ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-412/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(3) and Annex II - Directive 2001/14/EC - Article 14(2) - Independence of the body to which the exercise of essential functions is entrusted)

2013/C 252/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25), as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1), and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29) — Failure to ensure the independence of essential functions

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/18

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-648/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Determining the Member State responsible - Unaccompanied minor - Successive applications for asylum lodged in two Member States - Absence of a member of the family of the minor in the territory of a Member State - Second paragraph of Article 6 of Regulation No 343/2003 - Transfer of the minor to the Member State in which he lodged his first application - Compatibility - Child’s best interests - Article 24(2) of the Charter)

2013/C 225/29

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen, on the application of: MA, BT, DA

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervener: The AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe) (UK)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining asylum applications lodged by unaccompanied minors who are third-country nationals

Operative part of the judgment

The second paragraph of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where an unaccompanied minor with no member of his family legally present in the territory of a Member State has lodged asylum applications in more than one Member State, the Member State in which that minor is present after having lodged an asylum application there is to be designated the ‘Member State responsible’.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
2.

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State which, in breach of European Union law, has excluded a category of operators from the award of licences to engage in a particular economic activity and which seeks to remedy that breach by putting out to tender a significant number of new licences, from protecting the market positions acquired by the existing operators, by providing inter alia that a minimum distance must be observed between the establishments of new licence holders and those of existing operators. It follows from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principle of equal treatment, the obligation of transparency and the principle of legal certainty that the conditions and detailed rules of a tendering procedure such as that at issue in the cases before the referring court and, in particular, the provisions concerning the withdrawal of licences granted under that tendering procedure, such as those laid down in Article 23(3) of the model contract, must be drawn up in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner, a matter which it is for the referring court to verify. National legislation which in fact precludes all cross-border activity in the betting and gaming sector, irrespective of the form in which that activity is undertaken and, in particular, in cases where there is the possibility of direct contact between consumer and operator and where physical checks for police purposes can be made of an undertaking’s intermediaries who are present on national territory, is contrary to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC. It is for the referring court to verify whether that is the case as regards Article 23(3) of the model contract.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-201/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Television broadcasting - Directive 89/552/EEC - Article 3a - Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance for the society of that Member State - European Football Championship - Decision declaring the measures compatible with European Union law - Statement of reasons - Articles 49 EC and 86 EC - Right to property)

2013/C 260/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) (represented by: D. Anderson QC, and D. Piccinin, Barrister, instructed by B. Keane and T. McQuail, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti, N. Yerrell and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and M. Gray, Barrister), Kingdom of Belgium, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (represented by: L. Seeboruth and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, and T. de la Mare, Barrister)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 February 2011 in Case T-55/08 UEFA v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 declaring compatible with Community law measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/18

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Alliance One International, Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-668/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Whether unlawful conduct of a subsidiary attributable to its parent company - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Cooperation - Obligation to state reasons - Mitigating circumstances)

2013/C 344/29

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Alliance One International, Inc. (represented by: M. Odriozola and A. Vide, Abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, and J. Bourke, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-38/05 Agroexpansion v Commission, by which the General Court rejected, in part, an application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B2 — Raw tobacco — Spain)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Alliance One International, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo v Comune di Campobello di Mazara

(Case C-539/11) (1)

(Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Opticians - Regional legislation making the establishment of new opticians’ shops subject to authorisation - Demographic and geographical limitations - Justification - Appropriateness for attaining the objective pursued - Coherency - Proportionality)

2013/C 344/20

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo

Defendant: Comune di Campobello di Mazara

Intervener: Fotottica Media Visione di Luppino Natale Fabrizio e. C. s.n.c.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Interpretation of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and of Articles 2(2)(f), 4(8) and 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) — Regional legislation under which authorisation to establish new opticians’ practices is made conditional upon there being only one such practice for every 8 000 inhabitants and a minimum distance of 300 metres between one practice and the next — Restriction on the freedom to provide services — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Protection of health — Proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding regional legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes restrictions on the grant of authorisation for the establishment of a new optician’s shop, by providing that:

— in each geographical area, only one optician’s shop may be established, in principle, for every 8 000 residents, and

— each new optician’s shop must, in principle, be a minimum distance of 300 metres from an existing optician’s shop,

provided that the competent authorities use appropriately, in accordance with transparent and objective criteria, the powers made available under the legislation concerned, with a view to attaining, in a coherent and systematic manner, the objectives pursued by that legislation relating to the protection of public health throughout the given territory, which is a matter for the national court to assess.

(1) OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd, European Commission

(Case C-638/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 3(7) - Concept of ‘other factors’)

2014/C 9/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat), European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agent, and E. McGovern, Barrister)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2011 in Case T-199/04 Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council which annulled, in so far as it concerned Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd, Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (OJ 2004 L 66, p. 1) — Infringement of Article 3(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) — Determination of injury — Establishment of a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury caused — Factors to be taken into consideration

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 September 2011 in Case T-199/04 Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council;

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-189/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’ - Exclusion from the special scheme of certain sales to the public - Mention in the invoice of an amount of deductible VAT not related to the input tax due or paid - Overall determination of the taxable amount for a given period - Not compatible)

2013/C 344/03

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and C. Soulay, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Kraińska, A. Kramarczyk, M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and M. Pere, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 73, 168, 169, 226 and 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Special scheme for travel agents

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that — by excluding from the special scheme for travel agents sales to the public, by retail agents acting in their own name, of travel services organised by wholesale agents; — by authorising travel agents, in certain circumstances, to charge in the invoice an overall amount of value added tax that is not related to the value added tax actually charged to the customer, and by authorising the customer, where he is a taxable person, to deduct this overall amount from the value added tax payable; and — by authorising travel agencies, in so far as they benefit from the special scheme, to make an overall determination of the taxable amount for each tax period, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 168, 226 and 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear one quarter of its costs;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs of the European Commission;

5. Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.
1.

Declares that, in failing to transpose Articles 3(3), 7, 8(2) and (3), 9(2)(a), 18(1), second subparagraph, and 18(3) and (4), of Directive 2009/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/19

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — v Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky v Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s.

(Case C-68/12) (1)

(Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Agreement concluded between a number of banks - Competitor allegedly operating unlawfully on the market concerned - Effect - None)

2013/C 114/27

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky

Respondent: Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Interpretation of Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU — Cartel — Agreement concluded between several banks with a view to cancelling agreements, and refraining from concluding new agreements, concerning current accounts with a competing undertaking established in another Member State — Effect on the classification as an unlawful agreement of the fact, not raised at the time when the agreement was entered into, that the competing undertaking was operating unlawfully on the market in question

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an undertaking that is adversely affected by an agreement whose object is the restriction of competition was allegedly operating illegally on the relevant market at the time when the agreement was concluded is of no relevance to the question whether the agreement constitutes an infringement of that provision.

2. Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to find that an agreement is restrictive of competition, it is not necessary to demonstrate personal conduct on the part of a representative authorised under the undertaking’s constitution or the personal assent, in the form of a mandate, of that representative to the conduct of an employee of the undertaking who has participated in an anti-competitive meeting.

3. Article 101(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it can apply to an agreement prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU only when the undertaking which is relying on Article 101(3) TFEU has proved that the four cumulative conditions laid down therein are met.

(1) OJ C 165, 9.6.2012
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/30

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC v European Commission

(Case C-149/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Plant-protection products - Diphenylamine - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Procedure for the assessment of active substances - Withdrawal by notifier of support for inclusion of an active substance in that annex - Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007)

2013/C 225/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu and N. Knight, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck, avocat)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 in Case T-71/10 Xeda International and Pace International LLC v Commission, by which that court dismissed an action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (notified under document number C(2009)9262) (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Xeda International SA and Pace International LLC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
1.

Declares that, by not making the exemption from value added tax of transactions referred to in Article 262, Part II(2), (3), (6) and (7), of the Code général des impôts conditional on the requirement of use for navigation on the high seas, in respect of vessels carrying passengers for reward and those used for the purpose of commercial activities, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Article 148(a), (c) and (d) thereof;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/34

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-239/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned - Interest in bringing proceedings)

2013/C 225/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (represented by: P. Moser QC and E. Grieves, Barrister, instructed by H. Miller, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, Agents), European Commission, (represented by: E. Paasivirta and G. Valero Jordana, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09 Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, by which the General Court held that there was no need to adjudicate on an action seeking partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60) — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09 Abdulrahim v Council and Commission in so far as the order decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment brought before the General Court by Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim;

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule again on Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim’s action for annulment;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.