ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering

(Case C-387/12) (1)

((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - International jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Act committed in one Member State consisting in participation in an act of tort or delict committed in another Member State - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred))

2014/C 159/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hi Hotel HCF SARL

Defendant: Uwe Spoering

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — International jurisdiction in respect of tort, delict or quasi-delict — Act committed in one Member State and consisting in assistance in the commission of an unlawful act in the territory of a second Member State — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, where there are several supposed perpetrators of damage allegedly caused to rights of copyright protected in the Member State of the court seised, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the causal event of the damage, of a court within whose jurisdiction the supposed perpetrator who is being sued did not act, but does allow the jurisdiction of that court to be established on the basis of the place where the alleged damage occurs, provided that the damage may occur within the jurisdiction of the court seised. If that is the case, the court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the territory of the Member State to which it belongs.

(1) OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/4

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Armando Álvarez SA v European Commission

(Case C-36/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags market - Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary - Obligation to state reasons))

2014/C 253/05

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Armando Álvarez SA (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, E. Garayar Gutiérrez and C. Ruixo Claramunt, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-78/06 Álvarez v Commission dismissing an application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on Armando Álvarez

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Armando Álvarez SA to pay the costs of this appeal.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/4

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 — Bolloré v European Commission

(Case C-414/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Cartels - Market in carbonless paper - Attributability of liability to the parent company for the infringement committed by its subsidiary - Direct participation of the parent company in the infringement - Equal treatment - Duration of the administrative procedure and legal proceedings - Reasonable period of time - Rights of the defence))

2014/C 202/04

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bolloré (represented by: P. Gassenbach, C. Lemaire and O. de Juvigny, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 June 2012 in Case T-372/10 Bolloré v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment or amendment of Commission Decision C (2010) 4160 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFUE and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.212 — Carbonless paper) — Decision taken following annulment of a first decision — Attribution of liability for the infringement to the parent company as direct perpetrator — Fine — Lawfulness of infringements and penalties — Equal treatment — Reasonable period of time — Rights of the defence

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Bolloré to pay the costs of the present appeal.

(1) OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.
1)

Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the data relating to an applicant for a residence permit contained in an administrative document, such as the ‘minute’ at issue in the main proceedings, setting out the grounds that the case officer puts forward in support of the draft decision which he is responsible for drawing up in the context of the procedure prior to the adoption of a decision concerning the application for such a permit and, where relevant, the data in the legal analysis contained in that document, are ‘personal data’ within the meaning of that provision, whereas, by contrast, that analysis cannot in itself be so classified.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — FLS Plast A/S v European Commission

(Case C-243/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Unlimited jurisdiction of the General Court - Obligation to state reasons - Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary - Liability of the parent company for payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary - Proportionality - Proceedings before the General Court - Adjudication within a reasonable time))

2014/C 282/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: FLS Plast A/S (represented by: M. Thill-Tayara and Y. Anselin, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and M. Gray, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders FLS Plast A/S to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.
1.

The compatibility with EU law of national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which a company resident in a Member State cannot set off corporation tax paid in another Member State or in a third State by capital companies distributing dividends, because of the exemption of those dividends from tax in the first Member State when they stem from shareholdings representing at least 10 % of the capital of the company making the distribution and, in the case in point, the actual shareholding of the capital company receiving the dividends exceeds 90 % and the recipient company has been incorporated in accordance with the law of a third State, must be assessed in the light of Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU;
1)

declares that, by applying different tax treatment to donations and successions between beneficiaries and donees resident in Spain and those not resident in Spain, between bequeathers resident in Spain and those not resident in Spain, and between donations and similar transfers of immovable property situated within and outside of Spain, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Jørn Hansson

(Case C-546/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community plant variety rights - Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Articles 20 and 76 - Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 - Article 51 - Application to initiate nullity proceedings in respect of Community plant variety rights - Principle of examination by the CPVO of its own motion - Proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO - Substantial evidence))

(2015/C 236/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Ralf Schräder (represented by: T. Leidereiter, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad, acting as Agent, and A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt), Jørn Hansson (represented by: G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Mr Ralf Schräder to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Welmory sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

(Case C-605/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 44 - Concept of ‘fixed establishment’ of the recipient of a supply of services - Place where services are deemed to be supplied to taxable persons - Intra-Community transaction))

(2014/C 462/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Welmory sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

Operative part of the judgment

A first taxable person who has established his business in one Member State, and receives services supplied by a second taxable person established in another Member State, must be regarded as having a ‘fixed establishment’ within the meaning of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, in that other Member State, for the purpose of determining the place of taxation of those services, if that establishment is characterised by a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources to enable it to receive the services supplied to it and use them for its business, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/17

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma (Italy)) — Mediaset SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico

(Case C-69/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Subsidised purchase or renting of digital decoders - Commission decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Recovery - Quantification of the amount to be recovered - Role of the national court - Taking into consideration by the national court of the positions of the Commission in the enforcement of its decision - Principle of cooperation in good faith)

2014/C 93/27

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mediaset SpA

Defendant: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale civile di Roma — Recovery of unlawful State aid — Quantification of the amount to be recovered — Commission decision laying down criteria for determining that amount — Judgment of the Court recognising that the national court has the power to assess whether the criteria laid down by the Commission are appropriate — Extent of the national court’s discretion.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Although, in order to ensure that a European Commission decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of the aid in question, but not identifying the individual recipients of that aid and not determining the precise amounts to be recovered is executed, the national court is bound by that decision, it is not, however, bound by the positions adopted by that institution in the execution of that decision. Nevertheless, under the principle of cooperation in good faith laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, the national court must take the statements of position into account as a factor in the assessment of the dispute before it.

2. The national court, when determining the exact amounts of aid to be recovered and where the European Commission, in its decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market, has not identified the individual recipients of the aid in question or determined the precise amounts to be repaid, may conclude, without calling into question the validity of the European Commission’s decision or the obligation to repay the aid in question, that the amount of aid to be repaid is equal to zero where that follows from the calculations made on the basis of all the relevant information of which it has been made aware.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Emiliano Torralbo Marcos v Korota SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

(Case C-265/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Judicial fees and deposits required for lodging appeals in employment law cases - Failure to implement EU law - Scope of EU law - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

2014/C 151/08

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emiliano Torralbo Marcos

Defendants: Korota SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Terrassa — Interpretation of Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1) and of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (codified version) (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36) — Right to effective judicial protection — National legislation making the bringing of legal proceedings subject to payment of the judicial fees — Powers of the national court hearing the action — Application in the field of social policy — Insolvency of employers.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de la Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain).

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/18

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Saarlouis v Heinz Malburg

(Case C-204/13) (1)

((Taxation - Value added tax - Origin and scope of the right of deduction - Dissolution of a partnership by a partner - Acquisition of a portion of the client base of that partnership - Contribution in kind to another partnership - Payment of input tax - Whether deduction possible))

2014/C 135/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Finanzamt Saarlouis

Defendants: Heinz Malburg

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 4(1) and (2) and 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) — Creation and extent of the right to deduct — Acquisition of a portion of the client base of a dissolved partnership by a partner in that partnership for the purpose of bringing it into a new partnership as a contribution in kind — Whether it is possible to deduct the input tax.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) and (2) and 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 must, having regard to the principle of value added tax neutrality, be interpreted as meaning that a partner in a partnership of tax advisors who acquires from that partnership a portion of its client base for the sole purpose of making that client base available directly and free of charge to a newly founded partnership of tax advisors, in which he is the principal partner, so that that partnership can use that client base in its business, without that client base however becoming part of the capital assets of the newly founded partnership, is not entitled to deduct input value added tax paid on the acquisition of the client base concerned.

(1) OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg –Germany) — Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg, Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH v Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH

(Case C-15/13) (1)

((Public supply contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Award of a contract without initiating a tendering procedure - In-house award - Contractor legally separate from the contracting authority - Condition of ‘similar control’ - Contracting authority and contractor not linked by a relationship of control - Third party public authority exercising partial control over the contracting authority and control over the contractor which could be qualified as ‘similar’ - ‘Horizontal in-house transaction’))

2014/C 202/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg, Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH

Defendant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the term ‘public contract’ in Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC 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 (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Possible inclusion of a contract between a company and a university subject to the control of the same public body, which is the public contracting authority within the meaning of the directive (horizontal in-house transaction) — Extent of the control of that public authority

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a contract for the supply of products concluded between (i) a university which is a contracting authority and whose purchases of products and services are controlled by a German Federal State, and (ii) an undertaking under private law, owned by the Federation and by Federal States, including the abovementioned Federal State, constitutes a public contract for the purposes of that provision, and must therefore be subject to the public procurement rules laid down in that directive.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
1)

Declares that by adopting and implementing legislation which provides that, under the conditions defined by that legislation, the customised production of ethyl alcohol in a distillery shall be subject to a rate of excise duty equal to 0 and that the production of ethyl alcohol by private individuals is exempt from excise duty, Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 19 to 21 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, as amended by the of the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, read in conjunction with Article 22(7) of that directive and with Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (requests for preliminary rulings from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/kantoor Groningen v SCA Group Holding BV (C-39/13), X AG and Others v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam (C-40/13), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Holland-Noord/kantoor Zaandam v MSA International Holdings BV, MSA Nederland BV (C-41/13)

(Joined Cases C-39/13 to C-41/13) (1)

((Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Single tax entity formed by companies in the same group - Request - Grounds for refusal - Seat of one or more intermediate companies, or of the parent company, located in another Member State - No permanent establishment in the State of taxation))

2014/C 282/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/kantoor Groningen (C-39/13), X AG, X1 Holding GmbH, X2 Holding GmbH, X3 Holding GmbH, D1 BV, D2 BV, D3 BV (C-40/13), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Holland-Noord/kantoor Zaandam (C-41/13)

Respondents: SCA Group Holding BV (C-39/13), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam (C-40/13), MSA International Holdings BV, MSA Nederland BV (C-41/13)

Operative part of the judgment

1) In Cases C-39/13 and C-41/13, Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a resident parent company can form a single tax entity with a resident sub-subsidiary where it holds that sub-subsidiary through one or more resident companies, but cannot where it holds that sub-subsidiary through non-resident companies which do not have a permanent establishment in that Member State.

2) In Case C-40/13, Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which treatment as a single tax entity is granted to a resident parent company which holds resident subsidiaries, but is precluded for resident sister companies the common parent company of which neither has its seat in that Member State nor has a permanent establishment there.

(1) OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.
1)

Articles 50 and 203 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that an article left for temporary storage must be deemed to have been removed from customs supervision if it is declared for an external Community transit procedure, but it does not in fact leave the storage facility and is not presented to the customs office at the place of destination, although the transit documents have been presented there.