ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Edgard Mulders v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

(Case C-548/11) (1)

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 1(r) - Definition of ‘periods of insurance’ - Article 46 - Calculation of retirement pension - Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration - Frontier workers - Period of incapacity for work - Aggregation of similar benefits paid by two Member States - No account taken of a period of incapacity for work as a period of insurance - Residence requirement - Nation rules precluding the cumulation of benefits)

2013/C 164/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edgard Mulders

Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 1(r) and 46 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) — Old-age and death insurance — Calculation of benefits — Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(r) and 46 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, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read in the light of Article 13(2)(a) of that regulation and Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU, are to be interpreted, for the purpose of calculating a retirement pension in one Member State, as precluding the legislation of another Member State under which a period of incapacity for work during which sickness insurance benefit — from which contributions were deducted by way of old-age insurance — was paid in that other Member State to a migrant worker is not regarded as a ‘period of insurance’ within the meaning of those provisions, on the ground that the person concerned is not resident in the latter State and/or was in receipt of a similar benefit under the legislation of the first Member State, which could not be combined with the sickness insurance benefit.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) — Germany) — Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle eG v Landrat des Landkreises Oder-Spree

(Case C-545/11) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 7(1) and (2) - Modulation of direct payments granted to farmers - Further reduction in the amount of direct payments - Validity - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of non-discrimination)

2013/C 141/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle eG

Defendant: Landrat des Landkreises Oder-Spree

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) — Validity of Article 7(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16) — Greater reduction of the amount of direct payments for the years 2009 to 2012 than that provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Principle of legitimate expectations

Operative part of the judgment

1. Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 in the light of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

2. Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 73/2009 in the light of the principle of non-discrimination.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/11

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 April 2013 — Mindo Srl v European Commission

(Case C-652/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Payment of the fine by the jointly and severally liable debtor - Interest in bringing proceedings - Burden of proof)

2013/C 156/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mindo Srl (represented by: G. Mastrantonio, C. Osti and A. Prastaro, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and L. Malferrari, Agents, assisted by F. Ruggeri Laderchi and R. Nazzini, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06 Mindo v Commission, whereby the General Court held that there was no need to adjudicate on an action for annulment in part of Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) concerning a cartel designed to fix prices paid to producers and other intermediaries and to share suppliers in the Italian raw tobacco market, and annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant — Appellant involved in an insolvency procedure in the course of the proceedings — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06 Mindo v Commission;

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Aldegonda van den Booren v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

(Case C-127/11) (1)

(Social security for migrant workers - Article 46a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - National rules against overlapping - Old-age pension - Increase in the amount paid by a Member State - Survivor’s pension - Reduction in the amount paid by another Member State)

2013/C 123/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aldegonda van den Booren

Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 10 EC, 39 EC and 42 EC (now Articles 4(3) TUE, 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU respectively) and Article 46a(3)(a) 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) — Benefits — National anti-overlapping rules — Reduction of the survivor’s pension paid by the first Member State because of an increase in the old-age pension paid by another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 46a 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 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the application of legislative rules of a Member State containing a provision under which a survivor’s pension received in that Member State is reduced as a result of the increase in an old-age pension received under the legislation of another Member State, provided, in particular, that the conditions set out in Article 46a(3)(d) are observed.

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it likewise does not preclude the application of such national legislative rules in so far as they do not lead, in respect of the person concerned, to an unfavourable situation in comparison with that of a person whose situation has no cross-border element, and, if such a disadvantage is established, in so far as it is justified by objective considerations and is proportionate in relation to the objective legitimately pursued by national law, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/14

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Codirex Expeditie BV

(Case C-542/11) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Goods in temporary storage - Non-Community goods - External Community transit procedure - Point at which a customs-approved treatment or use is assigned - Acceptance of the customs declaration - Release of the goods - Customs debt)

2013/C 225/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: Codirex Expeditie BV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 50 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Goods in temporary storage having been declared for placing under the external Community transit procedure — Point at which a customs-approved treatment or use is assigned

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 50, 67 and 73 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the point at which non-Community goods, covered by a customs declaration accepted by the customs authorities for placing under the external Community transit procedure and having the status of goods in temporary storage, are placed under that customs procedure and thereby assigned a customs-approved treatment or use is the moment at which they are released.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-86/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes)

2013/C 171/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Hathaway, acting as Agent, and M. Hall QC)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Vang, and subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Clohessy, SC, and N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a VAT group

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd

(Case C-228/11) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Special jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict - Cross-border participation by several persons in the same unlawful act - Possibility of establishing territorial jurisdiction according to the place where the act was committed by one of the perpetrators of the damage other than the defendant (‘wechselseitige Handlungsortzurechnung’))

2013/C 225/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Melzer

Defendant: MF Global UK Ltd

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 5(3) 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 relating to matters in tort or delict or quaisi-delict — Determination of territorial jurisdiction to hear an action for damages in the case of cross-border participation of several people in a single unlawful act — Possibility of establishing that jurisdiction according to the place where the harmful act was committed by a perpetrator other than the defendant

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) 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 2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the courts of the place where a harmful event occurred which is imputed to one of the presumed perpetrators of damage, who is not a party to the dispute, to take jurisdiction over another presumed perpetrator of that damage who has not acted within the jurisdiction of the court seised.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 July 2013 — European Commission v Aalberts Industries NV, Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS, Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-287/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Commission decision - Finding of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Fines - Single, complex and continuous infringement - Cessation of the infringement - Continuation of the infringement by certain participants - Repeated infringement)

2013/C 245/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, V. Bottka and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Aalberts Industries NV, Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS, Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: R. Wesseling, advocaat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 24 March 2011 in Case T-385/06 Aalberts Industries NV and Others v European Commission by which the Court annulled, in part, Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) in respect of a cartel involving price-fixing and agreement on discounts and rebates, the creation of mechanisms for coordinating price increases, allocation of customers and exchange of commercial information in the European market for copper and copper alloy fittings, and also, in the alternative, a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Declares that there is no need to examine the cross-appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Niederösterreichische Landes-Landwirtschaftskammer v Anneliese Kuso

(Case C-614/11) (1)

(Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women - Directive 76/207/EEC - Fixed-term employment contract concluded prior to the accession of the Member State - Expiry of the fixed term after the accession - Employment legislation fixing the expiry date for the contract as the last day of the year in which retirement age is reached - Retirement age for men different from the age set for women)

2013/C 325/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Niederösterreichische Landes-Landwirtschaftskammer

Defendant: Anneliese Kuso

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) and (c) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 4), as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15) — Fixed term employment contracts concluded between an institution of a Member State and its employees, before the accession of that State to the European Union, under which the expiry of the contracts is fixed as the last day of the year in which a male employee has attained the age of 65 and a female employee the age of 60

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of a body of employment rules which form an integral part of an employment contract concluded before the Member State concerned acceded to the European Union and under which the employment relationship is to come to an end upon attainment of the fixed retirement age, which differs depending on whether the employee is a man or a woman, constitutes discrimination prohibited by that directive where the employee concerned reaches that age after the accession.

(1) OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-313/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Animal feed - Genetically modified feed - Production, placing on the market or use - National prohibition not yet in force)

2013/C 260/08

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 16(5), 19, 20 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1) — National legislation prohibiting any production, placing on the market or use of genetically modified feed

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/14

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

(Case C-583/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 - Trade in seal products - Restrictions on importing and marketing such products - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Right of natural or legal persons to institute proceedings - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Concept of ‘regulatory act’ - Legislative act - Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)

2013/C 344/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association; Jaypootie Moesesie; Allen Kooneeliusie, Toomasie Newkingnak; David Kuptana; Karliin Aariak; Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada (Ottawa); NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC-Greenland), Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (represented by: J. Bouckaert, H. Viaene and D. Gillet, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: I. Anagnostopoulou, D. Gauci and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, E. White and K. Mifsud Bonnici, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 September 2011 in Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council whereby the General Court dismissed an action for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36, ‘the contested regulation’) Concept of ‘regulatory act’ — Requirement that contested regulation be of individual concern

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association, Mr Jaypootie Moesesie, Mr Allen Kooneeliusie, Mr Toomasie Newkingnak, Mr David Kuptana, Ms Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC Greenland), Mr Johannes Egede and Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.