ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/6

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — G. Brouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

(Case C-355/11) (1)

(Directive 91/629/EEC - Minimum standards for the protection of calves - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy - National legislation transposing Directive 91/629/EEC and declaring the management requirements provided for by that directive to be applicable to, inter alia, calves which are kept confined in the context of a dairy farming operation)

2012/C 227/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: G. Brouwer

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 28) and of Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) — National legislation transposing the Directive by stating that the management requirements apply not only to calves confined for rearing and fattening, but also to calves confined for dairy farming

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 of 14 April 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement, referred to in Article 4 of that directive, according to which the conditions relating to the rearing of calves must comply with the general provisions set out in the annex to that directive, including point 8 of that annex, which prohibits, subject to exceptions, the tethering of calves, applied to calves kept confined by a farmer in the context of a dairy farming operation for agricultural purposes.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.09.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-366/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - European Union action in the field of water policy - River basin management plans - Publication and notification to the Commission - Lack - Public information and consultation concerning the draft management plans - Lack)

2012/C 200/08

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Hadjiyiannis and A. Marghelis, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne and J.-C. Halleux, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed periods, the provisions necessary to comply with 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 (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — Failure to prepare river basin management plans within the meaning of Article 13(2), (3) and (6) and Article 15(1) of the Directive — Public information and consultation procedure concerning the drafts of those plans — Lack

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not having prepared, within the prescribed period, all the river basin management plans, both for river basin districts lying entirely within its territory and for international river basin districts, and by not having communicated to the European Commission a copy of those plans, within the prescribed period, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2), (3) and (6) and Article 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, furthermore, that by not having commenced, within the prescribed period, all the public information and consultation procedures concerning the draft river basin management plans, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — EMS-Bulgaria Transport OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Plovdiv

(Case C-284/11) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct - Limitation period for the exercise of the right to deduct VAT - Principle of effectiveness - Refusal of the right to deduct VAT - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

2012/C 287/24

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EMS-Bulgaria Transport OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Plovdiv

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Varhoven administrativen sad — Interpretation of Articles 179, 180 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) and of the principle of effectiveness pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07 Ecotrade and Others — Right to deduct input VAT — National legislation making the exercise of the right to deduct input VAT subject to a limitation period of three tax periods following that in which the right to deduct arose — Refusal of the right to deduct VAT on account of failure to comply with the obligation of voluntary VAT registration as an intra-Community purchaser and of failure to exercise the right to deduct within the time-limit

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first paragraph of Article 179, Article 180 and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a limitation period for the exercise of the right to deduct, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to the extent that it does not render the exercise of that right excessively difficult or impossible in practice. It is for the national court to carry out such an assessment and it may take into account, inter alia, a subsequent considerable extension of the limitation period and the duration of a value added tax registration procedure which had to be completed within that same period for it to be possible to exercise that right to deduct.

2. The principle of fiscal neutrality precludes a penalty consisting in a refusal of the right to deduct if VAT is accounted for belatedly, but does not preclude the payment of default interest, provided that that penalty complies with the principle of proportionality, which it is for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala

(Case C-84/11) (1)

(Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Pharmacies - National licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies - Establishment of branch pharmacies - Conditions which differ according to whether the pharmacy is a private pharmacy or a University of Helsinki pharmacy - University of Helsinki Pharmacy having specific tasks in connection with pharmacy teaching and pharmaceutical services)

2012/C 250/09

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties in the main proceedings

Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala

Intervening party Helsingin yliopiston apteekki

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 49 and 106(2) TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies — National law providing for a licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies with conditions which are more favourable for University pharmacies than for private pharmacies — University Pharmacy having specific responsibilities relating to pharmacy teaching and to the supply of medicines

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a licensing scheme for the operation of branch pharmacies specific to the Helsingin yliopiston apteekki which is more favourable than that applicable to private pharmacies, provided that — which is for the referring court to verify — the branches of the Helsingin yliopiston apteekki actually participate in the accomplishment of the specific tasks relating to the teaching of pharmacy students, research on pharmaceutical services and the manufacture of rare pharmaceutical preparations conferred on the latter by national law

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/14

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG, Sanha Kaimer GmbH & Co. KG, Sanha Italia Srl v European Commission

(Case C-264/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartel - Penalty - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Probative value of statements made in the context of the leniency policy)

2012/C 295/22

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG, Sanha Kaimer GmbH & Co. KG, Sanha Italia Srl (represented by: J. Brück, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-379/06 Kaimer and Others v Commission by which the General Court dismissed in part the appellants’ action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning a cartel in the copper and copper alloy fittings sector or, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the appellants — Distortion of the evidence — Error of assessment regarding the probative value of statements made in the context of the leniency policy — Infringement of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG, Sanha Kaimer GmbH & Co. KG and Sanha Italia Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/15

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Smart Technologies ULC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-311/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) - Word mark WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Distinctive character - Refusal to register)

2012/C 287/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Smart Technologies ULC (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, and T. Elias, barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011Smart Technologies v OHMI (Case T-523/09) by which that court dismissed an application for annulment of the decision R 554/2009-2 of the second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 September 2009, rejecting the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register the word mark ‘WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH’ in respect of goods in Class 9.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Smart Technologies ULC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul — Portugal) — Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-496/11) (1)

(VAT - Sixth Directive - Articles 17(2) and 19 - Deductions - VAT due or paid for services acquired by a holding company - Services having a direct, immediate and unequivocal relationship with taxable output transactions)

(2012/C 331/18)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Portugal Telecom SGPS SA

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Intervening party: Ministério Público

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul — Interpretation of Article 17(2) of the 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) — Deductions — Tax incurred or paid for services acquired by a holding — Services with a direct, immediate and unequivocal relationship with taxable transactions downstream

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(2) and (5) 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 meaning that a holding company such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, in addition to its main activity of managing shares in companies in which it holds all or part of the share capital, acquires goods and services which it subsequently invoices to those companies is authorised to deduct the amount of input VAT provided that the input services acquired have a direct and immediate link with the output economic transactions giving rise to a right to deduct. Where those goods and services are used by the holding company in order to perform both economic transactions giving rise to a right to deduct and economic transactions which do not, the deduction is allowed only in respect of the part of the VAT which is proportional to the amount relating to the former transactions and the national tax authorities are authorised to provide for one of the methods for determining the right to deduct in Article 17(5). Where those goods and services are used both for economic and non-economic activities, Article 17(5) of the Sixth Directive is not applicable and the methods of deduction and apportionment are to be defined by the Member States which, in exercising that power, must take account of the purpose and general scheme of the Sixth Directive and, on that basis, lay down a method of calculation which objectively reflects the input expenditure actually attributed to each of those two activities.

(1) OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel d’Amiens — France) — European arrest warrant issued against João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge

(Case C-42/11) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Article 4(6) - Ground for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant - Implementation in national law - Arrested person is a national of the issuing Member State - European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence - Legislation of a Member State restricting the power not to execute the European arrest warrant to cases where the requested persons are nationals of that State)

(2012/C 331/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel d’Amiens

Parties to the main proceedings

João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel d’Amiens — Interpretation of Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) and Article 18 TFEU — European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence — Legislation of a Member State restricting the option of non-execution of a European arrest warrant to cases in which the persons sought are nationals of that Member State — Discrimination based on nationality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States and Article 18 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, although a Member State may, in transposing Article 4(6), decide to limit the situations in which an executing judicial authority may refuse to surrender a person who falls within the scope of that provision, it cannot automatically and absolutely exclude from its scope the nationals of other Member States staying or resident in its territory irrespective of their connections with it.

The national court is required, taking into consideration the whole body of domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, to interpret that law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of Framework Decision 2002/584, with a view to ensuring that that framework decision is fully effective and to achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it.

(1) OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2, A Coruña — Spain) — Germán Rodríguez Cachafeiro, María de los Reyes Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamor v Iberia, Líneas Aéreas de España SA

(Case C-321/11) (1)

(Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation for passengers in the event of denied boarding - Concept of ‘denied boarding’ - Cancellation of a passenger’s boarding card by an air carrier because of the anticipated delay to an earlier flight also operated by it which included check-in for the flight concerned)

2012/C 366/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2, A Coruña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Germán Rodríguez Cachafeiro, María de los Reyes Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamor

Defendant: Iberia, Líneas Aéreas de España SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 de A Coruña — Interpretation of Articles 2(j), 3(2), 4(3), 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Concept of ‘denied boarding’ — Denial of boarding on a connecting flight because of delay to the first flight attributable to the airline — Allocation of seats on the connecting flight to other passengers because it was envisaged that it would be impossible for the passengers in question to arrive in time to catch their connecting flight, which was not the case

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(j) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in conjunction with Article 3(2) of Regulation No 261/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘denied boarding’ includes a situation where, in the context of a single contract of carriage involving a number of reservations on immediately connecting flights and a single check-in, an air carrier denies boarding to some passengers on the ground that the first flight included in their reservation has been subject to a delay attributable to that carrier and the latter mistakenly expected those passengers not to arrive in time to board the second flight.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Chemische Fabrik Kreussler & Co. GmbH v Sunstar Deutschland GmbH, formerly John O. Butler GmbH

(Case C-308/11) (1)

(Directive 2001/83/EC - Medicinal products for human use - Article 1(2)(b) - Meaning of ‘medicinal product by function’ - Definition of the term ‘pharmacological action’)

(2012/C 331/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Chemische Fabrik Kreussler & Co. GmbH

Defendant: Sunstar Deutschland GmbH, formerly John O. Butler GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34) — Classification of a product as a medicinal product — Mouthwash containing 0,12 % chlorhexidine — Definition of ‘pharmacological action’

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of defining the term ‘pharmacological action’ within the meaning of that provision, account may be taken of the definition of that term in the Guidance Document on the demarcation between the Cosmetic Products Directive 76/768 and the Medicinal Products Directive 2001/83 as agreed between the Commission services and the competent authorities of the Member States.

2. Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, for a substance to be regarded as exerting a ‘pharmacological action’ within the meaning of that provision, it is not necessary for there to be an interaction between the molecules of which it consists and a cellular constituent of the user’s body, as an interaction between that substance and any cellular constituent present within the user’s body may be sufficient.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.