ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-530/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters - Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings)

2014/C 93/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and L. Armati, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell and M. Holt, Agents, and J. Maurici, Barrister)

Supported by: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C.H. Vang, Agent), Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and A. Joyce, Agents, and E. Barrington and G. Gilmore, Barristers)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Articles 3(7) and 4(4) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Obligation to remove or reduce financial barriers to access to justice in environmental matters — Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Articles 3(7) and 4(4) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, inasmuch as they provide that the judicial proceedings referred to must not be prohibitively expensive, 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 and the Kingdom of Denmark and Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.
1.

A regulation such as the Training Credits Regulation (Regulamento da Formação de Créditos), adopted by a professional association such as the Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas (Order of Chartered Accountants), must be regarded as a decision of an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. The fact that a professional association, such as the Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas, is legally required to put into place a system of compulsory training for its members cannot remove from the scope of Article 101 TFEU the rules drawn up by that professional association, insofar as those rules are a matter for it alone. The fact that those rules do not have any direct effect on the economic activity of the members of that professional association does not affect the application of Article 101 TFEU, where the infringement of which that professional association is accused concerns a market on which it itself carries on an economic activity.
1.

Declares that, by continuing to grant, after the expiry on 31 December 2006 of the transitional period referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 23 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework of taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, and Annex II to that directive, an exemption from excise duty on fuel used by disabled persons for motor vehicles, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of the directive;
1.

Articles 63 and 65 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where building rights are established in favour of a company to erect a building, by way of consideration for construction services of certain real property which that company has undertaken to deliver on a turn-key basis to the persons who established those building rights, those provisions do not preclude the VAT on those construction services from becoming chargeable as from the moment when those building rights are established, that is to say, before those services are performed, provided that, at the time those rights are established, all the relevant information concerning that future supply of services is already known and, therefore, in particular, the services in question are precisely identified, and the value of those rights may be expressed in monetary terms, which it is for the national court to verify. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where the transactions are not completed between parties having ties within the meaning of Article 80 of Directive 2006/112, which it is for the national court to verify, Articles 73 and 80 of that directive must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, when the consideration for a transaction is made up entirely of goods or services, the taxable amount of the transaction is the open market value of the goods or services supplied.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/30

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v RR Donnelley Global Turnkey Solutions Poland sp. z o.o.

(Case C-155/12) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 44 and 47 - Place where taxable transactions are deemed to be carried out - Place of supply for tax purposes - Concept of ‘supply of services connected with immovable property’ - Complex cross-border service relating to the storage of goods)

2013/C 225/50

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: RR Donnelley Global Turnkey Solutions Poland sp. z o.o.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) — Interpretation of Articles 44 and 47 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), as amended — Determination of the relevant place for tax purposes — Concept of the supply of services connected with immovable property — Complex cross-border service involving the storage of goods provided to contractual customers established in other Member States or in non-member countries and comprising the admission of goods to warehouses situated in Poland, their shelving, storage, loading and unloading, repackaging and return to the customer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 47 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of a complex storage service, comprising admission of goods to a warehouse, placing them on the appropriate storage shelves, storing them, packaging them, issuing them, unloading and loading them, comes within the scope of that article only if the storage constitutes the principal service of a single transaction and only if the recipients of that service are given a right to use all or part of expressly specific immovable property.

(1) OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.
2.

Article 35(4)(c) of Regulation No 1291/2000, as amended by Regulation No 325/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, where proof that a product has been correctly imported has been submitted late, the amount to be forfeited, in respect of the quantities for which proof has not been provided within the time-limit set under Article 35(4)(a) of that regulation, must be calculated on the basis of a level of security which was actually applied at the time when the application for the issue of the licence or licences relating to that importation was made. For the purposes of such an interpretation, it is irrelevant that the security was lodged on the basis of a rate that was higher than that applicable to other imports of the same type of product as the product imported, given that the latter was exempted from the payment of import duties.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/26

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA

(Case C-157/12) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 34(3) and (4) - Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State - Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties)

2013/C 344/44

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH

Defendant: SC Laminorul SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 34(4) 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) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation in which that decision is irreconcilable with another judgment given previously in the same Member State between the same parties, with the same subject matter and same cause of action

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(4) 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 not covering irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same Member State.

(1) OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Sunico ApS, M & B Holding ApS, Sunil Kumar Harwani

(Case C-49/12) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 1(1) - Scope - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Action brought by a public authority - Damages in respect of involvement in a tax fraud by a third party not subject to VAT)

2013/C 325/08

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Defendants: Sunico ApS, M & B Holding ApS, Sunil Kumar Harwani,

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of Article 1 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) — Scope — Whether or not it covers a claim for damages in respect of non-payment of value added tax brought by the tax authorities of a Member State against undertakings and natural persons resident in another Member State and based on an alleged unlawful means conspiracy under the law of tort

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) 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 it covers an action whereby a public authority of one Member State claims, as against natural and legal persons resident in another Member State, damages for loss caused by a tortious conspiracy to commit value added tax fraud in the first Member State.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/33

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Lundberg

(Case C-317/12) (1)

(Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Obligation to install recording equipment - Derogations in respect of the non-commercial carriage of goods - Concept - Carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his leisure activity as an amateur rally driver, financed in part by sponsorship from third parties)

2013/C 344/56

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Party in the main criminal proceedings

Daniel Lundberg

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Svea hovrätt — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 concerning the interpretation of the concept of ‘non-commercial carriage of goods’ within the meaning of Article 3(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) — Derogation from the obligation to install and use a tachograph on board vehicles weighing less than 7.5 tonnes — Carriage of goods for non-commercial purposes — Carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his leisure activity as an amateur rally driver, financed in part by sponsorship from private individuals or from companies

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘non-commercial carriage of goods’ laid down in Article 3(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as covering the carriage of goods by a private individual for his own purposes purely as part of his hobby where that hobby is in part financed by financial contributions from external persons or undertakings and where no payment is made for that carriage per se.

(1) OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/20

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság v Hochtief Solutions AG

(Case C-519/12) (1)

(Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1)(a) - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’)

2013/C 367/34

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság

Defendant: Hochtief Solutions AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) 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) — Jurisdiction of the court of a Member State in matters relating to a contract — Action by a creditor, on the basis of a credit agreement, against a company holding a controlling share in the debtor company which is a party to the contract pursuant to the specific national rules governing the liability of the first company

Operative part of the judgment

An action such as that in the main proceedings, in which national legislation renders a person liable for the debts of a company which he controls, where that person did not comply with the reporting obligations following the acquisition of that company, cannot be regarded as concerning ‘matters relating to a contract’ for the purposes of Article 5(1)(a) 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.

(1) OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Herbert Schaible v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-101/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 - System for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals - Obligation of individual electronic identification - Obligation to keep a holding register - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom to conduct a business - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

2013/C 367/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Herbert Schaible

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart — Validity of Articles 3(1), 4(2), 5(1) and 9(3), first subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (OJ 2004 L 5, p. 8), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1560/2007 of 17 December 2007 (OJ 2007 L 340, p. 25), from the point of view of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 15(1) and 16 — Proportionality of the system of individual identification of ovine and caprine animals

Operative part of the judgment

The consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 3(1), 4(2), 5(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) and point B(2) of the Annex to Council Regulation No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 933/2008 of 23 September 2008.

(1) OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/15

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-547/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - Clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of certain Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAGGF - Amounts which are recoverable from the Hellenic Republic following failure to recover within the period prescribed - Distortion of evidence)

2014/C 9/22

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and S. Papaïoannou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and D.Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2012 in Case T-158/09 Greece v Commission by which the General Court partially rejected an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 810 final of 13 February 2009 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in certain cases of irregularity by operators

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/17

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen (Germany)) — Michael Schwarz v Stadt Bochum

(Case C-291/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Biometric passport - Fingerprints - Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 - Article 1(2) - Validity - Legal basis - Procedure for adopting - Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to respect for private life - Right to the protection of personal data - Proportionality)

2013/C 367/29

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michael Schwarz

Defendant: Stadt Bochum

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen — Validity of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), as amended (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 127), in the light of Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Right of a person to be issued with a passport without his fingerprints being taken

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question referred has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009.

(1) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.