ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/25

Appeal brought on 18 May 2010 by Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co., Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2010 in Case T-407/06: Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co., Ltd v Council of the European Union

(Case C-247/10 P)

()

2010/C 209/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co., Ltd (represented by: M. Sánchez Rydelski, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co., Ltd, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Confédération européenne de l'industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas, Calzaturificio Elisabet Srl, Calzaturificio Iacovelli di Iacovelli Giuseppe & C. Snc, Calzaturificio Leopamy Srl, Calzaturificio Lunella Srl, Calzaturificio Mia Shoe Snc di Gattafoni Carlo & C., Calzaturificio Primitempi di Monaldi Geri, Calzaturificio R. G. di Rossi & Galiè Srl, Calz. S. G. di Seghetta Giampiero e Sergio Snc, Carim Srl, Florens Shoes SpA, Gattafoni Shoe Snc di Gattafoni Giampaolo & C., Grif Srl, Missouri Srl, New Swing Srl, Podosan Medical Shoes di Cirilli Michela, Viviane Sas

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 in Case T-407/06

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain leather footwear from China and Vietnam in so far as it concerns the Appellant; and

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the Applicant's costs in this appeal and with regard to the procedure in Case T-407/06 in the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits:

That the General Court erred in law, when it decided that the Commission could lawfully decide pursuant to Article 17(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘Basic Regulation’), not to examine and make a determination on the Appellant's claims for market economy treatment (‘MET’) and individual treatment (‘IT’).

That the General Court erred in law concerning whether the Appellant's rights of defence were breached in connection with the established infringement of Article 20(5) of the Basic Regulation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam

OJ L 275, p. 1

(2) OJ L 56, p. 1
4.

Does Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union permit Romania, under the legislation referred to above, to grant exemption from payment of the pollution tax solely in respect of ‘vehicles in category M1 and pollution class Euro 4, with an engine capacity no greater than 2 000 cubic centimetres, and all vehicles in category N1 and pollution class Euro 4, registered for the first time in Romania or in another Member State of the European Union between 15 December 2008 and 31 December 2009’ and to withhold such exemption from new motor vehicles with different characteristics?
2.

If the first question is answered in the negative: May the first Member State refuse to recognise the aforementioned driving licence — particularly with respect to the right to drive vehicles in category D — in application of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC (2), according to which a Member State is required to refuse to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose driving licence has been withdrawn in the territory of the former Member State, if the right to drive vehicles in category B was granted on 1 March 2006 and the right to right to drive vehicles in category D was granted on 30 April 2007 and the driving licence was issued on the latter date?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/33

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 July 2010 — Nordea Pankki Suomi Oyj

(Case C-350/10)

()

2010/C 246/55

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nordea Pankki Suomi Oyj

Question referred

Must points 3 and 5 of Article 13B(d) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the swift services described in section 1 of this order used in payment transactions and securities transaction settlements between financial institutions are exempt from value added tax?

(1) 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
3.

Since Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC does not distinguish between workers according to whether their absence from work during the reference period is due to a work-related accident, an occupational disease, an accident on the journey to or from work or a non-occupational disease, are workers entitled, under that directive, to paid leave of the same length whatever the reason for their absence on health grounds, or must that directive be interpreted as not precluding the length of paid leave differing according to the reason for the worker’s absence, since national law provides in certain circumstances for the length of paid annual leave to exceed the minimum of four weeks provided for by the directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/24

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal De Première Instance, Liège (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2010 — Hubert Pagnoul v Belgian State — SPF Finances

(Case C-314/10)

()

2010/C 246/42

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal De Première Instance, Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hubert Pagnoul

Defendant: Belgian State — SPF Finances

Question referred

Does Article 6 of Title I, ‘Common Provisions’, of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union, signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously contained in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other hand, preclude a national Law, such as that of 12 July 2009 amending Article 26 of the Special Law of 6 January 1989 on the Cour d’Arbitrage, (1) from requiring prior recourse to the Cour Constitutionnelle by a national court which finds that a taxpaying citizen is deprived of the effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as incorporated in Community law, by another national Law, namely Article 49 of the Programmatic Law of 9 July 2004, without that court being able immediately to ensure the direct applicability of Community law to the dispute before it or being able to scrutinise compliance with that convention when the Cour Constitutionnelle has recognised the compatibility of the national law with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Title II of the Constitution?

(1) Moniteur belge, 31 July 2009, p. 51617.
1.

Regard being had to Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11.A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive, (1) is a taxable person who makes temporary use for private purposes of part of a capital item of his business entitled to deduct the VAT levied on expenditure incurred in respect of permanent alterations carried out exclusively with a view to that use for private purposes?
1.

Are any or all of the following rules of international law capable of being relied upon in this case to challenge the validity of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) as amended by Directive 2008/101/EC (2) so as to include aviation activities within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (together the ‘Amended Directive’): (a) the principle of customary international law that each state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over its air space; (b) the principle of customary international law that no state may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty; (c) the principle of customary international law of freedom to flyover the high seas; (d) the principle of customary international law (the existence of which is not accepted by the Defendant) that aircraft overflying the high seas are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the country in which they are registered, save as expressly provided for by international treaty; (e) the Chicago Convention (in particular Articles 1, 11, 12, 15 and 24); (f) the Open Skies Agreement (in particular Articles 7, 11(2)(c) and 15(3)); (g) the Kyoto Protocol (in particular, Article 2(2))? To the extent that question 1 may be answered in the affirmative:
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (1) or, in any event, by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive;
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Prato (Italy), lodged on 18 August 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Michela Pulignani, Alfonso Picariello, Bianca Cilla, Andrea Moretti, Mauro Bianconi, Patrizio Gori, Emilio Duranti and Concetta Zungri

(Case C-413/10)

()

(2010/C 288/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Prato

Parties to the main proceedings

Michela Pulignani, Alfonso Picariello, Bianca Cilla, Andrea Moretti, Mauro Bianconi, Patrizio Gori, Emilio Duranti and Concetta Zungri

Question referred

Are the Italian rules on the collection of bets contained in Article 4 of Law No 401/89 and Article 88 of Royal Decree No 773/31, as amended by Article 37(4) and (5) of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000, Article 38 of Decree Law No 223/06 and Article 23 of the model agreement published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 30 August 2006, compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?
1.

Is Article 558(1) in conjunction with Article 555(1)(c) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (‘the Customs Code Implementing Provisions’), (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001, to be interpreted as meaning that there is an unauthorised use of a means of transport in internal traffic as soon as the means of transport is loaded and the transport operation begins, in cases where authorisation has been granted for a vehicle for commercial use to be employed in internal traffic between two Member States, the vehicle is loaded in one of the two Member States but the destination (the planned place of unloading) is situated in a Member State other than those two Member States and authorisation has not been granted in respect of that other Member State?
2.

Is it possible to fulfil the basic objective of integrated prevention as defined, in particular, in recitals 8, 9 and 23 in the preamble to and Articles 1 and 15 of Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control and, in general, in the Community framework on the environment, that is, pollution prevention and control involving the public in order to achieve a high level of environmental protection as a whole, by means of a procedure where, on commencement of an integrated prevention procedure, the public concerned is not guaranteed access to all relevant documents (Article 6 in conjunction with Article 15 of Directive 96/61/EC), especially the decision on the location of a structure (landfill site), and where, subsequently, at first instance, the missing document is submitted by the applicant on condition that it is not disclosed to other parties to the proceedings in view of the fact that it constitutes trade secrets: can it reasonably be assumed that the location decision (in particular its statement of reasons) will significantly affect the submission of suggestions, observations or other comments?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bruchsal (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2010 — Criminal proceedings against QB (*1)

(Case C-405/10)

()

(2010/C 288/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bruchsal

Party to the main proceedings

QB (*1)

Question referred

Are the rules in Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of 14 June 2006 (1), in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that it is prohibited to ship to Lebanon waste which falls within waste category B 1120 of Annex IX to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989?

(*1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1) OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1

(2) OJ 2007 L 316, p. 6
—

set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro v European Commission, notified by fax on 1 July 2010 (OJ 2010 C 221, p. 39) and, accordingly: (i) uphold the form of order sought in the application initiating proceedings at first instance for the annulment in its entirety of Commission Decision 2008/711/EC of 11 March 2008 (C(2008) 869 final) 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); or (ii) in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice;
1.

Are Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (1) and Article 8(1) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2) and Article 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (3) to be interpreted as meaning that, where a worker shows that he meets the requirements for a post advertised by an employer, he has a right vis-à-vis that employer, if he does not obtain the post, to information as to whether the employer has engaged another applicant and, if so, as to the criteria on the basis of which that appointment has been made?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg lodged on 28 September 2010 — Martin Wohl and Ildiko Veres v Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg, Other party: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt

(Case C-471/10)

()

2010/C 328/35

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Martin Wohl and Ildiko Veres

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg

Other party: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt

Question referred

Is Annex X of the list referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union (1. Freedom of movement for persons) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the leasing of workers from Hungary to Austria cannot be regarded as a posting of those workers and that national restrictions concerning the employment of Hungarian/Slovakian workers in Austria apply equally, in Austria, in respect of Hungarian/Slovak workers (regularly employed in Hungary) leased by Hungarian undertakings?

(1) OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/24

Action brought on 5 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-480/10)

()

2010/C 328/41

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by in practice limiting the regime for value added tax (VAT) groups to providers of financial services and insurance services, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and

— order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Swedish rules on VAT groups are contrary to Article 11 of the VAT Directive, since the application of the rules is limited to undertakings which are active within the financial sector. In the view of the Commission, national regimes for VAT groups must apply to all undertakings which are established in the Member State applying the arrangements, irrespective of the type of activity carried out by the undertaking.

The common system of VAT is a uniform system. Introduction of a special regime into that system must consequently, in principle, be done in such a way that the regime is generally applicable.

There is nothing in the wording of Article 11 of the VAT Directive to indicate that a Member State can limit the application of a regime for VAT groups to certain undertakings which are active within a certain sector.

The aim of Article 11 of the VAT Directive also tends to suggest that the provision is to be understood as applying to all undertakings in all sectors.

Furthermore, the Swedish rules on VAT groups are incompatible with the European Union law principle of equal treatment.
1.

Are Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of the 2009 Directive (1) to be interpreted as precluding national provisions the effect of which, as a matter of the relevant national law, is to exclude from the benefit of insurance a victim of a road traffic accident, in circumstances where: (a) that accident was caused by an uninsured driver; and (b) that uninsured driver had been given permission to drive the vehicle by the victim; and (c) that victim was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident; and (d) that victim was insured to drive the vehicle in question? In particular: (i) is such a national provision one which ‘excludes from insurance’ within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the 2009 Directive? (ii) in circumstances such as arising in the present case, is permission given by the insurer to the non-insured ‘express or implied authorization’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(a) of the 2009 Directive? (iii) is the answer to this question affected by the fact that, pursuant to Article 10 of the 2009 Directive national bodies charged with providing compensation in the case of damage caused by unidentified or uninsured vehicles may exclude the payment of compensation in respect of persons who voluntarily enter the vehicle which caused the damage or injury when the body can prove that those persons know that the vehicle was uninsured?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/16

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) made on 29 September 2010 — Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt district Council, F P McCann (Developments) Ltd, Younger Homes Ltd, Heron Brothers Ltd, G Small Contracts, Creagh Concrete Products Ltd v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland

(Case C-474/10)

()

2011/C 13/27

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt district Council, F P McCann (Developments) Ltd, Younger Homes Ltd, Heron Brothers Ltd, G Small Contracts, Creagh Concrete Products Ltd

Defendants: Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland

Questions referred

1. On the proper construction of Directive [2001/42] (1) where a State authority which prepares a plan falling within Article 3 is itself the authority charged with overall environmental responsibility in the Member State, is it open to the Member State to refuse to designate under Article 6(3) any authority to be consulted for the purposes of Articles 5 and 6?

2. On the proper construction of the Directive, where the authority preparing a plan falling within Article 3 is itself the authority charged with overall environmental responsibility in the Member State, is the Member State required to ensure that there is a consultation body which will be designated that is separate from that authority?

3. On the proper construction of the directive, may the requirement in Article 6(2) to the effect that the authorities referred to in Article 6(3) and the public referred to in 6(4) be given an early and effective opportunity to express their opinion ‘within appropriate timeframes’, be transposed by rules which provide that the authority responsible for preparing the plan shall authorise the time-limit in each case within which opinions shall be expressed, or must the rules transposing the directive themselves lay down a time-limit, or different time-limits for different circumstances, within which such opinions shall be expressed?

(1) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment

OJ L 197, p. 30
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — E.On Energy Trading SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

(Case C-333/10)

()

2010/C 346/44

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.On Energy Trading SpA

Defendant: Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

Question referred

Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?

(1) OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37