ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v RBS Deutschland Holdings GmbH

(Case C-277/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Right to deduction - Purchase of vehicles and use for leasing transactions - Differences between the tax regimes of two Member States - Prohibition of abusive practices)

2011/C 63/10

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh

Parties to the main proceedings

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

Defendant: RBS Deutschland Holdings GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — Interpretation of Article 17(3)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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) — Transactions carried out with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage — Provision of vehicle leasing services in the United Kingdom by the German subsidiary of a bank established in the United Kingdom

Operative part of the judgment

1. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Article 17(3)(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 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot refuse to allow a taxable person to deduct input value added tax paid on the acquisition of goods in that Member State, where those goods have been used for the purposes of leasing transactions carried out in another Member State, solely on the ground that the output transactions have not given rise to the payment of value added tax in the second Member State.

2. The principle of prohibiting abusive practices does not preclude the right to deduct value added tax, recognised in Article 17(3)(a) of Directive 77/388, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which a company established in one Member State elects to have its subsidiary, established in another Member State, carry out transactions for the leasing of goods to a third company established in the first Member State, in order to avoid a situation in which value added tax is payable on the sums paid as consideration for those transactions, the transactions having been categorised in the first Member State as supplies of rental services carried out in the second Member State, and in that second Member State as supplies of goods carried out in the first Member State.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België — Belgium) — Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Others v Vlaamse Gewest

(Case C-275/09) (1)

(Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Airports with a runway length of 2 100 metres or more - Concept of ‘construction’ - Renewal of operating permit)

2011/C 139/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, P. De Donder, F. De Becker, K. Colenbie, Ph. Hutsenbaut, B. Kockaert, VZW Boreas, F. Petit, V.S. de Burbure de Wezembeek, L. Van Dessel

Defendant: Vlaamse Gewest

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State van België — Interpretation of Annex I, paragraph 7(a), to 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) — Construction of airports with a runway length of 2 100 metres or more — Concept of ‘construction’

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 1(2) of, and point 7 of Annex 1 to, 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, are to be interpreted as meaning that:

— the renewal of an existing permit to operate an airport cannot, in the absence of any works or interventions involving alterations to the physical aspect of the site, be classified as a ‘project’ or‘construction’, respectively, within the meaning of those provisions;

— however, it is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the national legislation applicable and taking account, where appropriate, of the cumulative effect of a number of works or interventions carried out since the entry into force of the directive, whether that permit forms part of a consent procedure carried out in several stages, the ultimate purpose of which is to enable activities which constitute a project within the meaning of the first indent of point 13 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I, to the directive to be carried out. If no assessment of the environmental effects of such works or interventions was carried out at the earlier stage in the consent procedure, it would be for the national court to ensure that the directive was effective by satisfying itself that such an assessment was carried out at the very least at the stage at which the operating permit was to be granted.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2011 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Kakavetsos-Fragkopoulos AE Epexergasias kai Emporias Stafidas, formerly K. Fragkopoulos kai SIA OE v Normarchiaki Aftodioikisi Korinthias

(Case C-161/09) (1)

(Free movement of goods - Measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions - Currants - National legislation aimed at protecting the quality of the product - Restrictions imposed on marketing according to different areas of production - Justification - Proportionality)

2011/C 130/05

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kakavetsos-Fragkopoulos AE Epexergasias kai Emporias Stafidas, formerly K. Fragkopoulos kai SIA OE

Defendant: Normarchiaki Aftodioikisi Korinthias

intervening parties: Ypourgos Georgias, Enosis Agrotikon Synaiterismon Aigialeias tou Nomou Achaïas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions on exports– Measures having equivalent effect — National legislation distinguishing between regions producing dried grapes according to their quality — Prohibition on bringing drying grapes from Region B, where the drying grapes are of inferior quality, into Region A, where they are of superior quality, to be processed and marketed — Prohibition on bringing into Region A best drying grapes from a particular area of that region to be processed and marketed — Compatibility with Articles 29 EC and 30 EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 29 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down an absolute prohibition on bringing in, storing, processing and packing for export dried grapes both as between the two sub-areas of area A and as between the second sub-area of area A and area B, since it does not enable the legitimate objectives pursued to be met consistently and goes beyond what is necessary to ensure the attainment of those objectives.

(1) OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany)) — Ulrich Schröder v Finanzamt Hameln

(Case C-450/09) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Taxation of income from the letting of immovable property - Deductibility of annuities paid to a relative in the context of an anticipated succession inter vivos - Condition of being subject to unlimited tax liability in the Member State at issue)

2011/C 152/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ulrich Schröder

Defendant: Finanzamt Hameln

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht — Interpretation of Articles 12 and 56 EC — Taxation on income deriving from the leasing or letting of immovable property — Legislation of a Member State making the possibility of deducting the allowances paid to the former owner of those properties in the context of anticipatory succession subject to the condition of being wholly liable to tax in that state

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, while allowing a resident taxpayer to deduct the annuities paid to a relative who transferred to him immovable property situated in the territory of that State from the rental income derived from that property, does not grant such a deduction to a non-resident taxpayer, in so far as the undertaking to pay those annuities results from the transfer of that property.

(1) OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium)) — Maurits Casteels v British Airways plc

(Case C-379/09) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU - Social security for migrant workers - Protection of supplementary pension rights - Inaction on the part of the Council - Worker employed successively by the same employer in several Member States)

2011/C 139/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maurits Casteels

Defendant: British Airways plc

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Brussel — Interpretation of Articles 39 EC and 42 EC and of Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguarding the supplementary pension rights of employed and self-employed persons moving within the Community (OJ 1998 L 209, p. 46) — Absence of action on the part of the Council — Employee working successively in the operating units of the same employer in several Member States (otherwise than in the context of postings) and subject on each occasion to the locally applicable supplementary pension scheme

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 48 TFEU does not have any direct effect capable of being relied on by an individual against his private-sector employer in a dispute before national courts.

2. Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding, in the context of the mandatory application of a collective labour agreement: — for the determination of the period for the acquisition of definitive entitlements to supplementary pension benefits in a Member State, the non-inclusion of the years of service completed by a worker for the same employer in establishments of that employer situated in different Member States and pursuant to the same coordinating contract of employment; — a worker who has been transferred from an establishment of his employer in one Member State to an establishment of the same employer in another Member State from being regarded as having left the employer of his own free will.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
4.

The expression ‘individual reference quantity eligible for premium and available on the holding’ contained in Article 95(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 118/2005 of 26 January 2005, which corresponds to the expression ‘available reference quantity’ contained in Article 5(k) of Regulation No 1788/2003, as amended by Regulation No 2217/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a producer has received a transfer, during the relevant twelve-month period, of a reference quantity under which milk has already been delivered by the transferor during the same period, that expression does not cover, as regards the transferee, the part of the transferred reference quantity under which milk has already been delivered exempt from the levy by the transferor.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Mensch und Natur AG v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-327/09) (1)

(Fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC - Measures adopted by the institutions - Commission decision addressed to a particular person - Regulation (EC) No 258/97 - Novel food or novel food ingredient - Decision 2000/196/EC - ‘Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves’ - Refusal to authorise placing on the market - Effects in relation to a person other than the addressee)

2011/C 179/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mensch und Natur AG

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Commission Decision 2000/196/EC of 22 February 2000 refusing the placing on the market of ‘Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves’ as a novel food or novel food ingredient in accordance with European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 258/97 (OJ 2000 L 61, p. 14) — Commission decision addressed to a particular person — Effect in relation to a person other than the addressee

Operative part of the judgment

A Commission decision taken on the basis of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients and refusing authorisation to place on the market of the European Union a food or food ingredient is not binding on any persons other than the person or persons whom that decision specifies as its addressees. By contrast, the competent authorities of a Member State must establish whether a product marketed in the territory of that Member State, the characteristics of which appear to match those of the product which was the subject-matter of that Commission decision, is a novel food or novel food ingredient within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that regulation and, where necessary, they must require the person concerned to comply with the provisions of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.
2.

Directive 2001/29, in particular Article 5(2)(b) and (5) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the Member State which has introduced a system of private copying levies chargeable to the manufacturer or importer of media for reproduction of protected works, and on the territory of which the harm caused to authors by the use for private purposes of their work by purchasers who reside there occurs, to ensure that those authors actually receive the fair compensation intended to compensate them for that harm. In that regard, the mere fact that the commercial seller of reproduction equipment, devices and media is established in a Member State other than that in which the purchasers reside has no bearing on that obligation to achieve a certain result. It is for the national court, where it is impossible to ensure recovery of the fair compensation from the purchasers, to interpret national law in order to allow recovery of that compensation from the person responsible for payment who is acting on a commercial basis.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries all the aid granted under the aid scheme declared incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2005/315/EC of 20 October 2004 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for firms investing in municipalities seriously affected by natural disasters in 2002, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that decision;
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to ensure implementation of Commission Decision 2008/697/EC of 16 April 2008 on State Aid C 13/07 (ex NN 15/06 and N 734/06) implemented by Italy for New Interline, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning, KID-Holding A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-398/09) (1)

(Refusal to reimburse a tax paid in error - Unjust enrichment arising from the link between the introduction of that tax and the abolition of other taxes)

2011/C 311/08

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning, KID-Holding A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Re:

Reference for preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of the judgment of the Court in Joined Cases C-192/95 to C-218/95 Comateb and Others and of the principles of Community law governing unjust enrichment — Refusal to reimburse a national tax held to be incompatible with Community law, on grounds of unjust enrichment arising from the direct link between the introduction of the unlawful tax and the abolishment of other taxes charged on another basis — Non-reimbursement having the effect of placing product importers at a disadvantage in relation to purchasers of similar domestic products due to the proportionally greater payment of the unlawful tax by the former as compared to the latter.

Operative part of the judgment

The rules of European Union law on recovery of sums wrongly paid must be interpreted to the effect that recovery of sums wrongly paid can give rise to unjust enrichment only when the amounts wrongly paid by a taxpayer under a tax levied in a Member State in breach of European Union law have been passed on direct to the purchaser. Consequently, European Union law precludes a Member State from refusing reimbursement of a tax wrongfully levied on the ground that the amounts wrongly paid by the taxpayer have been set off by a saving made as a result of the concomitant abolition of other levies, since such a set-off cannot be regarded, from the point of view of European Union law, as an unjust enrichment as regards that tax.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA v European Commission

(Case C-272/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper industrial tubes - Fines - Size of the market, duration of the infringement and cooperation capable of being taken into consideration - Effective judicial remedy)

2012/C 32/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, avvocato, A. Winckler, avocat, G. Rizza, avvocato, T. Graf, advokat, M. Piergiovanni, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and J. Bourke, acting as Agents, C. Thomas, Solicitor)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 6 May 2009 in Case T-127/04 KME Germany and Others v Commission, in which the Court dismissed an action seeking reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by Commission Decision 2004/421/EC of 16 December 2003, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.240 — Industrial tubes) (OJ 2004 L 125, p. 50) — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Actual impact on the market — Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 370/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl

(Case C-511/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 - Determination of the dumping margin - Comparison between the normal value and the export price - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(7)(a) and 2(10))

2011/C 370/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd (represented by: P. Bentley QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by H. van Vliet and C. Clyne, acting as Agents), IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl (R. Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 in Case T-296/06 Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd v Council, by which it dismissed an application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 of 24 July 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 1) — Determination of the dumping margin

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda Srl;

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

(1) OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.