ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH v Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH

(Case C-132/11) (1)

(Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Difference of treatment on grounds of age - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - General principles of European Union law - Collective agreement - Failure to take into account, for the grading on the salary scale of cabin crew members of an airline, professional experience acquired with another airline belonging to the same group of companies - Contract clause)

2012/C 217/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6(1) and (3) TEU and Articles 1, 2 and 6 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) — Different treatment based on age — Collective agreement providing that, for the purposes of grading air stewards and stewardesses within a pay scale, the professional experience to be taken into account excludes professional experience acquired with another airline belonging to the same group — Whether a clause in an employment contract is not applicable owing to the horizontal direct effect of fundamental rights

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(b) 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 a provision of a collective agreement which takes into account, for the purposes of grading in the employment categories provided for in that agreement and, therefore, determination of the level of pay, only the professional experience acquired as a cabin crew member of a specific airline, while excluding substantively identical experience acquired in the service of another airline belonging to the same group of companies.

(1) OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Content Services Ltd v Bundesarbeitskammer

(Case C-49/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 97/7/EC - Consumer protection - Distance contracts - Consumer information - Information given or received - Durable medium - Meaning - Hyperlink on the website of the supplier - Right of withdrawal)

2012/C 287/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Content Services Ltd

Defendant: Bundesarbeitskammer

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Wien — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19) — Information concerning the contract made available to the consumer via a hyperlink to the supplier's website — Right of the consumer to receive that information in a durable medium — Interpretation of the notion of ‘durable medium’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a business practice consisting of making the information referred to in that provision accessible to the consumer only via a hyperlink on a website of the undertaking concerned does not meet the requirements of that provision, since that information is neither ‘given’ by that undertaking nor ‘received’ by the consumer, within the meaning of that provision, and a website such as that at issue in the main proceedings cannot be regarded as a ‘durable medium’ within the meaning of Article 5(1).

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Titus Alexander Jochen Donner

(Case C-5/11) (1)

(Free movement of goods - Industrial and commercial property - Sale of reproductions of works in a Member State in which the copyright on those works is not protected - Transport of those goods to another Member State in which the infringement of the copyright is sanctioned under criminal law - Criminal proceedings against the transporter for aiding and abetting the unlawful distribution of a work protected by copyright law)

2012/C 250/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party in the main proceedings

Titus Alexander Jochen Donner

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Industrial and commercial property — Sale of reproductions of works in a Member State in which the copyright on those works is not protected — Transport of those goods to another Member State in which the infringement of the copyright is sanctioned under criminal law — Situation in which the transfer of property to the purchaser was made in the Member State of origin and the transfer of the de facto power of disposal takes place in the State of destination — Criminal proceedings against the transporter for aiding and abetting the unlawful distribution of a work protected by copyright law

Operative part of the judgment

A trader who directs his advertising at members of the public residing in a given Member State and creates or makes available to them a specific delivery system and payment method, or allows a third party to do so, thereby enabling those members of the public to receive delivery of copies of works protected by copyright in that same Member State, makes, in the Member State where the delivery takes place, a ‘distribution to the public’ under Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from bringing a prosecution under national criminal law for the offence of aiding and abetting the prohibited distribution of copyright-protected works where such works are distributed to the public on the territory of that Member State in the context of a sale, aimed specifically at the public of that State, concluded in another Member State where those works are not protected by copyright or the protection conferred on them is not enforceable as against third parties.

(1) OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/11

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Ahmed Mahamdia v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria

(Case C-154/11) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment - Contract with an embassy of a third State - Immunity of the employing State - Concept of branch, agency or other establishment within the meaning of Article 18(2) - Compatibility with Article 21 of an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the third State)

2012/C 295/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ahmed Mahamdia

Defendant: People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Interpretation of Articles 18, 19 and 21 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) — Determination of jurisdiction to hear a dispute concerning the validity of the termination of the employment contract of the applicant, a national of a Member State and of a non-member country, who had been employed as a driver in the Member State of which he is a national by the embassy of the non-member country of which he is also a national pursuant to an employment contract which provided that the courts of that latter State would have jurisdiction in the event of a dispute

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 18(2) 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 an embassy of a third State situated in a Member State is an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of that provision, in a dispute concerning a contract of employment concluded by the embassy on behalf of the sending State, where the functions carried out by the employee do not fall within the exercise of public powers. It is for the national court seised to determine the precise nature of the functions carried out by the employee.

2. Article 21(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement on jurisdiction concluded before a dispute arises falls within that provision in so far as it gives the employee the possibility of bringing proceedings, not only before the courts ordinarily having jurisdiction under the special rules in Articles 18 and 19 of that regulation, but also before other courts, which may include courts outside the European Union.

(1) OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Lucja Czop (C-147/11), Margita Punakova (C-148/11)

(Joined Cases C-147/11 and C-148/11) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of permanent residence - Social assistance benefits - Care of a child - Period of residence completed before the State of origin acceded to the European Union)

(2012/C 331/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendants: Lucja Czop (C-147/11), Margita Punakova (C-148/11)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal — Interpretation of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) and Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Right of residence of a Polish national who moved to the United Kingdom prior to the accession of Poland, who, after accession, was self employed for less than a year and who is the primary carer of a child who entered general education after the period she was in self-employment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community must be interpreted as conferring on the person who is the primary carer of a migrant worker’s or former migrant worker’s child who is attending educational courses in the host Member State a right of residence in that State, although that provision cannot be interpreted as conferring such a right on the person who is the primary carer of the child of a person who is self-employed.

Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a European Union citizen who is a national of a Member State which recently acceded to the European Union may, pursuant to that provision, rely on a right of permanent residence where he or she has resided in the host Member State for a continuous period of more than five years, part of which was completed before the accession of the former State to the European Union, provided that the residence was in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt (Germany)) — Land Hessen v Florence Feyerbacher

(Case C-62/11) (1)

(Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the ECB - Article 36 - Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities - Articles 13, 15 and 23 - ECB Headquarters Agreement - Article 15 - Applicability to ECB staff of the provisions of German social welfare law providing for a parental allowance)

2012/C 295/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Land Hessen

Respondent: Florence Feyerbacher

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt — Interpretation of Article 15 of the Agreement of 18 September 1998 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Central Bank on the Headquarters of that institution, in conjunction with Article 36 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and the European Central Bank — Right of a German official of the European Central Bank to receive a parental allowance provided for under German law — Classification of the Agreement on the Headquarters of the European Central Bank as part of European Union law or as an international treaty — Applicability of the provisions of German social law providing for the parental allowance to employees of the European Central Bank

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15 of the Agreement of 18 September 1998 between the German Government and the European Central Bank on the Headquarters of that institution, read in conjunction with Article 36 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, in the version annexed to the EC Treaty, does not preclude the Federal Republic of Germany from being able to grant an allowance such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe sp. z o.o. v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych

(Case C-115/11) (1)

(Social security - Determination of the legislation applicable - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(b) - Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States - Successive employment contracts - Employer established in the Member State of habitual residence of the worker - Employment performed exclusively in other Member States)

2012/C 366/17

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Interpretation of Article 14(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), as amended — Delimitation between the concepts of ‘person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States’ and ‘posted worker’ — Worker employed by an undertaking established in his Member State of origin and carrying out his work exclusively in other Member States of the European Union, whilst retaining his residence and the centre of his vital interests in his State of origin

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a person who, under successive employment contracts stating the place of employment to be the territory of several Member States, in fact works during the term of each of those contracts only on the territory of one of those States at a time, cannot fall within the concept of ‘a person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States’, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — Laimonis Treimanis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-487/11) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 - Articles 1(2)(c), 2 and 7(1) - Relief from import duties on personal property - The term ‘property intended … for meeting … household needs’ - Motor vehicle imported into the European Union - Vehicle used by a member of the family of the importing owner)

(2012/C 331/17)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Laimonis Treimanis

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administratīvā rajona tiesa Rīgas — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1) — Relief from import duty in respect of personal property — Concept of a household — Car used for the needs of a household in a third country — Car imported by its owner, essentially resident in the third country, into a Member State of the European Union for use free of charge by a member of the owner’s family who has moved his residence to that Member State and who formed part of the same household as the owner before the vehicle was imported

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2 and 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty must be interpreted as meaning that a private motor vehicle imported from a third country into the customs territory of the European Union may be imported free of import duties provided that the importer has actually transferred his normal place of residence to the customs territory of the European Union, which is a matter for the national court to determine. A motor vehicle used free of charge by a member of that importer’s family, that is by a person living under the same roof as the importer or mainly dependent on him, a matter for the national court to determine, is to be regarded as being intended for meeting the needs of the importer’s household, and that use does not result in loss of entitlement to the relief in question.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Déborah Prete v Office national de l’emploi

(Case C-367/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Article 39 EC - National of a Member State seeking employment in another Member State - Equal treatment - Tideover allowance for young persons seeking their first job - Grant subject to completion of at least six years’ studies in the host State)

2012/C 399/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Déborah Prete

Defendant: Office national de l’emploi

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 12, 17, 18 and 39 EC (now Articles 18, 20, 21 and 45 TFEU) — Tideover allowance for young persons seeking their first job — Grant subject to completion of at least six years’ studies at an educational establishment in the Member State concerned — Refusal to grant it to a national of another Member State who completed her secondary studies in that other State, on the sole ground that the above condition was not fulfilled — Factors to be taken into account to appraise the young person’s link to the national employment market

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 EC precludes a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the right to a tideover allowance for the benefit of young people looking for their first job subject to the condition that the person concerned has completed at least six years’ studies in an educational establishment of the host Member State, insofar as that condition prevents other representative factors liable to establish the existence of a real link between the person claiming the allowance and the geographic labour market concerned being taken into account and accordingly goes beyond what is necessary to attain the aim pursued by that provision which is to ensure that such a link exists.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Mednis SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-525/11) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 183 - Conditions for the refund of the excess VAT - National legislation deferring the refund of part of the excess VAT pending examination of the taxable person’s annual tax return - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)

2012/C 379/19

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mednis SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of input VAT — National legislation limiting monthly VAT refund — Deferment, until examination of annual tax return, of the refund of the part of overpaid VAT that exceeds 18 % of the total value of the taxable transactions carried out during the tax month in question

Operative part of the judgment

Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not authorising the tax authority of a Member State to defer, without undertaking a specific analysis and solely on the basis of an arithmetical calculation, the refund of part of the excess VAT which has arisen during a one-month tax period, pending the examination by that authority of the taxable person’s annual tax return.

(1) OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.