ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

(Case C-431/11) (1)

(Coordination of social security systems - EEA Agreement - Proposal for an amendment - Council decision - Choice of legal basis - Article 48 TFEU - Article 79(2)(b) TFEU)

2013/C 344/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell, acting as Agent, assisted by A. Dashwood QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Veiga, A. De Elera and G. Marhic, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, acting as Agent, assisted by N. Travers, BL)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2011/407/EU of 6 June 2011 on the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex VI (Social Security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement (OJ 2011 L 182, p. 12) — Choice of legal basis (Article 48 TFEU or Article 79 TFEU)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

3. Orders Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — European Commission v Edison SpA

(Case C-446/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state reasons)

2014/C 45/06

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Edison SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, R. Casati, M. Beretta, P. Merlino, F. Cannizzaro and E. Bruti Liberati, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-196/06 Edison v Commission, by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns Edison SpA — Rules on the imputability of the anti-competitive practices of a subsidiary to its parent company — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the obligation to state reasons.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Enosi Epangelmation Asfaliston Ellados (EEAE), Sillogos Asfalistikon Praktoron N. Attikis (SPATE), Panellinios Sillogos Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSAS), Sindesmos Ellinon Mesiton Asfaliseon (SEMA), Panellinios Sindesmos Sintoniston Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSSAS) v Ipourgos Anaptixis, Omospondia Asfalistikon Sillogon Ellados

(Case C-555/11) (1)

(Directive 2002/92/EC - Insurance mediation - Exclusion of the activities pursued by an insurance undertaking or an employee acting under the responsibility of such an undertaking - Whether it is possible for such an employee to pursue insurance mediation activities on an incidental basis - Professional requirements)

2013/C 367/05

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Enosi Epangelmation Asfaliston Ellados (EEAE), Sillogos Asfalistikon Praktoron N. Attikis (SPATE), Panellinios Sillogos Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSAS), Sindesmos Ellinon Mesiton Asfaliseon (SEMA), Panellinios Sindesmos Sintoniston Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSASS)

Defendant: Ipourgos Anaptixis, Omospondia Asfalistikon Sillogon Ellados

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikrateias — Interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation — Meaning of ‘insurance mediation’ — Exclusion of activities pursued by an insurance undertaking or an employee of an insurance undertaking acting under its responsibility — Scope

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 2(3), in conjunction with Article 4(1), of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation must be interpreted as precluding an employee of an insurance undertaking who does not possess the qualifications required under the latter provision from pursuing — on an incidental basis and not as his main professional activity — the activity of insurance mediation where such an employee does not act as a subordinate of that undertaking, even though the latter in any event supervises that person’s activities.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
1.

Declares that, by failing to take, by the date on which the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission on 26 June 2008 expired, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Joined Cases C-485/03 to C-490/03 Commission v Spain EU:C:2006:777, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 January 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-292/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Periodic penalty payment - Claim for payment - Repeal of the national legislation which gave rise to the failure to fulfil obligations - Assessment by the Commission of the measures adopted by the Member State to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice - Limits - Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the General Court)

2014/C 85/02

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by P. Hetsch, P. Costa de Oliveira and M. Heller, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes and J. Arsénio de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the other party to the proceedings: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by A. Samoni-Bantou and I. Pouli, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, A. Adam, J. Rossi and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2011 in Case T-33/09 Portugal v Commission, by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2008) 7419 final of 25 November 2008 — Request that the Portuguese Republic should make the penalty payments due in compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-70/06 Commission v Portugal [2008] ECR I-1.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Portuguese Republic in the present proceedings;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/18

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Město Žamberk v Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové, now Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-18/12) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(m) - Exemption - Supply of services closely linked to sport or physical education - Taking part in sporting activities of a non-organised and unsystematic nature - Municipal aquatic park)

2013/C 114/25

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Město Žamberk

Defendant: Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové, now Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Article 132(1)(m) 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 — Supplies of services closely linked to sport or physical education — Occasional unsystematic participation in recreational sporting activities in a swimming pool complex (aquatic park) operated by the municipality and provided with facilities for those activities

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that non-organised and unsystematic sporting activities which are not aimed at participation in sports competitions may be categorised as taking part in sport within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 132(1)(m) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that access to an aquatic park offering visitors not only facilities for engaging in sporting activities but also other types of amusement or rest may constitute a supply of services closely linked to sport. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of the interpretative guidance provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the present judgment and having regard to the specific circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, that is the position in that case.

(1) OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/35

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — Guillermo Cañas v European Commission, World Anti-doping Agency, ATP Tour, Inc.

(Case C-269/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Anti-doping legislation - Decision to take no further action on a complaint lodged before the Commission - Concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ - That interest remaining after the professional activity has ceased)

2013/C 225/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Guillermo Cañas (represented by: Y. Bonnard and C. Aguet, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents), World Anti-doping Agency (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, D. Cooper, solicitor, N. Chesaites, barrister), ATP Tour, Inc.

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2012 in Case T-508/09 Cañas v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009)7809 of 12 October 2009 in Case COMP/39471, rejecting for lack of Community interest a complaint concerning an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC allegedly committed by the World Anti-doping Agency, the ATP Tour Inc. and by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) — Competition — Anti-doping legislation — Errors of law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ — Interest in bringing proceedings ceased to exist during the proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Guillermo Cañas to pay the costs;

3. Orders the World Anti-doping Agency to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/17

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Citroën Belux NV v Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)

(Case C-265/12) (1)

(Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Consumer protection - Combined offers involving at least one financial service - Prohibition - Exceptions)

2013/C 260/28

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Citroën Belux NV

Defendant: Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU and of Article 3(9) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — National consumer-protection legislation which prohibits generally, subject to exceptions exhaustively set out, any combined offer containing at least one financial service

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(9) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted, as must Article 56 TFEU, as not precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a general prohibition — save in the cases exhaustively listed by the national legislation — of combined offers made to consumers where at least one of the components of those offers is a financial service.

(1) OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/27

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg)) — Kreshnik Ymeraga, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

(Case C-87/12) (1)

(Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Right of residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen who has not exercised his right of freedom of movement - Fundamental rights)

2013/C 225/44

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kreshnik Ymeraga, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga

Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative — Interpretation of Article 20 TFEU and Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Citizenship of the Union — Right to family reunification for a citizen of the European Union for the benefit of family members who are third-country nationals, where that person has not actually exercised the right of freedom of movement and does not have a right to reside in a Member State other than that of which he holds the nationality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from refusing to allow a third-country national to reside in its territory, where that third-country national wishes to reside with a family member who is a European Union citizen residing in the Member State of which he holds the nationality and has never exercised his right of freedom of movement as a Union citizen, provided such refusal does not lead, for the Union citizen concerned, to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a Union citizen.

(1) OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/20

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

(Case C-59/12) (1)

(Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Scope - Misleading information circulated by a health insurance fund which is part of the statutory social security system - Fund established as a public law body)

2013/C 344/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) in conjunction with Article 2(d) of the same directive — Scope — ‘Commercial practices’ and ‘trader’ — Advertisements of a statutory health insurance fund containing misleading information in relation to the drawbacks flowing from a potential change of health insurance fund for its clients.

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted to the effect that a public law body charged with a task of public interest, such as the management of a statutory health insurance fund, falls within the persons covered by the directive.

(1) OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.
1.

Article 4(8) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions for its application require both an objective and a subjective element. With regard to the first of those elements, it is for the referring court to consider the objective circumstances of the case in question which may lead to the conclusion that the objective pursued by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) support scheme cannot be achieved. With regard to the second element, it is for the referring court to consider the objective evidence which may lead to the conclusion that, by artificially creating the conditions required for obtaining such a payment under the EAFRD support scheme, the applicant for such a payment intended exclusively to obtain an advantage contrary to the objectives of that scheme. In that regard, the referring court can take as its basis not only elements such as the legal, economic and/or personal links between the persons involved in similar investment projects, but also indications showing that there was intentional coordination between those persons.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/30

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul — Portugal) — ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer Lda v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-282/12) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Interest paid by a resident company on funds lent by a company established in a non-member country - Existence of ‘special relations’ between those companies - Thin capitalisation rules - No right of deduction in relation to interest on the part of the overall debt regarded as excessive - Interest deductible if paid to a company resident in the national territory - Tax evasion and avoidance - Wholly artificial arrangements - Arm’s length terms - Proportionality)

2013/C 344/51

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer Lda

Respondent: Fazenda Pública

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) — Interpretation of Article 63 TFEU and Article 65 TFEU — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Interest deductible on borrowing — National rules providing for deduction in the case of excessive indebtedness to a company established in the national territory but not in the case of excessive indebtedness to a company established in a non-member country

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of rules of a Member State which provide that, where interest applied to the part of an overall debt categorised as excessive has been paid by a resident company to a lending company established in a non-member country with which the borrowing company has special relations, it is not deductible as an expense for the purposes of determining taxable profit, but where such interest is paid to a resident lending company with which the borrowing company has special relations, it is deductible for those purposes, those rules are precluded where, if the lending company established in a non-member country does not have a shareholding in the resident borrowing company, they nevertheless presume that the overall debt owed by the borrowing company forms part of an arrangement designed to avoid the tax normally payable or where they do not make it possible, at the outset, to determine their scope with sufficient precision.

(1) OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.