ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Gábor Fekete v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága,

(Case C-182/12) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Article 137 - Regulation implementing the Customs Code - Article 561(2) - Conditions for total relief from import duties - Importation into a Member State of a vehicle whose owner is established in a third country - Private use)

2013/C 123/10

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Székesfehérvári Törvényszék (Hungary)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gábor Fekete

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága,

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Interpretation of Article 561(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Total relief from import duty — Private use of a means of transport — Concept of employment relationship — Importation into a Member State of a vehicle belonging to a foundation established in a third country by the chairman of the board of that foundation — Authorisation of the foundation in question for the chairman of the board to use and drive the vehicle concerned

Operative part of the judgment

Article 561(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the total relief from import duties provided for by that provision for a means of transport used privately by a person established in the customs territory of the European Union may be granted only if such use is provided for in a contract of employment between that person and the owner of the vehicle established outside that territory.

(1) OJ C 217, 21.07.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/22

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-286/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2 and 6(1) - National scheme requiring compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries on reaching the age of 62 - Legitimate objectives justifying a difference in treatment vis-à-vis workers under the age of 62 - Proportionality of the duration of the transitional period)

2013/C 9/35

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 2 and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National rules requiring compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries on reaching the age of 62 — Lack of legitimate objectives justifying that difference in treatment as compared with workers under the age of 62 — Disproportionate nature of the transitional period (one year)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting a national scheme requiring compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries when they reach the age of 62 — which gives rise to a difference in treatment on grounds of age which is not proportionate as regards the objectives pursued —, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation;

2. Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/31

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów

(Case C-169/12) (1)

(Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 66(a) to (c) - Transport and shipping services - Chargeability - Date on which payment is received and no later than 30 days from the date on which the services are supplied - Invoice issued earlier)

2013/C 225/51

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sad Administracyjny (Poland) — Interpretation of Article 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), as amended — National legislation fixing the time when liability to pay VAT in respect of supplies of transport and shipping services arises on the date when the price is paid and no later than 30 days from the date on which those services are supplied, even when the invoice is issued earlier

Operative part of the judgment

Article 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/117/EC of 16 December 2008, is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, in respect of transport and shipping services, value added tax is to become chargeable on the date on which payment is received in full or in part, but no later than 30 days from the date on which those services are supplied, even where the invoice has been issued earlier and specifies a later deadline for payment.

(1) OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.
1.

Declares that, by not issuing 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 or, as appropriate, by not reconsidering and, where necessary, by not updating permit conditions, in respect of 13 existing pig-rearing and poultry-rearing installations, and by thereby failing to ensure that all existing installations operate in accordance with Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of that directive by not later than 30 October 2007, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/32

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-191/12) (1)

(Non-repayment of the entirety of value added tax unduly paid - National legislation precluding repayment of VAT because it has been passed on to a third party - Compensation in the form of aid covering a fraction of the non-deductible VAT - Unjust enrichment)

2013/C 225/54

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria Budapest — Interpretation of European Union law relating to the common system of value added tax — Deduction of input VAT — Aid from State funds for an acquisition of goods, also financing the non deductible VAT on the acquisitions — National legislation precluding repayment of tax on the ground that it has been passed on to a third party

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of repayment of taxes levied in a Member State in infringement of the rules of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude that State from refusing to repay part of the value added tax, the deduction of which had been precluded by a national measure contrary to European Union law, on the ground that that part of the tax had been subsided by aid granted to the taxable person and financed by the European Union and by that State, provided that the economic burden relating to the refusal to deduct value added tax has been completely neutralised, which is for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/31

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-183/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned - Interest in bringing proceedings)

2013/C 225/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Chafiq Ayadi (represented by: P. Moser QC and E. Grieves, Barrister, instructed by H. Miller, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, T. Scharf and E. Paasivirta, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, Agents)

Intervener in support of the Commission: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, Agent, E. Regan SC and N. Travers BL)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09 Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission, by which the General Court held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on an action seeking the annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 269, p. 20) — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09 Ayadi v Commission in so far as the order decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment brought before the General Court by Mr Chafiq Ayadi;

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule again on Mr Chafiq Ayadi’s action for annulment;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.
1.

Article 2(2)(f) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusion of healthcare services from the scope of that directive covers any activity intended to assess, maintain or restore the state of health of patients, where that activity is carried out by healthcare professionals recognised as such by the Member State concerned, regardless of the ways in which the facilities in which that care is provided are organised and financed or whether they are public or private. It is for the national court to ascertain whether day-care centres and night-care centres are excluded from the scope of that directive, having regard to the nature of the activities carried out by the healthcare professionals in those centres and whether those activities constitute a principal part of the services offered by those centres.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/24

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — French Republic v European Commission

(Case C-115/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Community structural assistance in the region of Martinique - Reduction of financial assistance - Public works contracts - Compliance of operations with provisions of European Union law - Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ - Concept of ‘facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure’)

2013/C 344/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard and N. Rouam, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-488/10 France v Commission, by which that Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document in respect of objective 1 for Community structural assistance in the French region of Martinique — Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts — Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ — Concept of ‘facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure’ — Errors of law — Failure to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

(Case C-15/12 P) (1)

(Appeals - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 826/2009 - Imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People’s Republic of China - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(10)(b) - Fair comparison - Article 11(9) - Interim partial review - Obligation to apply the same methodology as in the investigation leading to the imposition of the duty - Change in circumstances)

2013/C 336/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and by N. Chesaites, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-423/09 Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials v Council, by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 826/2009 of 7 September 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 240, p. 7) — Comparison between the normal value and the export price — Taking into account the value added tax of the country of origin — Application of a different methodology from that used in the initial investigation — Errors of law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

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

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/34

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser v Manova A/S

(Case C-336/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Principle of equal treatment - Restricted procedure - Contract notice - Requirement for a copy of the most recent published balance sheet to be enclosed with the application - Copies of balance sheets not enclosed with some candidates’ applications - Right of the contracting authority to ask those candidates to provide copies of those balance sheets after the deadline for filing applications)

2013/C 344/59

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser

Defendant: Manova A/S

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of Annex IIB to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Principle of equal treatment — Contracting authority which has made success at the screening stage conditional upon candidates filing copies of their most recent balance sheets — Request from that contracting authority for candidates which have not enclosed copies of their most recent balance sheets with their screening applications to provide copies of the balance sheets even though the deadline for filing the applications has passed

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of equal treatment must be interpreted as not precluding a contracting authority from asking a candidate, after the deadline for applying to take part in a tendering procedure, to provide documents describing that candidate’s situation — such as a copy of its published balance sheet — which can be objectively shown to pre-date that deadline, so long as it was not expressly laid down in the contract documents that, unless such documents were provided, the application would be rejected. That request must not unduly favour or disadvantage the candidate or candidates to which it is addressed.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/27

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — EI du Pont de Nemours and Company v European Commission, DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA

(Case C-172/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for chloroprene rubber - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company - Joint control by two parent companies - Decisive influence - Joint and several liability - Limitation period - Legitimate interest)

2013/C 344/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (represented by: J. Boyce and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and A. Biolan, acting as Agents), DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA (represented by: J. Boyce and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 in Case T-76/08 EI du Pont de Nemours and Others v Commission, in which that Court dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber) concerning a cartel in the market for chloroprene rubber in the European Economic Area (EEA), relating to market-sharing and price-fixing, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant — Joint venture — Imputability of the unlawful conduct

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders EI du Pont de Nemours and Company to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Stoilov i Ko EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

(Case C-180/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Legal basis of the decision at issue in the main proceedings no longer present - Lack of relevance of the questions asked - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 367/17

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stoilov i Ko EOOD

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1) and Council Regulation No (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) as well as Articles 41(2)(a) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Tariff classification of goods — Classification of goods (materials for the manufacture of awnings) under heading 5407 61 30 on account of its characteristics as ‘woven fabric’ or under heading 6303 92 10 on account of their sole intended purpose as ‘interior blinds’ — Enforcement order of a Member State requiring payment of a customs duty supplement and VAT after the findings in an expert's report of the customs laboratory — Protection of legitimate expectation in light of the circumstances of the filing of the customs declaration

Operative part of the judgment

There is no need to answer the questions raised by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria).

(1) OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.
1.

Article 345 TFEU must be interpreted as covering rules entailing the prohibition of privatisation, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which have the effect that shares held in an electricity or gas distribution system operator active in the Netherlands must be held, directly or indirectly, by the public authorities identified by the national legislation. However, that interpretation does not mean that Article 63 TFEU does not apply to provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibit the privatisation of electricity or gas distribution system operators, or, further, which prohibit, first, ownership or control links between companies which are members of the same group as an electricity or gas distribution system operator active in the Netherlands and companies which are members of the same group as an undertaking which produces, supplies, or trades in electricity or gas in the Netherlands and, secondly, engagement by such an operator and by the group of which it is a member in transactions or activities which may adversely affect the operation of the system concerned.
3.

Subparagraph (b) of Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as not precluding national courts from refusing to recognise impairment of a right within the meaning of that article if it is established that it is conceivable, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the contested decision would not have been different without the procedural defect invoked by the applicant. None the less, that will be the case only if the court of law or body hearing the action does not in any way make the burden of proof fall on the applicant and makes its ruling, where appropriate, on the basis of the evidence provided by the developer or the competent authorities and, more generally, on the basis of all the documents submitted to it, taking into account, inter alia, the seriousness of the defect invoked and ascertaining, in particular, whether that defect has deprived the public concerned of one of the guarantees introduced with a view to allowing that public to have access to information and to be empowered to participate in decision-making, in accordance with the objectives of Directive 85/337.