ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Pak-Holdco sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu,

(Case C-372/10) (1)

(Taxation - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Capital duty levied on capital companies - Obligation on a Member State to take account of directives which were no longer in force at the time of that State’s accession - Exclusion, from the amount on which capital duty is charged, of the amount of the assets belonging to the capital company which are allocated to the increase in capital and which have already been subjected to capital duty)

2012/C 98/08

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Pak-Holdco sp. z o.o.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu,

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Articles 5(3), first indent, and 7(1) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) and of Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 (OJ 1973 L 103, p. 13) and Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 (OJ 1973 L 103, p. 15) amending Directive 69/335/EEC — Capital duty levied on capital companies — Obligation on a Member State to take account of directives which were no longer in force at the time of that State’s accession

Operative part of the judgment

1. In the case of a State such as the Republic of Poland, which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004, in the absence of derogating provisions in the Act of Accession of that State to the European Union or in any other European Union document, Article 7(1) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted to mean that the mandatory exemption provided for in that provision applies only to those transactions coming within the scope of that directive, as amended, which, on 1 July 1984, were exempted, in that State, from capital duty or were subject to that duty at a reduced rate of 0,50% or less.

2. The first indent of Article 5(3) of Directive 69/335, which excludes ‘the amount of the assets belonging to the capital company which are allocated to the increase in capital and which have already been subjected to capital duty’ from the amount on which duty is charged, must be interpreted to mean that it applies irrespective of whether the assets in question are assets of the company which has had an increase in capital or assets coming from another company which have increased that capital.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Lebara Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-520/10) (1)

(Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2 - Supply of services for consideration - Telecommunications services - Prepaid phonecards displaying information for making international calls - Marketing through a network of distributors)

2012/C 174/11

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lebara Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Article 2(1) 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) — Phonecards sold by a taxable person residing in a Member State to a distributor residing in another Member State and sold on by that distributor to persons who use them to make telephone calls — Transaction which can be broken down into several parts — Arrangements for charging value added tax

Operative part of the judgment

Point (1) of Article 2 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, as amended by Council Directive 2003/92/EC of 7 October 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that a telecommunications services operator which offers telecommunications services consisting in selling to a distributor phonecards which display all the information necessary for making international telephone calls by means of the infrastructure provided by that operator and which are resold by the distributor, in its name and on its own behalf, to end users, either directly or through other taxable persons such as wholesalers or retailers, carries out a supply of telecommunications services for consideration to the distributor. On the other hand, that operator does not carry out a second supply of services for consideration, this time to the end user, where that user, having purchased the phonecard, exercises the right to make telephone calls using the information on the card.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v L.A.C. van Putten (C-578/10), P. Mook (C-579/10), G. Frank (C-580/10)

(Joined Cases C-578/10 to C-580/10) (1)

(Articles 18 EC and 56 EC - Motor vehicles - Use in a Member State of a borrowed private motor vehicle which is registered in another Member State - Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State on its first use on the national road network)

2012/C 174/13

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendants: L.A.C. van Putten (C-578/10), P. Mook (C-579/10), G. Frank (C-580/10)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 18 EC (now Article 21 TFEU) — National rule imposing a registration tax on the first use of a vehicle on the national road network — Liability to tax of a person residing in the Member State in question who has borrowed a vehicle registered in another Member State from a person residing in that State for the purposes of private use for a brief period in the first Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which requires residents who have borrowed a vehicle registered in another Member State from a resident of that State to pay, on first use of that vehicle on the national road network, the full amount of a tax normally due on registration of a vehicle in the first Member State, without taking account of the duration of the use of that vehicle on that road network and without that person being able to invoke a right to exemption or reimbursement where that vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis nor, in fact, used in that way.

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung v Pfeifer & Langen KG

(Case C-564/10) (1)

(Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Articles 3 and 4 - Administrative measures - Recovery of wrongly obtained advantages - Default and compensatory interest due under national law - Application of the limitation rules in Regulation No 2988/95 to the recovery of default interest - Start of the limitation period - Concept of suspension - Concept of interruption)

2012/C 151/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

Defendant: Pfeifer & Langen KG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Recovery of aid wrongly paid — Applicability of Article 3 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 to the limitation period in respect of interest payable under national law in addition to the reimbursement of the sums wrongly paid

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period that it lays down for the principal claim, relating to the recovery of an advantage wrongly received from the European Union budget, does not apply to the recovery of interest arising from that claim, where that interest is not due under European Union law, but exclusively under an obligation of national law.

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
1.

Declares that the Republic of Cyprus, — by not having included the site of Paralimni Lake in the national list of proposed sites of Community importance, — by tolerating activities which seriously compromise the ecological characteristics of Paralimni Lake and by not having taken the protective measures necessary to maintain the population of Natrix natrix cypriaca (Cypriot grass snake), the species which constitutes the ecological interest of the lake and Xyliatos Dam, and — by not having taken the requisite measures to establish and apply a system of strict protection for that species, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, under Directive 92/43, as amended, and under Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43, as amended, respectively;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Hungary) — ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt v Magyar Állam, BCL Trading GmbH, ERSTE Befektetési Zrt

(Case C-527/10) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 5(1) - Temporal application - Action in rem brought in a State not a member of the European Union - Insolvency proceedings opened against the debtor in another Member State - First State became a member of the European Union - Applicability)

2012/C 287/06

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Legfelsőbb Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt

Defendant: Magyar Állam, BCL Trading GmbH, ERSTE Befektetési Zrt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Action in rem brought in the Member State where the subject of the right in rem is situated against a defendant with its registered office in another Member State and against which insolvency proceedings were commenced in that latter State before the accession of the former State to the European Union — Temporal applicability of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that that provision is applicable, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, even to insolvency proceedings opened before the accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union where, on 1 May 2004, the debtor’s assets on which the right in rem concerned was based were situated in that State, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 October 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-614/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/46/EC - Processing of personal data and free movement of such data - Protection of natural persons - Article 28(1) - National supervisory authority - Independence - Supervisory authority and the Federal Chancellery - Personal and organisational links)

2012/C 379/09

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and B.R. Killmann, Agents,)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: H. Kranenborg, I. Chatelier and H. Hijmans, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: G. Hesse, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of the second subparagraph of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Obligation for the Member States to ensure that the national supervisory authorities responsible for supervising the processing of personal data exercise their duties entirely independently — Close personal and organisational connections between the supervisory authority and the Federal Chancellor’s Office (Bundeskanzleramt) — Subjection of the supervisory authority to the supervision of the Federal Chancellor

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take all of the measures necessary to ensure that the legislation in force in Austria meets the requirement of independence with regard to the Datenschutzkommission (Data Protection Commission), more specifically by laying down a regulatory framework under which — the managing member of the Datenschutzkommission is a federal official subject to supervision, — the office of the Datenschutzkommission is integrated with the departments of the Federal Chancellery, and — the Federal Chancellor has an unconditional right to information covering all aspects of the work of the Datenschutzkommission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data;

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

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Data Protection Supervisor to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Würzburg — Germany) — Doris Reichel-Albert v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nordbayern

(Case C-522/10) (1)

(Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 44(2) - Examination of entitlement to old-age pension - Taking into account of child-raising periods completed in another Member State - Applicability - Article 21 TFEU - Free movement of citizens)

2012/C 295/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Würzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Doris Reichel-Albert

Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nordbayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Würzburg — Interpretation of Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1) — Conditions for taking into account child-raising periods completed in another Member State for the purpose of examining entitlement to old-age pension — National legislation making the taking into account of such periods subject to the requirement that the person concerned, during the raising or immediately before the birth of the child, pursued employed or self-employed activity by way of compulsory contribution period, giving rise to the possibility that a child-raising period might not be taken into account either in the Member State of residence during the child-raising period or in the competent Member State

Operative part of the judgment

In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the competent institution of a first Member State, for the purposes of granting an old-age pension, to take account of child-raising periods completed in a second Member State as though those periods had been completed on its national territory by a person who pursued employed or self-employed activity only in that first Member State and who, at the time of the birth of his of her child, had temporarily stopped working and had, solely on family-related grounds, established his or her place of residence in the territory of the second Member State.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
2.

Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/94/07 to constitute a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information, communication and the media, EPSO/AST/37/07 to constitute a reserve pool of Assistants (AST 3) in the field of communication and information and EPSO/AD/95/07 to constitute a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information science (library/documentation);
1.

Declares that, by making individual decisions to acquire or transfer holdings in the capital of companies by the public rail transport undertaking CP Comboios de Portugal EPE subject to government approval and by failing to adopt the national measures necessary to comply with the obligation to lay down appropriate conditions to ensure that the accounts of the infrastructure manager la Rede Ferroviária Nacional — REFER EP are balanced, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, and, second, Article 7(3) of Directive 91/440 and Article 6(1) 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, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-627/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 91/440/EEC - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 2001/14/EC - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Article 6(3) and Annex II to Directive 91/440 - Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14 - Infrastructure manager - Participation in the preparation of the service timetable - Traffic management - Article 6(2) to (5) of Directive 2001/14 - Failure to provide incentives for infrastructure managers to reduce the costs of provision of infrastructure and the level of access charges - Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14 - Cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service - Article 11 of Directive 2001/14 - Performance scheme)

2013/C 252/08

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, D. Kukovec and M. Žebre, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: N. Pintar Gosenca, A. Vran and J. Kampoš, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991, on the development of the community railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25), as amended, and Article 6(2) to (5), (7)93), 8(1), 11, 14(2) and 30(1) 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 (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with: — Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, as amended by Directive 2004/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, 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, as amended by Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, and — Articles 6(2) to (5), 7(3), 8(1) and 11 of Directive 2001/14, as amended by Directive 2004/49 the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Slovenia, the Czech Republic and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Refcomp SpA v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA, Axa France IARD, Emerson Network, Climaveneta SpA

(Case C-543/10) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Interpretation of Article 23 - Jurisdiction clause in a contract concluded between the manufacturer and the initial buyer of goods - Contract forming part of a chain of contracts transferring ownership - Whether that clause may be relied on against the sub-buyer of the goods)

2013/C 108/02

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Refcomp SpA

Defendants: Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA, Axa France IARD, Emerson Network, Climaveneta SpA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 5(1) and 23 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Dispute between the sub-buyer of goods and the manufacturer — Scope of the jurisdiction clause in a chain of contracts under Community law

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause agreed in the contract concluded between the manufacturer of goods and the buyer thereof cannot be relied on against a sub-buyer who, in the course of a succession of contracts transferring ownership concluded between parties established in different Member States, purchased the goods and wishes to bring an action for damages against the manufacturer, unless it is established that that third party has actually consented to that clause under the conditions laid down in that article.

(1) OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.