ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Linz — Austria) — Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

(Case C-492/10) (1)

(Taxation - Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes - Raising of capital - Article 4(2)(b) - Transactions subject to capital duty - Increase in the assets of a company - Contribution made by a member - Absorption of losses by virtue of an undertaking given before the losses were sustained)

2012/C 32/18

Language of the case: German

Referring tribunal

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Linz — Interpretation of Article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) — Transactions subject to capital duty — Increase in the assets of a capital company — Possible inclusion in those assets of an undertaking given by a public body, which is the sole member of that company, to absorb the company’s losses

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that the absorption by a member of a company’s losses pursuant to an undertaking given by the member before the losses were sustained, the sole purpose of which was to cover such losses, does not increase the assets of that company.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Márton Urbán v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága

(Case C-210/10) (1)

(Road transport - Breach of the rules on the use of the tachograph - Obligation on Member States to establish proportionate penalties - Flat-rate fine - Proportionality of the penalty)

2012/C 80/03

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Márton Urbán

Defendant: Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Biróság — Interpretation of Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 1998 L 102, p. 1) and of Articles 13 to 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L370, p. 8) — National legislation imposing a fine of the same amount for all breaches of the rules on the use of the tachograph regardless of the seriousness of the breach in question and without allowing any possible defence — Obligation on Member States to impose proportionate penalties

Operative part of the judgment

1. The requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as precluding a system of penalties, such as that introduced by Government Decree No 57/2007 fixing the amount of fines for breaches of certain provisions concerning the transport by road of goods and persons (a közúti árufuvarozáshoz és személyszállításhoz kapcsolódó egyes rendelkezések megsértése esetén kiszabható bírságok összegéről szóló 57/2007, Korm. Rendelet) of 31 March 2007, which provides for the imposition of a flat-rate fine for all breaches, no matter how serious, of the rules on the use of record sheets laid down in Articles 13 to 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, as amended by Regulation No 561/2006.

2. The requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation No 561/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding a system of penalties, such as that introduced by Government Decree No 57/2007 of 31 March 2007 fixing the amount of fines for breaches of certain provisions concerning the transport by road of goods and persons, which lays down strict liability. By contrast, that requirement must be interpreted as precluding the severity of the penalty provided for by that system.

(1) OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
1.

In circumstances such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, the third indent of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1998 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993, constitutes a legal basis enabling national authorities to recover from the recipient — without there being any need for authority to do so under national law — the whole of a subsidy granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) on the ground that, in its capacity as ‘contracting authority’, within the meaning of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993, the recipient has not complied with the requirements of that directive so far as concerns the award of a public service contract whose purpose was the implementation of the operation for which the recipient was granted the subsidy.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/2

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-141/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 39 EC to 42 EC - Freedom of movement of persons - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Social security of migrant workers - Refusal to pay certain benefits - Workers employed on drilling platforms in the Netherlands - Admissibility of the action)

2012/C 165/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L Inez Fernandes and E. Silveira, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3(1) and 13(2)(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 (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) and of Articles 45 TFEU to 48 TFEU — Refusal to pay certain benefits to workers living in the Member States of the European Union who are employed on drilling platforms in the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
1.

The provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which constitutes Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO) signed at Marrrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) and of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 20 December 1996 are applicable in the legal order of the European Union. As the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, adopted at Rome on 26 October 1961, does not form part of the legal order of the European Union it is not applicable there; however, it has indirect effects within the European Union. Individuals may not rely directly either on that convention or on the agreement or the treaty mentioned above. The concept of ‘communication to the public’ which appears in Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property and Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted in the light of the equivalent concepts contained in the convention, the agreement and the treaty mentioned above and in such a way that it is compatible with those agreements, taking account of the context in which those concepts are found and the purpose of the relevant provisions of the agreements as regards intellectual property.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Hofmann v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-419/10) (1)

(Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Refusal by a Member State to recognise, in favour of a person whose driving licence was withdrawn on its territory, the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State)

2012/C 174/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang Hofmann

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18) — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Refusal by a Member State to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose driving licence is withdrawn in its territory.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 11(4), second subparagraph, of European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/126/EC of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing, outside any period of prohibition on applying for a new driving licence imposed on the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State and when the condition of normal residence in the territory of the latter has been complied with, to recognise the validity of that driving licence, where the said holder has been subject, in the territory of the first Member State, to a measure withdrawing a previous driving licence.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Véleclair SA v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Réforme de l’État

(Case C-414/10) (1)

(VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 17(2)(b) - Taxation of a product imported from a third country - National legislation - Right to deduct VAT on importation - Condition - Actual payment of VAT by the taxable person)

2012/C 151/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Véleclair SA

Defendant: Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Réforme de l’État

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 17(2)(b) 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) — National legislation making the right to deduct value added tax on importation conditional on the actual payment of that tax by the taxable person

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(2)(b) 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 allowing a Member State to make the right to deduct value added tax on importation conditional upon the actual prior payment of that tax by the taxable person where that taxable person is also the holder of the right to deduction.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-562/10) (1)

(Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Article 56 TFEU - German legislation regarding care insurance - Benefits in kind for assistance at home are unavailable where the person reliant on care is temporarily staying in another Member State - Lower level of exportable cash benefits - Failure to reimburse hire costs of care equipment in other Member States)

2012/C 287/08

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F.W. Bulst and I. Rogalski, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 56 TFEU — National legislation regarding care insurance limiting entitlement to a care allowance to six weeks where an insured person stays temporarily in another Member State, excluding reimbursement of hire costs of care equipment and providing that care-related benefits in kind supplied in the Member State of stay are not reimbursed at the same rate as those supplied in Germany

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — BNP Paribas, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) v European Commission

(Case C-452/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - State aid - Scheme for the realignment of the value of assets for tax purposes - Banking sector - Taxation of capital gains - Substitute tax - Selectivity)

2012/C 250/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: BNP Paribas, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) (represented by: R. Silvestri, G. Escalar and M. Todino, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/711/EC of 11 March 2008 on State aid C 15/07 (ex NN 20/07) implemented by Italy on the tax incentives in favour of certain restructured banks (OJ 2008 L 237, p. 70).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission [2010] ECR II-3323 to the extent that it infringed Article 107(1) TFEU;

2. Dismisses the action brought by BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL);

3. Orders BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) and the European Commission to bear their own costs;

4. Orders BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) to pay the costs incurred before the General Court of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — State Secretary van Justitie v Mangat Singh

(Case C-502/10) (1)

(Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Scope - Article 3(2)(e) - Residence based on a formally limited permit)

2012/C 379/06

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Defendant: Mangat Singh

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(e) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44) — Concept of a ‘formally limited residence permit’ — Residence permit not offering any prospect of a residence permit of indefinite duration, but which can be extended indefinitely

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2)(e) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘residence permit [which] has been formally limited’ does not include a fixed-period residence permit, granted to a specific group of persons, the validity of which may be extended indefinitely without however offering any prospect of a residence permit of indefinite duration where such a formal limitation does not prevent the long-term residence of the third country national in the Member State concerned, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Schniga GmbH

(Case C-534/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Article 73(2) - Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO refusing an application for a Community plant variety right - Discretion - Review by the General Court - Article 55(4) read in conjunction with Article 61(1)(b) - Right of the CPVO to make a new request for the submission of plant material)

2013/C 46/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC (represented by: M. Eller, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and M. Lightbourne, acting as Agents), Schniga GmbH, (represented by: G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 in Case T-135/08 Schniga v CPVO — Elaris and Brookfield New Zealand, by which that Court annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 21 November 2007 annulling the decision granting Schniga GmbH a Community plant variety right for the ‘Gala Schnitzer’ apple variety and the decisions dismissing the objections lodged by SNC Elaris and by Brookfield New Zealand

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Brookfield New Zealand Ltd and Elaris SNC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-528/10) (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 2001/14/EC - Articles 6(2) to (5) and 11 - Railway infrastructure capacity and charges levied for the use of railway infrastructure - Regulatory body - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2013/C 9/08

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Chala)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller and by J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 6(2) and (5) and 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures, inter alia so far as concerns the units in which charges are levied for the use of infrastructure in the railways sector, to which Articles 6(2) to (5) and 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, relate, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Czech Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-483/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 2001/14/EC - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Levying of charges - Charges - Management independence)

2013/C 114/05

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta and B. Plaza Cruz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Očková and T. Müller, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and M. Perrot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 10(7) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and of Articles 4(1), 11, 13(2), 14(1) and 30(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29) — Charges — Management independence

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4(1), 11, 13(2) and 14(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

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

3. Orders the Czech Republic and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.