ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

(Case C-262/10) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 204(1)(a) - Inward processing procedure - System of suspension - Incurrence of a customs debt - Non-fulfilment of an obligation to supply the bill of discharge within the prescribed period)

2012/C 355/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and of Article 859(9) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 (OJ 2001 L 141, p. 1) — Failure to fulfil the obligation to supply, within the prescribed time-limit, the bill of discharge in an inward processing procedure — Whether permissible for a customs debt to be incurred in respect of the entire quantity of the goods covered by the inward processing procedure as punishment for that failure

Operative part of the judgment

Article 204(1)(a) 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 the non-fulfilment of the obligation to submit the bill of discharge to the supervising office within 30 days of the expiry of the period for discharging the relevant procedure laid down in the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 521(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007 of 28 February 2007, gives rise to a customs debt in respect of the entire quantity of the imported goods covered by the bill of discharge, including those re-exported outside the territory of the European Union, where the conditions set out in Article 859(9) of Regulation No 2454/93 are not considered to be fulfilled.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
2.

European Union law does not govern the relations between the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and the legal systems of the Member States, nor does it determine the conclusions to be drawn by a national court in the event of conflict between the rights guaranteed by that convention and a rule of national law. European Union law precludes a judicial practice which makes the obligation for a national court to disapply any provision contrary to a fundamental right guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union conditional upon that infringement being clear from the text of the Charter or the case-law relating to it, since it withholds from the national court the power to assess fully, with, as the case may be, the cooperation of the Court of Justice of the European Union, whether that provision is compatible with the Charter.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/3

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

(Case C-118/10) (1)

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

2014/C 45/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2009/991/EC of 16 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2009 L 339, p. 34) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
1.

Declares that, in failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that access to activities relating to the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons is free of all discrimination as between interested entities and that the authorisations to carry out those activities are granted following a procedure in which all interested entities may submit applications in accordance with criteria published in the Official Journal of the European Union prior to the beginning of the period in which applications may be submitted, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 2(2) and 5(1) and (2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Trento — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Hassen El Dridi alias Karim Soufi

(Case C-61/11 PPU) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Articles 15 and 16 - National legislation providing for a prison sentence for illegally staying third-country nationals in the event of refusal to obey an order to leave the territory of a Member State - Compatibility)

2011/C 186/14

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Trento

Party in the main proceedings

Hassen El Dridi alias Karim Soufi

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte di Apello di Trento — Interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Conditions of detention for the purpose of removal — Direct applicability — National legislation providing for a sentence of up to four years’ imprisonment for a third-country national who, after a removal order has been issued, continues to stay illegally in national territory

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, in particular Articles 15 and 16 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a sentence of imprisonment to be imposed on an illegally staying third-country national on the sole ground that he remains, without valid grounds, on the territory of that State, contrary to an order to leave that territory within a given period.

(1) OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.
1.

Declares that, by having failed to draw up, by 22 December 2009, the river basin management plans for both river basins located entirely within its own territory and international river basins, and by having failed to send copies of those plans, by 22 March 2010, to the European Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13(1) to (3) and (6) and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy and, in addition, by having failed to institute, by 22 December 2008, the public information and consultation procedure regarding the draft river basin management plans, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of that directive;
1.

Declares that, by having failed to grant permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, to reconsider and, if necessary, renew existing permits, and to ensure that all existing installations are operated in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Alfred Strigl v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Case C-90/11), Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH v Öko-Invest Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (C-91/11)

(Joined Cases C-90/11 and C-91/11) (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Grounds for refusal or invalidity - Verbal expressions which consist of a word combination and a sequence of letters identical to the initial letters of those words - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Assessment criteria)

2012/C 133/15

Language of the cases: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alfred Strigl (C-90/11), Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH (C-91/11)

Defendants: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Case C-90/11), Öko-Invest Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (C-91/11)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Bundespatentgericht — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) — Distinctive character of a word mark composed of a combination of descriptive words and a sequence of non-descriptive letters that are identical to the initial letters of those words

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable to a word mark which consists of the juxtaposition of a descriptive word combination and a letter sequence which is non-descriptive in itself, if the relevant public perceives that sequence as being an abbreviation of that word combination by reason of the fact that it reproduces the first letter of each word of that combination, and that the mark in question, considered as a whole, can thus be understood as a combination of descriptive indications or abbreviations which is therefore devoid of distinctive character.

(1) OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Germany)) — Georges Erny v Daimler AG — Werk Wörth

(Case C-172/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 7(4) - Principle of non-discrimination - Top-up amount on wages paid to workers placed on a scheme of part-time work prior to retirement - Cross-border workers subject to income tax in the Member State of residence - Notional taking into account of the tax on wages of the Member State of employment)

2012/C 258/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georges Erny

Defendant: Daimler AG — Werk Wörth

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Landau Divisions — Interpretation of Article 45 TFEU and of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1968 (II), p. 475) — Top-up amount on wages paid to workers placed on a scheme of part-time work prior to retirement — Less favourable pay for cross-border workers subject to income tax only in their State of residence as a result of the taking into account, when calculating that top-up amount, of the tax on wages notionally payable in the State of employment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community preclude clauses in collective and individual agreements under which a top-up amount such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is paid by an employer under a scheme of part-time working for older employees in preparation for retirement, must be calculated in such a way that the tax on wages payable in the Member State of employment is notionally deducted when the basis for the calculation of that top-up amount is being established, even though, under a tax convention for the avoidance of double taxation, the pay, salaries and similar remuneration paid to workers who do not reside in the Member State of employment are taxable in their Member State of residence. In accordance with Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1612/68, such clauses are null and void. Article 45 TFEU and the provisions of Regulation No 1612/68 leave the Member States or the social partners free to choose between the different solutions suitable for achieving the objective of those respective provisions.

(1) OJ C 226 30.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Auto 24 SARL v Jaguar Land Rover France SAS

(Case C-158/11) (1)

(Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Motor vehicle sector - Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 - Block exemption - Selective distribution system - Concept of ‘specified criteria’ concerning a quantitative selective distribution system - Refusal to grant authorisation as a distributor of new motor vehicles - Lack of precise, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory quantitative selection criteria)

2012/C 227/07

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Auto 24 SARL

Defendant: Jaguar Land Rover France SAS

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation) — Interpretation of Article 1(1)(f) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ 2002 L 203, p. 30) — Selective distribution system — Refusal to authorise as a distributor of new Land Rover vehicles — Concept of ‘specified criteria’ in the context of a quantitative selective distribution system — Lack of precise, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory quantitative selection criteria

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘specified criteria’, referred to in Article 1(1)(f) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector, means, with respect to a quantitative selective distribution system within the meaning of that regulation, criteria the precise content of which may be verified. In order to benefit from the exemption provided for by that regulation, it is not necessary for such a system to be based on criteria that are objectively justified and applied in a uniform and non-differentiated manner in respect of all applicants for authorisation.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — A Oy

(Case C-33/11) (1)

(Sixth Directive - Exemptions - Article 15(6) - Exemption for the supply of aircraft used by airlines operating for reward chiefly on international routes - Supply of aircraft to an operator who makes them available to such an undertaking - Concept of ‘operating for reward on international routes’ - Charter flights)

2012/C 295/10

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

A Oy

Re:

Reference for preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 15(6) 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) — Exemption for certain transactions relating to aircraft used by airlines operating for reward chiefly on international routes — Whether transactions of companies operating chiefly international charter flights to satisfy the needs of businesses and private individuals — Delivery of aircraft to an operator which does not itself operate for reward chiefly on international routes, but which makes the aircraft available to such an operator.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The wording ‘operating for reward on international routes’ within the meaning of Article 15(6) 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 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 must be interpreted as encompassing also international charter flights to meet demand from undertakings and private persons.

2. Article 15(6) of Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 92/111, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for which it provides also applies to the supply of an aircraft to an operator who is not itself an ‘airline operating for reward chiefly on international routes’ within the meaning of that provision but which acquires that aircraft for the purposes of exclusive use thereof by such an undertaking.

3. The circumstances referred to by the national court, namely the fact that the purchaser of the aircraft passes on the charge corresponding to its use to an individual who is its shareholder and who uses that aircraft essentially for his own business and/or private purposes, with the airline also having the opportunity to use it for other flights, are not such as to affect the answer to the second question.

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — AS Pimix, in liquidation v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Lõuna maksu- ja tollikeskus, Põllumajandusministeerium

(Case C-146/11) (1)

(Accession of new Member States - Setting the charge on surplus stocks of agricultural products - Reference, in a provision of national law, to a provision of a European Union regulation not duly published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of the Member State in question)

2012/C 287/19

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AS Pimix, in liquidation

Defendants: Maksu- ja Tolliameti Lõuna maksu- ja tollikeskus, Põllumajandusministeerium

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Riigikohus — Interpretation of Articles 288(2) TFEU, 297(1) TFEU, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2003 L 293, p. 3) and the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases C-161/06, C-560/07 and C-140/08 — Accession of new Member States — Setting the charge on surplus stocks of agricultural products — Reference, in a provision of national law, to a provision of a European Union regulation not duly published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of the Member State in question on the date prescribed for determination of the surplus stock — Whether regulation implemented within the meaning of the Court’s case-law

Operative part of the judgment

Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be interpreted as precluding, in Estonia, the application to individuals of provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, which, as at 1 May 2004, had neither been published in Estonian in the Official Journal of the European Union nor reproduced in the national law of that Member State, even though those individuals could have learned of those provisions by other means.

(1) OJ C 160, 25.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst v Deutsche Bank AG

(Case C-44/11) (1)

(Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 56(1)(e) - Article 135(1)(f) and (g) - Exemption for transactions relating to the management of securities-based assets (portfolio management))

2012/C 295/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst

Defendant: Deutsche Bank AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 56(1)(e) and Article 135(1)(f) and (g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemption for transactions relating to the management of securities-based assets carried out for private clients

Operative part of the judgment

1. A securities-based assets management service, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely where a taxable person for remuneration and on the basis of his own discretion takes decisions on the purchase and sale of securities and implements those decisions by buying and selling the securities, consists of two elements which are so closely linked that they form, objectively, a single economic supply.

2. Article 135(1)(f) or (g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that securities-based asset management, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is not exempt from value added tax under that provision.

3. Article 56(1)(e) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as covering not only the services referred to in Article 135(1)(a) to (g) of Directive 2006/112, but also securities-based assets management services.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.