ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/14

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Société d’Exportation de Produits Agricoles SA (SEPA) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-562/11) (1)

(Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Article 11 - Export refunds - Request for a refund in respect of exported goods which do not confer entitlement to a refund - Administrative penalty)

2013/C 26/25

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Société d’Exportation de Produits Agricoles SA (SEPA)

Respondent on a point of law: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of 18 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 77, p. 12), in particular Article 11(1) thereof — Request for an export refund in a situation in which no refund is provided for — Whether a penalty may be imposed on the person making the request

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of 18 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the exemptions laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 11(1), the reduction referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) must be applied, inter alia, in the case where it turns out that the goods for export in respect of which a refund was requested were not of sound and fair marketable quality, notwithstanding the fact that the exporter acted in good faith and correctly described the nature and origin of those goods.

(1) OJ C 39, 11.02.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Joan Cuadrench Moré v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

(Case C-139/11) (1)

(Air transport - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Denied boarding and cancellation or long delays of flights - Period allowed for commencing proceedings)

2013/C 26/10

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Joan Cuadrench Moré

Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Interpretation of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Time-limits for bringing proceedings not laid down — Article 35 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention), approved by Council Decision of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38) — Applicable law

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that the time-limits for bringing actions for compensation under Articles 5 and 7 of that regulation are determined in accordance with the rules of each Member State on the limitation of actions.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-374/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/442/EEC - Domestic waste waters discharged through septic tanks in the countryside - Judgment of the Court finding that a Member State has failed to fulfil obligations - Article 260(2) TFEU - Measures to ensure compliance with a judgment of the Court - Financial penalties - Penalty payment - Lump sum)

2013/C 46/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan and E. Creedon, acting as Agents, A. Collins, SC, and M. Gray, BL)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance with the judgment of the Court of 29 October 2009 in Case C-188/08 Commission v Ireland, concerning infringement of Articles 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), as regards domestic waste waters discharged through septic tanks — Waste not covered by other legislation — Application for the imposition of a periodic penalty payment and the payment of a lump sum

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of 29 October 2009 in Case C-188/08 Commission v Ireland establishing that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

2. Orders Ireland to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 12 000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Case C-188/08 Commission v Ireland, with effect from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the date of full compliance with the judgment in Case C-188/08 Commission v Ireland;

3. Orders Ireland to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, the lump sum of EUR 2 000 000;

4. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence and Others

(Case C-226/11) (1)

(Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Appreciable restriction - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 3(2) - National competition authority - Practices which may affect trade between Member States - Proceedings and penalty - Market share thresholds of the de minimis notice not attained - Restrictions by object)

2013/C 38/05

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Expedia Inc.

Defendants: Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre de l'Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi, Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), Voyages-SNCF.Com, Agence Voyages-SNCF.Com, VFE Commerce, IDTGV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Relationship between Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and national competition laws — Possibility for national courts and national competition authorities to bring proceedings and to impose penalties in respect of an agreement, decision or concerted practice which may affect trade between Member States but which does not exceed the market share thresholds laid down by the Commission — Agreement with an anti-competitive object.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 101(1) TFUE and 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 (EC) and 82 (EC) must be interpreted as not precluding a national competition authority from applying Article 101(1) TFEU to an agreement between undertakings that may affect trade between Member States, but that does not reach the thresholds specified by the European Commission in its notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1), (EC) (de minimis), provided that that agreement constitutes an appreciable restriction of competition within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.

(Case C-73/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Cancellation of 65 % of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Private creditor test - Limits of judicial review - Substitution by the General Court of its own grounds for those set out in the contested decision - Manifest error of assessment - Distortion of evidence)

2013/C 71/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Frucona Košice a.s. (represented by: P. Lasok QC, J. Holmes and B. Hartnett, Barristers, and by O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Walkerová, L. Armati and B. Martenczuk, Agents), St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. (represented by: N. Smaho, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 Frucona Kosice a.s v European Commission in which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission Decision C(2006) 2087 final, of 7 June 2006, concerning aid granted by Slovakia for Frucona Košice in the form of a cancellation of a tax debt by the competent tax office in a collective bankruptcy procedure (State Aid No C 25/2005, ex NN/2005), in so far as that decision declares that measure incompatible with the common market and orders Slovakia to recover the aid in its entirety

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 Frucona Košice v Commission;

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the pleas raised before it on which it did not rule;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/5

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Woningstichting Maasdriel v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-543/11) (1)

(Value-added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(k), read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) - Land which has not been built on - Building land - Definitions - Demolition work for the purposes of future construction - Exemption from VAT)

2013/C 63/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Woningstichting Maasdriel

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 135(1)(k), read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3), of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions provided for by the Directive — Supply of land which has not been built on.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(k) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) therein, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in Article 135(1)(k) does not cover the supply, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of land which has not been built on following the demolition of the building situated on it, even where, at the time of that supply, improvement works on the land, apart from that demolition, had not been carried out, where it is apparent from an overall assessment of the factual circumstances surrounding that transaction and prevailing at the time of supply, including the intention of the parties when it is supported by objective evidence, that, at that time, the land at issue was in fact intended to be built on, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH v Finanzamt Bayreuth

(Case C-275/11) (1)

(Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption of the management of special investment funds - Scope)

2013/C 123/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Bayreuth

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(6) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of the management of special investment funds — Scope

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(6) 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 advisory services concerning investment in transferable securities, provided by a third party to an investment management company which is the manager of a special investment fund, fall within the concept of ‘management of special investment funds’ for the purposes of the exemption laid down in that provision, even if the third party has not acted on the basis of a mandate within the meaning of Article 5g of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) as amended by Directive 2001/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 January 2002.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/2

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-122/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Coordination of social security systems - National rules precluding the indexation, during the period until 1 August 2004, of pensions of nationals of a Member State which has not concluded a reciprocal agreement or who do not satisfy the condition of residence in the European Union - Residence in a non-member State - Breach of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - Inadmissible)

2013/C 108/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreushitz and G. Rozet, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M Mamouna, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1) and Articles 18 and 45 TFEU — National rules precluding the indexation, for the period until 1 August 2004, of pensions of nationals of a Member State which had not concluded a reciprocal agreement or who do not satisfy the condition of residence in the European Union — Residence in a non-member State — Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Lack of justification)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 160, 28.5.2011
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/15

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante — Spain) — Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza

(Case C-561/11) (1)

(Community trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(1) - Concept of ‘third party’ - Proprietor of a later Community trade mark)

2013/C 114/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération Cynologique Internationale

Defendant: Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Infringement or threat of infringement of a Community trade mark — Exclusive right conferred by a Community trade mark — Meaning of third party

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right of the proprietor of a Community trade mark to prohibit all third parties from using, in the course of trade, signs identical with or similar to its trade mark extends to a third-party proprietor of a later registered Community trade mark, without the need for that latter mark to have been declared invalid beforehand.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
1.

Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from charging mobile telephone operators holding rights of use for radio frequencies a one-off fee payable for both a new acquisition of rights of use for radio frequencies and for renewals of those rights, in addition to an annual fee for making the frequencies available, intended to encourage optimal use of the resources while at the same time also covering the cost of managing the authorisation, provided that those fees genuinely are intended to ensure optimal use of the resource made up of those radio frequencies and are objectively justified, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate in relation to their intended purpose and take into account the objectives in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), which it is for the national court to assess. Subject to that same condition, the fixing of the amount of a one-off fee for rights of use for radio frequencies by reference either to the amount of the former one-off licence fee calculated on the basis of the number of frequencies and months to which the rights of use relate, or to the amounts raised through auction, may be an appropriate method for determining the value of the radio frequencies.
3.

The provisions of Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, should be applied to wholly unemployed frontier workers who, taking into account the links they have maintained in the Member State where they were last employed, receive unemployment benefit from that Member State on the basis of its legislation, pursuant to Article 71 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 as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008. The concept of ‘unchanged situation’ within the meaning of Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004 as amended by Regulation No 988/2009 must be assessed in the light of national social security legislation. It is for the national court to establish whether workers such as Ms Peeters and Mr Arnold satisfy the conditions provided for in that legislation in order to be able to claim resumption of payment of the unemployment benefit which was paid to them under that legislation, in accordance with Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008.