ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 September 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Parliament

(Case C-77/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - Definitive adoption of the European Union’s general budget for the financial year 2011 - Act of the President of the Parliament declaring that the budget has been definitively adopted - Article 314(9) TFEU - Establishment by the Parliament and the Council of the European Union’s annual budget - Article 314, introductory paragraph, TFEU - Principle of institutional balance - Principle that the institutions must act within the limits of their powers - Duty to cooperate in good faith - Compliance with essential procedural requirements)

2013/C 325/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza and M. Vitsentzatos, Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Pennera, R. Passos, D. Gauci and R. Crowe, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Re:

Action for annulment — Act of the President of the European Parliament of 14 December 2010 establishing the annual budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011 — Choice of legal basis — Failure of that non-typical and non-legislative act to comply with the new budget procedure introduced by the TFEU — Failure to respect the institutional balance — Breach of the principle of the conferment of powers and the duty of sincere cooperation — Breach of essential procedural requirements — Temporary maintenance of the effects of the budget

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-204/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Television broadcasting - Directive 89/552/EEC - Article 3a - Measures taken by the Kingdom of Belgium concerning events of major importance for the society of that Member State - Football World Cup - Decision declaring the measures compatible with European Union law - Statement of reasons - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Right to property)

2013/C 260/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) (represented by: A. Barav and D. Reymond, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents, and M. Gray, Barrister), Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and A. Joachimowicz and J. Stuyck, advocaten), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski and J. Beeko, and Agents, assisted by T. de la Mare QC)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 February 2011 in Case T-385/07 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v Commission, dismissing an action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/479/EC of 25 June 2007 declaring compatible with Community law measures taken by Belgium 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 180, p. 24)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-236/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special regime for travel agencies - Differences between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)

2013/C 344/06

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Soulay and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents); Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent); Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 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) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Italian Republic;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/17

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-626/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) - Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Articles 57 and 59 - Substances subject to authorisation - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Inclusion on the candidate list of substances - Publication of the list on the ECHA website - Action for annulment brought prior to that publication - Admissibility)

2013/C 344/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS (represented by: R. Cana and K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, advocaat), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and B. Koopman, Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, extended composition) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-1/10 Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v ECHA dismissing as inadmissible an action for the annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 7 December 2009, identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) as a substance fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), pursuant to Article 59 of that regulation — Act subject to review

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2011 in Case T-1/10 PPG and SNF v ECHA;

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-576/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Treatment of urban waste water - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-implementation - Article 260 TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Imposition of a penalty payment and a lump sum payment)

2014/C 45/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, B. Simon and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: P. Frantzen and C. Schiltz, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by S. Behzadi-Spencer, C. Murrell and S. Ford, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete compliance with a judgment of the Court of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg on the failure to transpose the provisions of Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Incorrect application of Article 5(4) of that directive.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 2 000 000.

3. Declares that, if the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the date of delivery of this judgment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg shall be ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 2 800 for each day of delay in taking the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg, from the date of delivery of this judgment until the date on which the judgment in Case C-452/05 Commission v Luxembourg has been complied with in full.

4. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

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

(1) OJ C 39, 11.02.2012
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Iberdrola SA, Gas Natural SDG SA (C-566/11), Gas Natural SDG SA (C-567/11), Tarragona Power SL (C-580/11), Gas Natural SDG SA, Bizcaia Energía SL (C-591/11), Bahía de Bizcaia Electricidad SL (C-620/11), E.ON Generación SL and Others (C-640/11)

(Joined Cases C-566/11, C-567/11, C-580/11, C-591/11, C-620/11 and C-640/11) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the ozone layer - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community - Method of allocating allowances - Allocation of allowances free of charge)

2013/C 367/06

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Iberdrola SA, Gas Natural SDG SA,

Intervening parties: Administración del Estado and Others (C-566/11),

Applicant: Gas Natural SDG SA,

Intervening parties: Endesa SA and Others (C-567/11),

Applicant: Tarragona Power SL,

Intervening parties: Gas Natural SDG SA and Others (C-580/11),

Applicants: Gas Natural SDG SA, Bizcaia Energía SL,

Intervening parties: Administración del Estado and Others (C-591/11),

Applicant: Bahía de Bizcaia Electricidad SL,

Intervening parties: Gas Natural SDG SA and Others (C-620/11),

Applicant: E.ON Generación SL and Others (C-640/11)

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Protection of the ozone layer — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community — Method of allocating allowances — Allocation of allowances free of charge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC must be interpreted as not precluding application of national legislative measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for electricity production by an amount equal to the increase in such remuneration brought about through the incorporation, in the selling prices offered on the wholesale electricity market, of the value of the emission allowances allocated free of charge.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012

OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.
1)

Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all measures necessary to recover the State aid considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy and Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively [C 78/2001 (ex NN 22/01), C 79/2001 (ex NN 23/01), C 80/2001 (ex NN 26/01)], the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 of Decision 2006/323, Article 4 of Decision 2007/375 and the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC. By failing to communicate, within the prescribed period, the information referred to in Article 6(1) of Decision 2006/323 and Article 6(2) of Decision 2007/375, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under both those provisions and the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC.
2.

The validity of Article 4a(4) of Directive 1999/32, as amended by Directive 2005/33, cannot be examined in the light of the general principle of international law pacta sunt servanda or the principle of cooperation in good faith enshrined in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU on the ground that that provision of the directive may lead to an infringement of Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, signed in London on 2 November 1973, as supplemented by the Protocol of 17 February 1978 and thereby oblige the Member States party to the Protocol of 1997 amending the International Convention of 1973 for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, signed in London on 26 September 1997, to infringe their obligations with respect to the other contracting parties thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/20

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — SC Mora IPR SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Sibiu

(Case C-79/12) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 211 - Deferred payment of VAT on importation)

2013/C 114/28

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Mora IPR SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Sibiu

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Interpretation of Article 211 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 26(2), 28, 30 and 107 TFEU — Right of Member States to authorise deferment of VAT on importation — Whether it is permissible for national legislation to impose a condition for obtaining a payment deferment certificate, not provided for under the Directive — Later legislative amendments exempting only certain taxable persons from payment of VAT on importation — Discrimination — Breach of the prohibition on import duties

Operative part of the judgment

Article 211 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the application of legislative rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which make the deferred payment of value added tax due on imported goods conditional on obtaining a certificate that is not required under the wording of that directive, provided that the conditions for obtaining such a certificate comply with the principle of fiscal neutrality, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus, Finland) — Execution of a European arrest warrant in respect of Melvin West

(Case C-192/12 PPU) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence - Article 28 - Subsequent surrender - ‘Chain’ of European arrest warrants - Execution of a third European arrest warrant in respect of the same person - Concept of ‘executing Member State’ - Consent to surrender - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)

2012/C 258/11

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Melvin West

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein oikeus — Interpretation of Article 28(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Arrest warrant for the execution of a custodial sentence — Concept of ‘executing Member State’ in the case of subsequent surrender — National of Member State A surrendered by that Member State to Member State B for the execution of a term of imprisonment and then, after the end of that term, by Member State B to Member State C for the execution of a term of imprisonment in that State — Request by Member State D to Member State C, under an arrest warrant, for the person concerned to be surrendered to Member State D for the execution of a sentence of imprisonment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a person has been subject to more than one surrender between Member States pursuant to successive European arrest warrants, the subsequent surrender of that person to a Member State other than the Member State having last surrendered him is subject to the consent only of the Member State which carried out that last surrender.

(1) OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Rose Marie Bark v Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation

(Case C-89/12) (1)

(Joint undertakings - Contracts concluded with members of staff - Applicable rules - Regulation (EC) No 876/2002)

2013/C 171/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rose Marie Bark

Defendant: Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 11(2), of the Statutes of the Galileo Joint Undertaking, set out in the annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 876/2002 of 21 May 2002 setting up the Galileo Joint Undertaking (OJ 2002 L 138, p. 1) — Fixed-term contracts concluded with members of staff — Contracts based on ‘employment of other staff of the European Communities’ — Mandatory provisions of the Staff Regulations on the conditions for compensation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(2) of the Statutes of the Galileo Joint Undertaking, set out in the annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 876/2002 of 21 May 2002 setting up the Galileo Joint Undertaking, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1943/2006 of 12 December 2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities and, in particular, the salary rates defined therein, do not apply to members of staff of Galileo who have fixed-term contracts.

(1) OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/20

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Köln-Nord v Wolfram Becker

(Case C-104/12) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(2)(a) - Right to deduct input tax - Need for a direct and immediate link between an input and an output transaction - Criterion for determining that link - Services of lawyers performed in the context of criminal proceedings for corruption brought in a personal capacity against the managing director and main partner of a limited company)

2013/C 114/29

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Köln-Nord

Defendant: Wolfram Becker

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 17(2)(a) and 22(3)(b) of 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) — Creation and extent of the right to deduct — Need for a direct and immediate link between the economic activity of the taxable person and the supply of a service — Services provided by lawyers in the context of criminal proceedings relating to corruption charges brought against the managing director and principal executive officer of a public limited company

Operative part of the judgment

The existence of a direct and immediate link between a given transaction and the taxable person’s activity as a whole for the purposes of determining whether the goods and services were used by the latter ‘for the purposes of taxable transactions’ within the meaning of Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, depends on the objective content of the goods or services acquired by that taxable person.

In this case, the supplies of lawyers’ services, whose purpose is to avoid criminal penalties against natural persons, managing directors of a taxable undertaking, do not give that undertaking the right to deduct as input tax the VAT due on the services supplied.

(1) OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.