ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/8

Appeal brought on 18 March 2011 by IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2011 in Case T-362/08: IFAW v European Commission

(Case C-135/11 P)

2011/C 179/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH (represented by: S. Crosby, Advocaat, S. Santoro, Avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— find that the contested judgment is vitiated by errors of law and to set it aside accordingly;

— annul the Commission's decision refusing access to the Schröder letter and

— order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs in both proceedings pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant contends that the General Court, in the contested judgment, erred in law by:

— not recognizing that the Commission has to conduct a full review of whether the grounds relied upon by the Member State for not disclosing a document fall under one of the exceptions of Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) by testing the exceptions against the content of the document; and

— ruling that it was able in law to conduct a full review of the refusal to disclose without sight of the document in question.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, p. 43
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 1 April 2011 — Auto 24 SARL v Jaguar Land Rover France

(Case C-158/11)

2011/C 179/19

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Auto 24 SARL

Defendant: Jaguar Land Rover France

Question referred

What is to be understood by the words ‘specified criteria’ in Article 1(1)(f) of Regulation No 1400/2002 (1) as regards a quantitative selective distribution?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ 2002 L 203, p. 30).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/12

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2011 — Folien Fischer AG and Fofitec AG v RITRAMA SpA

(Case C-133/11)

2011/C 204/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Folien Fischer AG and Fofitec AG

Defendant: RITRAMA SpA

Question referred

Is 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction in matters relating to tort or delict also exists in respect of an action for a negative declaration in which a potential injuring party asserts that the party potentially injured by a particular situation has no claim in tort or delict (in this case, infringement of the provisions of anti-trust law)?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
1.

Does Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 (1) guarantee the minimum reception conditions to which it refers to applicants in respect of whom a Member State in receipt of an application for asylum decides, under Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003, (2) to refer a request to another Member State which it deems to have jurisdiction to examine that asylum application, throughout the duration of the procedure for taking charge of them or for taking them back by that other Member State?
1.

Is Article 151(1)(c) of the Principal VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as exempting a supply in the UK of services of dismantling obsolete US Navy ships for the US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration in either or both of the following circumstances: (a) where that supply was not made to a part of the armed forces of a NATO member taking part in the common defence effort or to civilian staff accompanying them; (b) where that supply was not made to a part of the armed forces of a NATO member stationed in or visiting the United Kingdom or to civilian staff accompanying such forces?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd

(Case C-228/11)

2011/C 211/33

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Melzer

Defendant: MF Global UK Ltd

Question referred

In the context of jurisdiction in matters relating to tort or delict under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, (1) where there is cross-border participation of several people in a tort or delict, is reciprocal attribution of the place where the event occurred admissible for determining the place where the harmful event occurred?

(1) 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).
1.

Does Article 7(2) of the Family Reunification Directive (1) allow a Member State to refuse entry and residence to a family member, as referred to in Article 4 of the Family Reunification Directive, of a third country national lawfully residing in that Member State, exclusively on the ground that that family member has not passed the integration examination abroad as prescribed in the legislation of that Member State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/14

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės (Lithuania) lodged on 20 May 2011 — Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė, Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-250/11)

2011/C 226/27

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB

Defendants: Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė, Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Questions referred

1. Should the exemption from import duties laid down in Article 112(1)(a) of Regulation No 918/83 (1) and Article 107(1)(a) of Regulation No 1186/2009 (2) be understood as applying to motor vehicles [motorinės transporto priemonės] that are locomotives?

2. Should the exemption from value added tax laid down in Article 82(1)(a) of Directive 83/181/EEC (3) and Article 84(1)(a) of Directive 2009/132/EC (4) be understood as applying to motor vehicles [motorinės transporto priemonės] that are locomotives?

3. If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, do legal rules such as those laid down in Article 82(1)(a) of Directive 83/181/EEC and Article 84(1)(a) of Directive 2009/132/EC have to be interpreted as prohibiting a Member State from restricting the cases of exemption from import VAT for fuel by providing that such an exemption is applicable exclusively to fuel that is admitted into the territory of the European Union in the standard tanks of automotive vehicles and is necessary for the operation of those vehicles?

(1) 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).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 2009 L 324, p. 23).

(3) Council Directive 83/181/EEC of 28 March 1983 determining the scope of Article 14(1)(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 38).

(4) Council Directive 2009/132/EC of 19 October 2009 determining the scope of Article 143(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112/EC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods (OJ 2009 L 292, p. 5).
2.

Should the question whether the cost of the litigation is or is not ‘prohibitively expensive’ within the meaning of Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention as implemented by the Directives be decided on an objective basis (by reference, for example, to the ability of an ‘ordinary’ member of the public to meet the potential liability for costs), or should it be decided on a subjective basis (by reference to the means of the particular claimant) or upon some combination of these two bases?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/19

Action brought on 31 May 2011 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-269/11)

2011/C 232/31

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by permitting travel agencies, pursuant to Paragraph 89 of Law No 235/2004 Coll. on Value Added Tax, to apply the special scheme for travel agents to the provision of travel services to persons other than travellers, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

— order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the Czech Republic the special scheme of VAT for travel agents introduced by Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC is applied not only to supplies provided by travel agents to travellers but also to supplies provided to persons other than travellers. Pursuant to Paragraph 89 of Law No 235/2004 Coll. on Value Added Tax, the special scheme is also applied in the Czech Republic where a travel service is provided to a legal person which sells that service on to other travel agents. In the opinion of the Commission, that is contrary to the provisions of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, which require the special scheme for travel agents to be used only in cases where a travel service is supplied to a traveller. The wording of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, and the objective which those provisions pursue, support the position of the Commission.
4.

Is Article 185(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Article 79(3) of the Law on VAT and Article 80(2)(1) of the Law on VAT, which provides for an adjustment of the deduction made in cases of destruction of property upon the acquisition of which a total payment of the basic amount and the tax calculated was made, and which makes the non-adjustment of a deduction dependent on a condition other than payment?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 238/6

Appeal brought on 6 June 2011 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2011 in Case T-233/09: Access Info Europe v Council of the European Union

(Case C-280/11 P)

2011/C 238/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza, B. Driessen, Cs. Fekete, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Access Info Europe, Hellenic Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested judgement by which the General Court annulled the Council's decision of refusing public access to the requested document;

— give a final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal; and

— order the Applicant in Case T-233/09 to pay the costs of the Council arising from that case and from the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

At the outset, the Council would like to recall that the adoption of the contested decision, on 26 February 2009, pre-dates the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009. Accordingly, the applicable Treaty framework for the purposes of the present action is the one established by the Treaty on European Union and Treaty establishing the European Community, prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

The Council respectfully submits that first, the General Court has erred in law in its interpretation and application of the exception laid down in Article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001 (1), since its findings are inconsistent with the applicable Treaty provisions, and in particular, disregard the limits of the principle of wider access of the institutions' legislative activities set by the Treaty and reflected by secondary law, on account of the preservation of the effectiveness of the institution's decision-making.

Second, the Council argues that the General Court's reasoning is inconsistent with the case-law of the Court which allows the institution to rely upon general considerations.

Third, the Council submits that the General Court has erred in law in applying the ‘requisite legal and factual standard’ to the present case in order to review the reasons the Council brought to justify invocation of the exception laid down in Article 4(3) first sub-paragraph of the Regulation. In its assessment, the General Court committed legal errors in so far as it required evidence of an adverse effect on the decision-making process, disregarded the importance of the early stage of the decision-making for appreciating the impact of full disclosure, and failed to take account of the sensitivity of the requested document.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents

OJ L 145, p. 43
5.

Under the common system of value added tax and the provisions of Articles 168 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, is the right of the trader to recognition of VAT payments in respect of a given transaction (a) to be assessed solely in relation to the specific transaction to which the trader is party, having regard to the trader’s intention to be a party to the transaction, and/or (b) to be assessed taking account of all transactions, including upstream and downstream transactions, which form a supply chain of which the transaction in question is part, having regard to the intentions of the other parties in the chain, which the trader does not know and/or about which he cannot find out, or to the acts and/or omissions of the issuer of the invoice and of the other parties in the chain, namely his upstream suppliers, whom the person to whom the supply is made cannot control and of whom he cannot demand particular conduct, and/or (c) to be assessed taking account of fraudulent acts and intentions of other parties in the chain, of whose participation the trader did not know and about whose acts or intentions it cannot be established whether he was able to find out, regardless of whether those acts or intentions date from before or after a given transaction?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/26

Action brought on 5 July 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-352/11)

2011/C 252/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to grant permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive), to reconsider or if necessary renew and check compliance with existing permits, in order to ensure that all existing installations are operated in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of the IPPC Directive, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of the IPPC directive;

— Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to the provisions of the IPPC Directive, (1) since 30 October 2007‘existing installations’ within the meaning of that directive require a permit.

According to the information currently available to the Commission, at the relevant time not all of those ‘existing installations’ situated in the Republic of Austria are in possession of the necessary permit.

(1) Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/19

Action brought on 14 June 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-296/11)

2011/C 252/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Soulay and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by applying the special scheme for travel agencies to services supplied to persons other than travellers (in particular to other travel agencies), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; (1)

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises a single plea in law in support of its action, alleging the wrongful application of the special scheme for travel agencies to services supplied to persons other than travellers. In that regard, it points out that the scheme applies only where the travel service is sold to a traveller. However, it is not applicable to services supplied by travel agencies to other travel agencies or to tour operators. Having regard to the wording of the provisions of the Code général des impôts (General Tax Code) which refer to a ‘client’ rather than a ‘traveller’, the defendant uses an approach based on the ‘client’ and thus applies the special scheme for travel agencies broadly.

The Commission also rejects the argument advanced by the French authorities that the French legislation enables the objectives pursued by the special scheme, namely the simplification of travel agencies’ administrative formalities and the attribution of VAT revenue to the Member State in which the end consumption of each individual service took place, to be better achieved.

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/38

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 13 July 2011 — Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon

(Case C-373/11)

2011/C 269/78

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou

Defendants: Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon

Question referred

Is Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003, under which the Member States are permitted to set different retention percentages, up to the limit of 10 % of the component of national ceilings referred to in Article 41, for the making of an additional payment to producers, while observing the criteria set out in the third paragraph of Article 69, compatible, in permitting this differentiation as regards the retention percentage, with Articles 2 EC, 32 EC and 34 EC and with the objectives of ensuring a stable income for producers and maintaining rural areas?
2.

In interpreting the concept of waste and, in particular, assessing the obligation to dispose of a substance or an object, is it relevant that the re-use of the object which is the subject of the assessment is authorised under certain conditions by Annex XVII as referred to in Article 67 of the REACH Regulation? If that is the case, what weight is to be given to that fact?
2.

Is a taxable person who has the seat of his economic activity in another Member State and whose activity principally consists of the manufacture and sale of cars, who has carried out winter testing of car models at installations in Sweden, to be regarded as having had a fixed establishment in Sweden from which business transactions have been effected where that person has acquired goods and services that were received and used at testing installations in Sweden without having his own staff permanently stationed in Sweden and where the testing activity is necessary to the performance of the person’s economic activity in another Member State?
1.

Do Articles 12, 17, 18 and, so far as necessary, 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, as consolidated at Amsterdam on 2 October 1997, preclude a provision of national law under which, in the manner of Article 36(1)(2)(j) of the Belgian Royal Decree of 25 November 1991 laying down unemployment regulations, entitlement to tideover allowance for a young European Union national, who does not have the status of a ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 39 of the Treaty, has completed secondary studies in the European Union but not at an educational establishment run, subsidised or approved by one of the communities in Belgium and has obtained either a document issued by one of those communities establishing the equivalence of those studies to the study certificate issued by the competent authority of one of those communities for studies completed in those Belgian educational establishments, or else a document giving access to higher education, is conditional upon the young person in question having previously completed six years’ studies at an educational establishment run, approved or subsidised by one of the communities in Belgium, if that condition is exclusive and absolute?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/20

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo lodged on 1 April 2011 — Procura della Repubblica v Ibrahim Music

(Case C-156/11)

2011/C 269/36

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Bergamo

Party to the main proceedings

Ibrahim Music

By order of 21 June 2011 the Court of Justice removed the case from the register.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/14

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2011 — Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd v Belgische Staat, other party: Syral Belgium NV

(Case C-384/11)

2011/C 282/26

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Other party: Syral Belgium NV

Question referred

Does Article 63 TFEU (previously Article 56 of the EC Treaty) preclude legislation on the part of a Member State whereby a dividend distributed to a resident shareholder company, which has a holding of less than 10 % in the capital of another resident company but with a purchase value of at least EUR 1.2 million, is subject to withholding tax of 10 %, but whereby such withholding tax is deductible from the corporate tax payable in Belgium and the balance, if any, is refundable, and whereby such a company, where appropriate, is also entitled to the application of a tax regime (‘DBI’: definitief belasten inkomsten: definitively taxed income) which allows the tax base to be reduced still further by the costs related to the shareholding, whereas for companies established in another Member State of the European Union which receive such dividends, and distributions regarded as dividends, from an identical holding in a resident company, the 10 % withholding tax levied constitutes a final tax which is not refundable and which cannot be reduced by relying on the aforementioned tax regime (‘DBI’)?