ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Swiss Re Germany Holding GmbH v Finanzamt München für Körperschaften

(Case C-242/08) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 9(2)(e), fifth indent, and 13B(a), (c) and (d)(2) and (3) - Insurance and reinsurance transactions - Concept - Transfer of a portfolio of life reinsurance contracts, for consideration, to a person established in a third country - Determination of the place of that transfer - Exemptions)

2009/C 297/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Swiss Re Germany Holding GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt München für Körperschaften

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the fifth indent of Article 9(2)(e) and Article 13B(a), (c) and (d)(2) and (3) 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) — Transfer, for remuneration payable by the purchaser established in a third country, of a portfolio of life insurance contracts authorised by the policyholders and involving the transfer of all the rights and obligations arising from the contracts transferred but not involving any transfer of other economic goods — Determination of the place of supply for tax purposes — Applicability to the abovementioned transaction of one of the exemptions contained in the abovementioned provisions of Article 13B of Directive 77/388/EEC

Operative part of the judgment

1. A transfer for consideration, by a company established in one Member State, to an insurance company established in a third State, of a portfolio of life reinsurance contracts, with the consequence that the transferee company assumes, with the consent of the insured persons, all the rights and obligations resulting from those contracts, does not constitute either a transaction falling under Article 9(2)(e), fifth indent, and Article 13B(a) 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, or a transaction falling under a combination of Article 13B(d)(2) and (3) thereof.

2. In the context of a transfer for consideration of a portfolio of 195 life reinsurance contracts, the fact that it is not the transferee but the transferor who pays the consideration, in the present case the fixing of a negative value, for the acquisition of 18 of those contracts, does not affect the answer to the first question.

3. Article 13B(c) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a transfer for consideration of a portfolio of life reinsurance contracts such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-495/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Obligation to give reasons for a decision not to make a project subject to an assessment)

2010/C 11/07

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth and H. Walker, Agents, and by J. Maurici, Barrister)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Requirement to give reasons for a decision not to make a project subject to an assessment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to make applications for Review of Mineral Planning lodged in Wales prior to 15 November 2000 subject to the requirements of Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.
1.

Articles 2(1) and 4(1) and (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 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, and Articles 2(1) and 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, where a parent company disposes of all the shares in a wholly-owned subsidiary and of its remaining shareholding in a controlled company which was in the past wholly owned by it, and where it has supplied to those companies services that are subject to value added tax, that disposal is an economic activity coming within the scope of those directives. However, in so far as the disposal of shares is equivalent to the transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof of an undertaking, within the meaning of Article 5(8) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, or the first paragraph of Article 19 of Directive 2006/112, and where the Member State concerned has chosen to exercise the option provided for by those provisions, that transaction does not constitute an economic activity subject to value added tax.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/11

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Angelo Rubino v Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca

(Case C-586/08) (1)

(Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of diplomas - ‘Regulated profession’ - Selection of a predefined number of persons on the basis of a comparative assessment conferring a qualification limited in time - National academic qualification for appointment - University lecturer)

2010/C 51/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Angelo Rubino

Defendant: Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Articles 3(1)(c) EC and 47(1) EC and of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications — National legislation which does not allow for the recognition of the professional qualification of university lecturer obtained in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

The fact that access to a profession is reserved to candidates who have been successful in a procedure to select a predefined number of persons on the basis of a comparative assessment of the candidates rather than by application of absolute criteria, which confers a qualification the validity of which is strictly limited in time, does not mean that that profession constitutes a regulated profession within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications.

Nevertheless, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC require qualifications obtained in other Member States to be accorded their proper value and to be duly taken into account in such a procedure.

(1) OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu — Poland) — Krzysztof Filipiak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

(Case C-314/08) (1)

(Income tax legislation - Right to deduct social security contributions from the basis of assessment for tax - Right to a tax reduction on the basis of health insurance contributions paid - Refusal where contributions are paid in a Member State other than the State of taxation - Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Judgment of the national constitutional court - Unconstitutionality of provisions of national law - Deferral of the date on which those provisions are to lose their binding force - Primacy of Community law - Implications for the national court)

2010/C 24/14

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Krzysztof Filipiak

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Poznaniu — Interpretation of Articles 10 and 43 of the EC Treaty — National income-tax legislation restricting social insurance contributions deductible from the basis of assessment, and health insurance contributions deductible from tax, solely to contributions paid in the Member State

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude national legislation under which the possibility for a resident taxpayer to obtain, first, a deduction from the basis of assessment in the amount of social security contributions paid in the tax year and, second, a reduction of the income tax which he is liable to pay by the amount of health insurance contributions paid in that period, exists solely when those contributions are paid in the Member State of taxation, while such advantages are refused in the case where those contributions are paid in another Member State, even though those contributions were not deducted in that other Member State.

2. In those circumstances, the primacy of Community law obliges the national court to apply Community law and to refuse to apply conflicting provisions of national law, irrespective of the judgment of the national constitutional court which has deferred the date on which those provisions, held to be unconstitutional, are to lose their binding force.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
1.

Article 13A(1)(j) 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 teaching work which a graduate engineer performs at an education institute established as a private-law association for participants in advanced training courses — culminating in an examination — who already have at least a university or higher technical college qualification as an architect or an engineer or who have an equivalent education can constitute ‘tuition … covering school or university education’ within the meaning of that provision. Activities other than teaching in the strict sense can also constitute such tuition, provided that they are carried out, essentially, in the context of the transfer of knowledge and skills between a teacher and pupils or students and cover school or university education. It is for the referring court, if need be, to ascertain whether all the activities at issue in the main proceedings are ‘tuition’ covering ‘school or university education’ within the meaning of that provision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Colin Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main

(Case C-229/08) (1)

(Directive 2008/78/EC - Article 4(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - National provision setting a maximum age of 30 years for the recruitment of officials to posts in the fire service - Aim pursued - Genuine and determining occupational requirement)

2010/C 63/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Colin Wolf

Defendant: Stadt Frankfurt am Main

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 17 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Differences of treatment on grounds of age which are ‘objectively and reasonably justified’ and the ‘need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement’ — National provision laying down a maximum recruitment age of 30 for officers in the fire service

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which sets the maximum age for recruitment to intermediate career posts in the fire service at 30 years.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-197/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/59/EC - Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco - Article 9(1) - Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products - National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes - National legislation prohibiting the sale of tobacco products ‘at a promotional price which is contrary to public health objectives’ - Concept of ‘national systems of legislation regarding the control of price levels or the observance of imposed prices’ - Justification - Protection of public health - World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)

2010/C 113/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, J. S. Pilczer, J.-C. Gracia and B. Beaupère-Manokha, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40) — Fixing of minimum prices — Hindrance to free movement of goods — Protection of public health — Relevance of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (OJ 2004 L 213, p. 8)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force a system of minimum prices for the retail sale of cigarettes released for consumption in France and a prohibition on selling tobacco products ‘at a promotional price which is contrary to public health objectives’, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Germany) — Müller Fleisch GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-562/08) (1)

(System for monitoring bovine spongiform encephalopathy - Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 - Bovine animals over 30 months of age - Slaughter under normal conditions - Meat intended for human consumption - Mandatory screening test - National rules - Obligation to screen - Extension - Bovine animals over 24 months of age)

2010/C 100/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Müller Fleisch GmbH

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of, in conjunction with Annex III, Chapter A, Part I to, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 147, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1248/2001 of 22 June 2001 (OJ 2001 L 173, p. 12) — Requirement to screen for BSE all bovine animals over 30 months of age subject to normal slaughter for human consumption — National legislation extending the obligation to screen to all bovine animals over 24 months of age

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and Annex III, Chapter A, Part I to that regulation, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1248/2001 of 22 June 2001, do not preclude national rules under which all bovine animals over 24 months of age must be screened for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

(1) OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Claudia Gualtieri v European Commission

(Case C-485/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Seconded national expert - Daily subsistence allowance - Principle of equal treatment)

2010/C 148/08

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Claudia Gualtieri (represented by: P. Gualtieri and M. Gualtieri, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 in Case T-284/06 Gualtieri v Commission, by which that court dismissed the application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 30 January 2006 rejecting the applicant’s claim for adjustment, following her divorce, of the amount of the allowances payable under Article 17 of Commission Decision C(2002) 1559 of 30 April 2002 laying down the rules applicable to national experts on secondment, as amended.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Gualtieri to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — F. Gielen v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-440/08) (1)

(Direct taxation - Article 43 EC - Non-resident taxable person - Business operator - Right to a self-employed person’s deduction - Hours test - Discrimination between resident and non-resident taxable persons - Option to be treated as a resident taxable person)

2010/C 134/09

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F. Gielen

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 43 EC — National legislation granting self-employed business operators the right to deduct a flat-rate amount from their profits provided that they have devoted at least 1 225 hours per calendar year to the activities of the business — No account taken, solely in the case of a non-resident taxpayer, of hours devoted to an undertaking established in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU precludes national legislation which, in relation to the granting of a tax advantage, such as the self-employed person’s deduction at issue in the main proceedings, is discriminatory towards non-resident taxable persons, even though those taxable persons may opt for the regime applicable to resident taxable persons in order to benefit from that tax advantage.

(1) OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-545/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications - Directives 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC - High-speed internet access provider - Obligation to obtain authorisation for the access tariffs to high-speed internet services and to fix those tariffs on the basis of the costs of the provision of such services - No market analysis)

2010/C 179/11

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive)(OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51), and Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) — Imposing on an operator a requirement to obtain authorisation for the tariff for providing retail access services to high-speed internet without a market analysis having been carried out.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. By regulating retail tariffs for access to high-speed internet without carrying out a prior market analysis, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) and Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive);

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82 of 4.4.2009