ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/16

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Jiří Sabou v Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu

(Case C-276/12) (1)

(Directive 77/799/EEC - Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation - Exchange of information on request - Tax proceedings - Fundamental rights - Limit on the scope of the obligations of the requesting and the requested Member States towards the taxpayer - No obligation to inform the taxpayer of the request for assistance - No obligation to invite the taxpayer to take part in the examination of witnesses - Taxpayer’s right to challenge the information exchanged - Minimum content of the information exchanged)

2013/C 367/27

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jiří Sabou

Defendant: Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2, 6, 7(1) and 8(1) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15) and Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1) — Fundamental rights of taxpayers in tax proceedings brought against them, such as the right to be informed of a decision of the competent authority of the requesting Member State to make a request for information, to take part in formulating that request, to be informed beforehand of the examination of witnesses in the requested Member State and to take part in the examination, and to challenge the correctness of the information provided by the competent authority of that State

Operative part of the judgment

1. European Union law, as it results in particular from Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums, as amended by Council Directive 2006/98/EC of 20 November 2006, and the fundamental right to be heard, must be interpreted as not conferring on a taxpayer of a Member State either the right to be informed of a request for assistance from that Member State addressed to another Member State, in particular in order to verify the information provided by that taxpayer in his income tax return, or the right to take part in formulating the request addressed to the requested Member State, or the right to take part in examinations of witnesses organised by the requested Member State.

2. Directive 77/799, as amended by Directive 2006/98, does not govern the question of the circumstances in which the taxpayer may challenge the accuracy of the information conveyed by the requested Member State, and it does not impose any particular obligation with regard to the content of the information conveyed.

(1) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.
1.

Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary of the State aid declared to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market under Article 1 of Commission Decision 2010/460/EC of 19 November 2009 concerning State aids Nos C 38/A/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) implemented by Italy for Alcoa Trasformazioni, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision
1.

Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, must be interpreted as meaning that where a measure taken by a host Member State seeks to define the criteria for the lawfulness of the Turkish nationals’ situation, by adopting or amending the substantive and/or procedural conditions relating to entry, residence and, where applicable, employment, of those nationals in its territory, and where those conditions constitute a new restriction of the exercise of the freedom of movement of Turkish workers, within the meaning of the ‘standstill’ clause set out in Article 13, the mere fact that the purpose of the measure is to prevent, before an application for a residence permit is made, unlawful entry and residence, does not preclude the application of that clause.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/13

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-210/12) (1)

(Patent law - Plant protection products - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 - Directive 91/414/EEC - Emergency marketing authorisation under Article 8(4) of that directive)

2013/C 367/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundespatentgericht — Interpretation of Articles 3(1)(b) and 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30) — Conditions under which a supplementary certificate can be obtained — Possibility of having that certificate issued on the basis of a prior marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Article 8(4) of Directive 91/414/EEC — Active substance Clothianidin

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products must be interpreted as precluding the issue of a supplementary protection certificate for a plant protection product in respect of which an emergency marketing authorisation has been issued under Article 8(4) of Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, as amended by Commission Directive 2005/58/EC of 21 September 2005.

2. Articles 3(1)(b) and 7(1) of Regulation No 1610/96 must be interpreted as precluding an application for a supplementary protection certificate being lodged before the date on which the plant protection product has obtained the marketing authorisation referred to in Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran, European Commission

(Case C-348/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Measures directed against the Iranian oil and gas industry - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation to substantiate the measure)

2014/C 39/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran (represented by: F. Esclatine and S. Perrotet, avocats), European Commission (represented by M. Konstantinidis and E. Cujo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft, by which the General Court annulled, in so far as they concern Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran, Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39); Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25); Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81); Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — List of persons, bodies and entities to which the freezing of funds applies — Errors of law — Admissibility — Governmental organisation status of the entity concerned — Ability of such an organisation to rely on the protection of fundamental rights — Burden of proof

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 April 2012 in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council;

2. Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran;

3. Orders Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and to the appeal proceedings;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs both of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Alessandra Venturini v ASL Varese and Others (C-159/12), Maria Rosa Gramegna v ASL Lodi and Others (C-160/12), Anna Muzzio v ASL Pavia and Others (C-161/12)

(Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Public health - National legislation prohibiting para-pharmacies from selling prescription-only medicinal products the cost of which is borne by the patient)

2014/C 45/14

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alessandra Venturini (C-159/12), Maria Rosa Gramegna (C-160/12), Anna Muzzio (C-161/12)

Defendants: ASL Varese, Ministero della Salute, Regione Lombardia, Comune di Saronno, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) (C-159/12), ASL Lodi, Ministero della Salute, Regione Lombardia, Comune di Sant’Angelo Lodigiano, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) (C-160/12), ASL Pavia, Ministero della Salute, Regione Lombardia, Comune di Bereguardo, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)(C-161/12)

Intervener: Federfarma — Federazione Nazionale Unitaria dei Titolari di Farmacia Italiani (C-159/12 to C-161/12),

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Articles 18 and 56 TFEU and of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU — National legislation prohibiting para-pharmacies from selling prescription-only medicinal products the cost of which is borne by the patient.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow a pharmacist, who is qualified and registered with the professional body but does not own a pharmacy in the grid, also to offer for retail sale, in the para-pharmacy owned by that pharmacist, prescription-only medicinal products the cost of which is borne not by the national health service but wholly by the purchaser.

(1) OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/15

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Italy) — Dirextra Alta Formazione srl v Regione Puglia

(Case C-523/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Grants of public money, co-financed by the European Social Fund, for students enrolled in post-graduate specialist programmes of study - Regional legislation designed to enhance the level of education locally and making the award of grants subject to conditions targeting providers of post-graduate programmes of study - Condition requiring 10 years’ continuous experience)

2014/C 45/27

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dirextra Alta Formazione srl

Defendant: Regione Puglia

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Interpretation of Articles 56 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 107 TFEU — Interpretation of Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Articles 11 and 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination — Grants of public money, co-financed by the European Social Fund, for students enrolled in post-graduate Masters degree courses — Regional legislation designed to enhance the level of education locally and making the award of student grants conditional upon the level of professionalism of the Masters degree course providers — Provider which has the requisite experience in terms of the number of hours of training completed, but which has not achieved this in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as the provision at issue in the main proceedings, which requires higher education establishments with which students applying for a regional study grant co-financed by the European Social Fund plan to enrol to demonstrate 10 years’ experience where such establishments are neither universities recognised by that national law nor establishments organising approved Masters degree courses.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/17

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Portugal) — Portgás — Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás SA v Ministério da Agricultura, do Mar, do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território

(Case C-425/12) (1)

(Procedures for awarding public contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Directive 93/38/EEC - Directive not transposed into national law - Whether the State may rely on that directive against a body holding a public service concession in the case where that directive has not been transposed into national law)

2014/C 52/28

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Portgás — Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás SA

Defendant: Ministério da Agricultura, do Mar, do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Portugal — Interpretation of Articles 2(1)(b), 4(1) and 14(1)(c)(i) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84), as amended by Directive 98/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 1) — Direct effect — Whether the State may rely on that directive against a body holding a public service concession in the case where that directive has not been transposed into national law.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4(1), 14(1)(c)(i) and 15 of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 98/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that they cannot be relied on against a private undertaking solely on the ground that, in its capacity as the exclusive holder of a public-interest service concession, that undertaking comes within the group of persons covered by Directive 93/38, in circumstances where that directive has not yet been transposed into the domestic system of the Member State concerned.

Such an undertaking, which has been given responsibility, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing, under the control of the State, a public-interest service and which has, for that purpose, special powers going beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals, is obliged to comply with the provisions of Directive 93/38, as amended by Directive 98/4, and the authorities of a Member State may therefore rely on those provisions against it.

(1) OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2013 — Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Euroalliages

(Case C-10/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia - Partial interim review - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 3(7) - Known factors - Injury to European Union industry - Causal link)

2014/C 52/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG (represented by: A. Willems and S. De Knop, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrish, Rechtsanwalt)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and S. Thomas, acting as Agents), Euroalliages (represented by: J. Bourgeois, Y. van Gerven and N. McNelis, avocats)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2011 in Case T-192/08 Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duties imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO and ENRC Marketing AG to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

4. Orders Euroalliages to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/2

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-67/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/91/EC - Energy performance of buildings - Articles 3, 7 and 8 - Incomplete transposition)

2014/C 85/03

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and I. Galindo Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, all of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with Articles 3, 7 and 8 of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65), read in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Articles 3, 7 and 8 of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

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

(1) OJ C 118, 21.04.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte

(Case C-164/12) (1)

(Taxation - Corporation tax - Transfer of an interest in a partnership to a capital company - Book value - Value as part of a going concern - Agreement on the prevention of double taxation - Immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains - Different treatment - Restriction on free movement of capital - Preserving the balanced allocation of powers to impose taxes between the Member States - Proportionality)

2014/C 93/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU) — Partnerships established in another Member State contributing interests in an undertaking to a national capital company in exchange for shares in that company — Legislation providing that in such a case the capital contributed must be entered in the balance sheet of the capital company at its true value and not its book value, thus bringing forward the date on which the unrealised capital gains will be taxed — Whether it is possible to pay the tax in five annual instalments if a guarantee is provided.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the objective of preserving the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States may justify the legislation of a Member State which requires assets in a limited partnership contributed to the capital of a capital company with its registered office in the territory of that Member State to be assessed at their value as part of a going concern, thus giving rise to the taxation, before they are actually realised, of the capital gains relating to those assets generated in that territory, if it will in fact be impossible for that Member State to exercise its powers of taxation in relation to those gains when they are in fact realised, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

2. The national legislation of a Member State which provides for the immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains generated in its territory does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of the preservation of the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States, provided that, where the taxable person elects for deferred payment, the requirement to provide a bank guarantee is imposed on the basis of the actual risk of non-recovery of the tax.

(1) OJ C 217, 21.7.2012