ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against Rareș Doralin Nilaș, Sergiu-Dan Dascăl, Gicu Agenor Gânscă, Ana-Maria Oprean, Ionuț Horea Baboș

(Case C-248/11) (1)

(Directive 2004/39/EC - Markets in financial instruments - Article 4(1)(14) - Concept of ‘regulated market’ - Authorisation - Functional requirements - Market whose legal nature is not specified, but which is managed, after a merger, by a legal person also managing a regulated market - Article 47 - Not included on the list of regulated markets - Directive 2003/6/EC - Scope - Market manipulation)

2012/C 133/18

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties in the main proceedings

Rareș Doralin Nilaș, Sergiu-Dan Dascăl, Gicu Agenor Gânscă, Ana-Maria Oprean, Ionuț Horea Baboș

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Cluj — Interpretation of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1), in particular Articles 4(1)(19), 9 to 14 and 47 — Definition of the concept of ‘regulated market’ — Inclusion of the Rasdaq Exchange, secondary market in financial instruments, not approved by the competent authorities but administered by the Bucharest Exchange, approved as a regulated market — Applicable legal rules — Offence of market manipulation.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC, as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that a market in financial instruments which does not satisfy the requirements in Title III of that directive does not fall within the concept of ‘regulated market’, as defined in that provision, notwithstanding the fact that its operator merged with the operator of such a regulated market.

2. Article 47 of Directive 2004/39, as amended by Directive 2007/44, must be interpreted as meaning that the inclusion of a market on the list of regulated markets referred to in that article is not a precondition for the classification of that market as a regulated market within the meaning of that directive.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — XXXLutz Marken GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Natura Selection, SL

(Case C-306/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Figurative mark Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark natura selection - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion)

2012/C 258/10

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (represented by: H. Pannen, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agent), Natura Selection, SL

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-54/09 XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Natura Selection (Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil) dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2008 (Case R 1787/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Natura Selection, SL and XXXLutz Marken GmbH — Likelihood of confusion between the figurative signs ‘natura selection’ and ‘Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil’ — Erroneous assessment of the similarity of those signs — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders XXXLutz Marken GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA), Federaciόn de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federaciόn Estatal de Trabajadores de Comercio, Hostelería, Turismo y Juego de UGT, Federaciόn del Comercio, Hostelería y Turismo de CC.OO.

(Case C-78/11) (1)

(Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Entitlement to paid annual leave - Sick leave - Annual leave coinciding with sick leave - Entitlement to take paid annual leave at another time)

2012/C 250/07

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

Defendants: Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA), Federaciόn de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federaciόn Estatal de Trabajadores de Comercio, Hostelería, Turismo y Juego de UGT, Federaciόn del Comercio, Hostelería y Turismo de CC.OO.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, p. 9) — Leave coincides with periods of temporary incapacity for work during periods of sick leave — National regulations do not allow the interruption of paid annual leave and its subsequent recovery in its entirety or for the remaining period

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national provisions under which a worker who becomes unfit for work during a period of paid annual leave is not entitled subsequently to the paid annual leave which coincided with the period of unfitness for work.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
1.

Declares that, by refusing to approve two requests for marketing authorisation of the medicinal veterinary products CT-Line 15 % Premix and CT-Line 15 % Oral Powder in the context of the decentralised procedure provided for by Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, as amended by Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament of the Council of 31 March 2004, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 32 and 33 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) v European Commission

(Case C-181/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Fines - Equal treatment - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Cooperation - Distortion of evidence - Manifest error of assessment - Failure to state reasons)

2012/C 287/22

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, J. Buendía Sierra and Á. Givaja Sanz, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-33/05 Cetarsa v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) final of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain), and a cross-appeal by the Commission seeking to have the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant increased

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) to pay the costs of the appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/14

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Lyon, France) — Receveur principal des douanes de Roissy Sud, Receveur principal de la recette des douanes de Lyon Aéroport, Direction régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon, Administration des douanes et droits indirects v Société Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials CMP Europe GmbH, Rohm & Haas Europe s.à.r.l., Société Rohm & Haas Europe Trading APS-UK Branch

(Case C-336/11) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Polishing pads intended exclusively for semiconductor wafer-polishing machines - Tariff headings 3919 and 8466 (or 8486) - Definition of ‘parts’ or ‘accessories’)

2012/C 295/23

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Lyon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Receveur principal des douanes de Roissy Sud, Receveur principal de la recette des douanes de Lyon Aéroport, Direction régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon, Administration des douanes et droits indirects

Defendants: Société Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials CMP Europe GmbH, Rohm & Haas Europe s.à.r.l., Société Rohm & Haas Europe Trading APS-UK Branch

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Lyon — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 (OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007 (OJ 2007 L 286, p. 1) — Polishing pads intended exclusively for semiconductor wafer-polishing machines — Tariff headings 3919 and 8466 — Definition of ‘parts’ or ‘interchangeable tools’ — Exemption — Reimbursement of customs duties

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the successive versions of the following regulations, amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87: Commission Regulations (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003; No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004; No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005; and No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that polishing pads intended for a polishing machine for working semiconductor materials — as such coming under tariff heading 8464 (or heading 8486 from 1 January 2007) — imported separately from the machine, in the form of discs perforated in the centre, made up of a hard polyurethane layer, a layer of polyurethane foam, an adhesive layer and a protective plastic film, which do not contain any metal part or any abrasive substance and are used to polish ‘wafers’, in combination with an abrasive liquid, and must be replaced at a frequency determined by their level of wear, come under subheading 3919 90 10, as self-adhesive flat shapes, other than squares or rectangles, made of plastic.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Mecsek-Gabona Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-273/11) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 138(1) - Conditions of exemption for intra-Community transactions characterised by the obligation on the purchaser to ensure, as from the time of their loading, the transport of the goods of which it disposes as owner - Obligation on the vendor to prove that the goods have physically left the territory of the Member State of supply - Removal from the register, with retroactive effect, of the customer’s VAT identification number)

2012/C 355/09

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Baranya Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mecsek-Gabona Kft

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Conditions of exemption for intra-Community transactions characterised by the obligation on the purchaser to ensure, as from the time of their loading, the transport of the goods of which it may dispose as owner — Obligation on the taxable person to prove that the goods have been transported to another Member State and that, as a result of that transport, they have physically left the territory of the Member State of supply

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, is to be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, refusal to grant a vendor the right to the VAT exemption for an intra-Community supply, provided that it has been established, on the basis of objective evidence, that the vendor has failed to fulfil its obligations as regards evidence, or that it knew or should have known that the transaction which it carried out was part of a tax fraud committed by the purchaser, and that it had not taken every reasonable step within its power to prevent its own participation in that fraud.

2. A vendor may not be refused the VAT exemption for an intra-Community supply, in accordance with Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/88, solely on the ground that the tax authority of another Member State has removed the purchaser’s VAT identification number from the register, with retroactive effect from a date prior to the sale of the goods even though the number was removed after the goods had been supplied.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad, Varna, Bulgaria) — TETS Haskovo AD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-234/11) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Right of deduction - Contribution in kind - Destruction of property - New buildings - Adjustment)

2012/C 379/14

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad, Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TETS Haskovo AD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Requirements to adjust input VAT deducted on acquisition of property — National legislation providing for adjustment of input VAT deductions upon destruction of property — Destruction of buildings with sole aim of constructing in their place new buildings fulfilling the same purpose, and used for future supplies giving entitlement to deduction of input VAT

Operative part of the judgment

Article 185(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the destruction, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of several buildings intended for energy production and their replacement by more modern buildings which fulfil the same purpose as the demolished buildings does not constitute a change, after the VAT return was made, in the factors used to determine the amount of VAT to be deducted as input tax, and, therefore, does not lead to an obligation to adjust the deduction made.

(1) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/16

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Atilla Gülbahce v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

(Case C-268/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Article 6(1), first indent - Rights of Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force - Retroactive withdrawal of a residence permit)

2013/C 9/24

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Atilla Gülbahce

Defendant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 10(1) and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the EEC-Turkey Association — Grant to a Turkish worker, spouse of a national of the host Member State, of a residence permit of limited duration and a work permit of unlimited duration — Withdrawal, with retroactive effect on grounds of the separation from his spouse of which the competent authorities were not informed, of decisions extending the duration of the residence permit — Conditions for basing the right of residence on Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80, in the light of the work permit of unlimited duration

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, must be interpreted as precluding the competent national authorities from withdrawing the residence permit of a Turkish worker with retroactive effect from the point in time at which there was no longer compliance with the ground on the basis of which his residence permit had been issued under national law if there is no question of fraudulent conduct on the part of that worker and that withdrawal occurs after the completion of the period of one year of legal employment provided for in the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-387/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Taxation of income from capital and immovable property - Resident and non-resident investment companies - Withholding tax - Setting off of withholding tax - Exemption of income from capital and movable property - Discrimination - Justifications)

2012/C 399/09

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and C. Soulay, Agents)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 49 and 63 TFUE and Articles 31 and 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement — Taxation of income from capital and immovable property — Exemption for investment companies — National legislation providing for a withholding tax on income from capital and immovable property (‘précompte mobilier’) — Discrimination against foreign investment companies which do not have a fixed establishment in the national territory inasmuch as they are not permitted to recover the amount paid by way of withholding tax — Lack of justification

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining different rules for the taxation of income from capital and movable property according to whether it is earned by resident investment companies or non-resident investment companies with no permanent establishment in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU, and Articles 31 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

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

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 305, 15.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — E.ON Energie AG v European Commission

(Case C-89/11 P P) (1)

(Appeals - Action for annulment of a Commission decision relating to a fine for breach of seal - Burden of proof - Distortion of the evidence - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction - Principle of proportionality)

2013/C 26/06

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: E.ON Energie AG (represented by: A. Röhling, F. Dietrich and R. Pfromm, Rechtsanwälte)

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

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — E.ON Energie v Commission (T-141/08) in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 377 final of 30 January 2008 relating to a fine pursuant to Article 23(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 for breach of seal — Breach of general principles of law, such as the presumption of innocence, the principle of ‘in dubio pro reo’ and of proportionality, and the rules relating the burden and taking of evidence — Breach of the obligation to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders E.ON Energie AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.