ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — ProRail NV v Xpedys NV, DB Schenker Rail Nederland NV, Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV, FAG Kugelfischer GmbH,

(Case C-332/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 - Cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters - Direct taking of evidence - Designation of an expert - Task carried out partly in the Member State of the referring court and partly in another Member State)

2013/C 114/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ProRail NV

Defendants: Xpedys NV, DB Schenker Rail Nederland NV, Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV, FAG Kugelfischer GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1) and of Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Brussels I’) (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) — Direct taking of evidence by the requesting court — Designation of an expert and the assignment to that expert, by the courts of a Member State, of a task which must be carried out partly in the Member State of the courts in question and partly in another Member State — Whether or not the application of the mechanism provided for in Article 17 of Regulation No 1206/2001 is obligatory

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(1)(b) and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the court of one Member State, which wishes the task of taking of evidence entrusted to an expert to be carried out in another Member State, is not necessarily required to use the method of taking evidence laid down by those provisions to be able to order the taking of that evidence.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
1.

Articles 3 to 5 of Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC, as amended by Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in accordance with the objective of promoting the use of biofuels in transport, set for each Member State by Directives 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, and 2009/30, requires petroleum companies placing petrol and/or diesel fuels on the market also to place on the market, in the same calendar year, a quantity of biofuels by blending them with those products, where this quantity is calculated as a percentage of the total amount of those products which they market annually, and where those percentages comply with the maximum limits set by Directive 98/70, as amended by Directive 2009/30.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV

(Case C-202/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium - Obligation to draft employment contracts in Dutch - Cross-border employment contract - Restriction - Disproportionate)

2013/C 164/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anton Las

Defendant: PSA Antwerp NV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Art. 39 EC (now Art. 45 TFEU) — Belgian regional legislation imposing an obligation on an undertaking established in the Dutch language region to draft, on pain of nullity, all documents relating to an employment relationship with an international character in Dutch

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a federated entity of a Member State, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which requires all employers whose established place of business is located in that entity’s territory to draft cross-border employment contracts exclusively in the official language of that federated entity, failing which the contracts are to be declared null and void by the national courts of their own motion.

(1) OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/3

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-108/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - VAT - Reduced rate - Supply of greyhounds and horses not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption, hire of horses and insemination services - Directive 2006/112/EC - Infringement of Articles 96, 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, and 110)

2013/C 141/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and C. Soulay, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, D. O’Hagan, M. Collins and N. Travers, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.S. Pilczer, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 96, 98 (in conjunction with Annex III) and Article 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation applying a reduced VAT rate to supplies of greyhounds and horses not normally intended for the preparation of foodstuffs, to the hire of horses and to certain insemination services

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, in applying a reduced rate of value added tax of 4.8% to supplies of greyhounds and horses not intended for the preparation of foodstuffs, to the hire of horses and certain insemination services, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96, 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, and 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
2.

Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 93/13 in conjunction with Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether a standard contractual term by which a supply undertaking reserves the right to vary the charge for the supply of gas complies with the requirements of good faith, balance and transparency laid down by those directives, it is of fundamental importance: — whether the contract sets out in transparent fashion the reason for and method of the variation of those charges, so that the consumer can foresee, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the alterations that may be made to those charges. The lack of information on the point before the contract is concluded cannot, in principle, be compensated for by the mere fact that consumers will, during the performance of the contract, be informed in good time of a variation of the charges and of their right to terminate the contract if they do not wish to accept the variation; and — whether the right of termination conferred on the consumer can actually be exercised in the specific circumstances. It is for the national court to carry out that assessment with regard to all the circumstances of the particular case, including all the general terms and conditions of the consumer contracts of which the term at issue forms part.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Katja Ettwein v Finanzamt Konstanz

(Case C-425/11) (1)

(Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Equal treatment - Self-employed frontier workers - Nationals of a Member State of the Union - Business income received in that Member State - Transfer of residence to Switzerland - Refusal of a tax advantage in that Member State because of the transfer of residence)

2013/C 114/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Katja Ettwein

Defendant: Finanzamt Konstanz

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of the Agreement of 21 June 1999 between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, approved in the name of the Community, by decision of the Council and the Commission of 4 April 2002 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6), in particular Articles 1, 2, 11, 16 and 21 and Articles 9, 13 and 15 of Annex I — Direct taxation of frontier workers — Legislation of a Member State allowing joint taxation of spouses (‘Ehegattensplitting’) if they live in a Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area but not if they live in the Swiss Confederation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(a) of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, and Articles 9(2), 13(1) and 15(2) of Annex I to that Agreement must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which refuses the benefit of joint taxation with the use of the ‘splitting’ method, provided for by that legislation, to spouses who are nationals of that State and subject to income tax in that State on their entire taxable income, on the sole ground that their residence is situated in the territory of the Swiss Confederation.

(1) OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-109/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation authorising persons not subject to taxation to be part of a VAT group)

2013/C 171/08

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, D. Triantafyllou, K. Walkerová and P. Němečková, Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Vang, then by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, assisted by G. Clohessy, SC, and by N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent, assisted by M. Hall, QC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation authorising persons not subject to taxation to be part of a VAT group

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/19

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Scandic Distilleries SA v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-663/11) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/12/EEC - Excise duties - Products released for consumption in a Member State where the excise duty was paid - Same products transported to another Member State where the excise duty has also been paid - Request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the first Member State - Refusal for not introducing the request before the goods were dispatched - Compatibility with European Union law)

2013/C 225/32

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Scandic Distilleries SA

Defendant: Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Oradea — Interpretation of Articles 7 and 22(2)(a) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Refusal of the national authorities to reimburse excise duty levied on products released for consumption in another Member State — Non-compliance by the consignor with its obligation to submit the request for reimbursement to the competent authorities of its Member State before the goods are dispatched — National legislation requiring the production of a series of documents which can be supplied only after the goods have been delivered — Correctness criteria which are more restrictive than the general five-year period applicable for any request for reimbursement — Forfeiture of the trader’s right to obtain reimbursement — Whether compliant with the principles of fiscal neutrality, equivalence and effectiveness

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(1) to (3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that, when products, which are subject to excise duty that has been paid and which have been released for consumption in one Member State, are transported to another Member State where those products are subject to excise duty, which has also been paid, a request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the Member State of departure may not be refused on the sole ground that that request was not made before those goods were dispatched, but must be assessed on the basis of Article 22(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC. By contrast, if the excise duty has not been paid in the Member State of destination such a request may be refused on the basis of Article 22(1) and (2) of the directive.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-241/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/41/EC - Activity and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision - Partial failure to transpose within the prescribed period - Judgment of the Court establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations - Failure to comply with the judgment - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Lump sum)

2013/C 225/08

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, N. Yerrell and K.P. Wojcik, Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Očková, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 January 2010 in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (OJ 2003 L 235, p. 10) — Imposition of a lump sum payment and a penalty payment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice sent to the Czech Republic by the European Commission pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 January 2010 in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

2. Orders the Czech Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 250 000;

3. Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Team Relocations NV, Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd, Team Relocations Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-444/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - International removal services market in Belgium - Direct and indirect price-fixing, market-sharing and manipulation of the procedures for the submission of tenders - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Value of sales - Concept - Proportion - Additional amount - Mitigating circumstances - Obligation to state reasons - Imputability to the parent company of the infringement - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Proportionality)

2013/C 252/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Team Relocations NV (represented by: H. Gilliams, J. Bocken and L. Gyselen, avocaten), Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd, Team Relocations Ltd

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and N. von Lingen and by A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPEAL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 in Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08 Team Relocations NV and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), concerning a cartel on the Belgium international removal services market involving direct and indirect price-fixing, market-sharing and manipulation of the procedures for the submission of tenders, and the annulment of the fine imposed on the applicant or, in the alternative, reduction of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Team Relocations NV, Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd and Team Relocations Ltd jointly and severally to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino — Italy) — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno srl (SIMSA)

(Case C-492/11) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Mediation in civil and commercial matters - Directive 2008/52/EC - National legislation providing for a compulsory mediation procedure - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 225/16

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ciro Di Donna

Defendant: Società imballaggi metallici Salerno srl (SIMSA)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2008 L 136, p. 3) — National legislation imposing a compulsory attempt at conciliation before judicial proceedings can be brought, such as can affect the initiation, duration and the outcome of proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

There is no need to answer the question referred by the Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino (Italy) by decision of 21 September 2011 for a preliminary ruling in Case C-492/11.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Le Crédit Lyonnais v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Réforme de l’État

(Case C-388/11) (1)

(Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Articles 17 and 19 - Deduction of input tax paid - Use of goods and services for both taxable and exempt transactions - Proportional deduction - Calculation of the proportion - Branches established in other Member States and in third States - Not taking their turnover into account)

2013/C 325/03

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Le Crédit Lyonnais

Defendant: Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Réforme de l’État

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(1) to (5), Article 17(2), (3)(a) and (c), and (5), and Article 19 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) — Deduction of input tax — Goods and services used both for deductible and non-deductible transactions — Calculation of the deductible proportion — Obligation of the principal establishment of a company established in a Member State to take account of income of branches established in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19(1) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that, in determining the deductible proportion of VAT applicable to it, a company, the principal establishment of which is situated in a Member State, may not take into account the turnover of its branches established in other Member States.

2. Article 17(3)(a) and (c) and Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that, in determining the deductible proportion of VAT applicable to it, a company, the principal establishment of which is situated in a Member State, may not take into account the turnover of its branches established in third States.

3. The third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to adopt a rule for the calculation of the deductible proportion per sector of business of a company subject to tax which authorises that company to take into account the turnover of a branch established in another Member State or in a third State.

(1) OJ 2011 C 298, 8.10.2011.