ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-132/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Jurisdiction of the Court - Statute of the European Schools - Establishment Agreement of 1962 - Conventions of 1957 and 1994 - Arbitration clause - Article 10 EC - Financing of the European Schools - Costs of furniture and teaching equipment)

2010/C 317/15

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have regard to the third paragraph of Article 1 of the Agreement signed on 12 October 1962 between the Board of Governors of the European Schools and the Kingdom of Belgium (‘the Establishment Agreement’) and of Article 10 EC — Refusal by the Belgian authorities to pay the expenses for teaching equipment and materials for the European Schools — Justified on the basis of the internal legal order — Absence of a succession of established acts or declarations of the parties, within the meaning of Article 31(3)(a) and (b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, calling into question the Establishment Agreement

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that the Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to rule on the action of the European Commission, brought on the basis of Article 226 EC, on the ground that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Establishment Agreement concluded on 12 October 1962 between the Board of Governors of the European School and the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 153, 04.07.2009.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-265/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the figurative sign ‘α’ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Mark consisting of a single letter)

(2010/C 288/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wolter, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2009 in Case T-23/07 Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α), by which the Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2006, dismissing the action brought against the decision of the examiner refusing the registration of the figurative sign ‘α’ as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 33 — Distinctive character of a mark consisting of a single letter

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/19

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės (Lithuania)) — Nidera Handelscompagnie BV v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-385/09) (1)

(Directive 2006/112/EC - Right of deduction of input VAT - National legislation excluding the right of deduction in respect of goods sold on before identification of the taxable person for VAT purposes)

2010/C 346/30

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nidera Handelscompagnie BV

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės — Interpretation of Articles 167, 168(1)(a) and 178(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation reserving the right to deduct VAT to taxable persons registered for VAT in that Member State — Right to deduct VAT excluded for goods and services acquired by the taxable person before his registration for VAT in the Member State concerned if those goods and services have already been used for the purposes of the taxable person’s transactions

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a taxable person for VAT purposes who meets the substantive conditions for the right of deduction, in accordance with the provisions of that directive, and who identifies himself as a taxable person for VAT purposes within a reasonable period following the completion of transactions giving rise to that right of deduction, from being denied the possibility of exercising that right by national legislation which prohibits the deduction of VAT paid on the purchase of goods if the taxpayer was not identified as a taxable person for VAT purposes before using those goods in his taxable activity.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
1.

Declares that, by continuing to apply Ministerial Decree No A1/44351/3608 of 12 October 2005, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002, and in particular Article 9(1) and (2) thereof;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Vasil Ivanov Georgiev v Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, filial Plovdiv

(Joined Cases C-250/09 and C-268/09) (1)

(Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - University lecturers - National provision providing for the conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts beyond the age of 65 - Compulsory retirement at the age of 68 - Justification for differences in treatment on grounds of age)

2011/C 13/19

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Plovdiv

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vasil Ivanov Georgiev

Defendant: Tehnicheski universitet — Sofia, filial Plovdiv

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rayonen sad Plovdiv — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National law permitting university professors who have reached the age of 65 to conclude an employment contract only for a fixed duration — National law fixing 68 as the final retirement age for university professors — Justification for differences of treatment on grounds of age

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in particular Article 6(1), must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which university professors are compulsorily retired when they reach the age of 68 and may continue working beyond the age of 65 only by means of fixed-term one-year contracts renewable at most twice, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate aim linked inter alia to employment and labour market policy, such as the delivery of quality teaching and the best possible allocation of posts for professors between the generations, and that it makes it possible to achieve that aim by appropriate and necessary means. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

Since this is a dispute between a public institution and an individual, if national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not satisfy the conditions set out in Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78, the national court must decline to apply that legislation.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.09.2009.
1.

declares that, by permitting the discharge of industrial waste water from the industrial site Estação de Serviço Sobritos Lda, situated in the Matosinhos urban area, without adequate authorisation to that effect, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment;
1.

The tax advantage accruing from an undertaking’s recourse to asset leasing transactions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, instead of the outright purchase of those assets, does not constitute a tax advantage the grant of which would be contrary to the purpose of the relevant provisions 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, and of the national legislation transposing it, provided that the contractual terms of those transactions, particularly those concerned with setting the level of rentals, correspond to arm’s length terms and that the involvement of an intermediate third party company in those transactions is not such as to preclude the application of those provisions, a matter which it is for the national court to determine. The fact that the undertaking does not engage in leasing transactions in the context of its normal commercial operations is irrelevant in that regard.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/14

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-433/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Taxable amount - Tax on the delivery of vehicles not yet registered in the Member State based on their value and their average consumption - ‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’)

2011/C 55/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl and C. Pesendorfer, Agents)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 78 and 79 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Sale of a motor vehicle — Inclusion in the taxable amount of a tax on the delivery of vehicles not yet registered in the Member State concerned on the basis of their value and their average consumption (‘Normverbrauschasbgage’)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by including the standard consumption tax (‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’) in the taxable amount of value added tax levied in Austria on the delivery of a motor vehicle, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

2. Dismisses the action for the remainder.

3. Orders the Commission and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 24 of 30.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Vandoorne NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-489/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 11.C(1) and 27(1) and (5) - Taxable amount - Simplification measures - Manufactured tobacco - Tax labels - Single charge of VAT at source - Intermediate supplier - Total or partial non-payment of the price - Refusal to refund VAT)

2011/C 80/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vandoorne NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Articles 11.C(1) and 27 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) — Simplification measures — National legislation providing for VAT to be charged at source in the case of manufactured tobacco imported, acquired or produced within the country, precluding a reduction in the basis of assessment for taxpayers who have paid tax on those products

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 11.C(1) and 27(1) and (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, as amended by Council Directive 2004/7/EC of 20 January 2004, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, by providing, for the purposes of simplifying the procedure for charging value added tax and of combating tax evasion or avoidance in regard to manufactured tobacco, for the levying of that tax by means of tax labels, in a single charge and at source, from the manufacturer or importer of those products, excludes intermediate suppliers operating at a subsequent stage in the supply chain from the right to obtain reimbursement of value added tax in the event of non-payment by the purchaser of the price for those products.

(1) OJ C 37, 13.02.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Austria) — Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs GmbH v Landeshauptmann von Wien

(Case C-338/09) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - Competition rules - Cabotage transport operations - National transportation of persons by bus service - Application to operate a service - Licence - Authorisation - Conditions - Requirement of a seat or permanent establishment in the national territory - Reduction of income compromising the profitability of a service already licensed)

2011/C 63/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Yellow Cab Verkehrsbetriebs GmbH

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Wien

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Interpretation of Articles 49 et seq. EC and Article 81 et seq. EC — Legislation of a Member State subjecting the grant of a licence to operate a public transport service to the double condition that the applicant for that licence be established in that Member State and that the new service does not undermine the profitability of a similar existing transport service

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as opposing the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of the grant of authorisation to operate a public urban bus service, where fixed stopping points are called at regularly in accordance with a timetable, requires applicant economic operators established in another Member State to hold a seat or another establishment in the territory of the host Member State even before being authorised to operate that service. By contrast, Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for an establishment requirement where such a requirement does not apply until after that authorisation has been granted and before the applicant commences operation of that service.

2. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as opposing national legislation which provides for the refusal of the grant of authorisation to operate a tourist bus service as a result of the reduced profitability of a competing undertaking which has been authorised to operate a service which is partially or entirely identical to the one applied for, on the sole basis of the statements of that competing undertaking.

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Tanja Borger v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

(Case C-516/09) (1)

(Social security for workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Scope ratione personae - Interpretation of the term ‘employed person’ - Benefits for a dependent child - Extension of unpaid leave)

2011/C 139/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Tanja Borger

Defendant: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 1(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) — Childcare allowance — Scope ratione personae — Interpretation of the term ‘employed person’ — Person residing in Switzerland and agreeing with her employer, established in a Member State, a suspension of their employment relationship by reason of the birth of her child (‘Karenz’) for a period exceeding the two-year period provided for by the law of that Member State

Operative part of the judgment

The status of an ‘employed person’, within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be attributed to a person in a situation such as that of the claimant in the main proceedings during the six-month period of extended unpaid leave following the birth of her child, on condition that, during that period, that person is covered, even if only in respect of a single risk, on a compulsory or optional basis, by a general or special social security scheme mentioned in Article 1(a) of that regulation. It is for the national court to determine whether that condition is satisfied in the dispute before it.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
1.

Declares that: — by failing to transpose Article 3 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003; — by failing to ensure that, where Irish planning authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency both have decision-making powers concerning a project, there will be complete fulfilment of the requirements of Articles 2 to 4 of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35; and — by excluding demolition works from the scope of its legislation transposing Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 160/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Ioan Tatu v Statul român prin Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu, Ministerul Mediului

(Case C-402/09) (1)

(Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Pollution tax charged on first registration of motor vehicles - Neutrality of tax between imported second-hand motor vehicles and similar vehicles already on the domestic market)

2011/C 160/05

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ioan Tatu

Defendants: Statul român prin Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu, Ministerul Mediului

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Sibiu — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States — National legislation subjecting first registration of those vehicles to payment of an environment tax, whereas second-hand vehicles already on the national market are exempted from payment of that tax on a subsequent registration — Compatibility of the national legislation with Article 90 EC — Obstacle to the free movement of goods

Operative part of the judgment

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State if that tax is arranged in such a way that it discourages the placing in circulation in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the domestic market.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique

(Case C-119/09) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 24 - Prohibition of total prohibitions on commercial communications by the regulated professions - Profession of qualified accountant - Prohibition on canvassing)

2011/C 152/05

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable

Defendant: Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — Interpretation of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) and, specifically, Article 24 thereof relating to commercial communications by the regulated professions — Commercial practice of canvassing — Proscription, in respect of the regulated professions covered by the directive, of any general prohibition, whatever the form of commercial practice concerned, or the option for the Member States to maintain general prohibitions in respect of certain commercial practices, such as canvassing

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24(1) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which totally prohibits the members of a regulated profession, such as the profession of qualified accountant, from engaging in canvassing.

(1) OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.