Portugal or transferring their assets to another State must immediately pay an exit tax

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Articles 76 A and 76 B of the Corporation Tax Code (Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Colectivas), which are applicable in the case of transfer, by a Portuguese company, of its registered office and its effective management to another Member State or in the case of transfer, by a company not resident in Portugal, of some or all of the assets attached to a Portuguese permanent establishment from Portugal to another Member State, and which prescribe the immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains relating to the assets concerned but not of unrealised capital gains resulting from purely national operations, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-577/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - National legislation which imposes a prior declaration requirement on self-employed service providers established in other Member States - Criminal penalties - Obstacle to freedom to provide services - Objectively justified distinction - Overriding requirements in the public interest - Prevention of fraud - Protection against unfair competition - Protection of self-employed workers - Proportionality)

2013/C 46/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa, C. Vrignon and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by S. Rodrigues, avocat)

Intervener: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, S. Juul Jørgensen and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 56 TFEU — National legislation which imposes a prior notification requirement on independent service providers established in other Member States (the ‘Limosa’ declaration) — Restriction on the freedom to provide services — Discriminatory nature of the restriction — Lack of justification and proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting Articles 137(8), 138, third indent, 153 and 157(3) of the Programme Law (I) of 27 December 2006, in the version in force since 1 April 2007, namely by imposing a prior declaration requirement on self-employed service providers established in Member States other than the Kingdom of Belgium in respect of their activity in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Hildesheim v BLC Baumarkt GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-511/10) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(5), third subparagraph - Right to deduct input tax - Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions - Letting of a building for commercial and residential purposes - Criterion for calculating the deductible proportion of VAT)

2013/C 9/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Hildesheim

Defendant: BLC Baumarkt GmbH & Co. KG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) 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) — Right to deduct input tax — Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions — Letting of a building for commercial and residential purposes — Calculation of the deductible proportion on the basis of the turnover attributed to the commercial tenants — National legislation prescribing that the proportion is to be calculated on the basis of the building’s floor area attributed to those tenants

Operative part of the judgment

The third subparagraph of Article 17(5) 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 allowing Member States, for the purposes of calculating the proportion of input value added tax deductible for a given operation, such as the construction of a mixed-use building, to give precedence, as the key to allocation, to an allocation key other than that based on turnover appearing in Article 19(1) of that directive, on condition that the method used guarantees a more precise determination of the said deductible proportion.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-111/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU - Aid granted by the Republic of Lithuania for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)

2014/C 45/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, B. Stromsky and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: G. Koós, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2009/983/EU of 16 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Lithuania for the purchase of State-owned agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2009 L 338, p. 93) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2013 — Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA v European Commission and Others, European Commission, French Republic v Bouygues SA and Others

(Joined Cases C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - State aid - Financial measures in favour of France Télécom - Shareholder loan proposal - Public declarations by a member of the French Government - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and not ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Concept of economic advantage - Concept of commitment of State resources)

2013/C 156/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

(Case C-399/10 P)

Appellants: Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA (represented by: C. Baldon, J. Blouet-Gaillard, J. Vogel, F. Sureau and D. Theophile, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, D. Grespan and S. Thomas, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues J. Gstalter, Agents), France Télécom SA, (represented: initially by S. Hautbourg, S. Quesson and L. Olza Moreno, avocats, and subsequently by S. Hautbourg and S. Quesson, avocats), Association française des opérateurs de réseaux et services de télécommunications (AFORS Télécom)

Intervener in support of the French Republic: Federal Republic of Germany, (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents, and U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt)

(Case C-401/10 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, D. Grespan and S. Thomas, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, Agents), Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA (represented by: C. Baldon, J. Blouet-Gaillard, J. Vogel, F. Sureau and D. Theophile, avocats), France Télécom SA (represented: initially by S. Hautbourg, S. Quesson and L. Olza Moreno, avocats, and subsequently by S. Hautbourg and S. Quesson, avocats), Association française des opérateurs de réseaux et services de télécommunications (AFORS Télécom)

Intervener in support of the French Repubic: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents, and U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2010 (Joined Cases T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04), by which the General Court annulled Article 1 of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom (OJ 2006 L 257, p. 11) — Declarations made by a government member and shareholder loan categorised as ‘aid’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 May 2010 in Joined Cases T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04 France and Others v Commission;

2. Refers Cases T-425/04, T-444/04 and T-450/04 back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the pleas raised and the claims made before it on which the Court of Justice has not given a ruling;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2012 — Comap SA v European Commission

(Case C-290/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Duration of the infringement - Concept of ‘continuity’)

2012/C 174/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Comap SA (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. de Guigné, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, agent)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-377/06 Comap v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F 1/38.121 — FITTINGS) — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Infringement of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal — Infringement of the principle of strict interpretation of criminal law — Notion of ‘public distancing’ — Distortion of evidence — Failure to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Comap SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.