ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/15

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-392/11) (1)

(VAT - Exemption for leasing of immovable property - Leasing of commercial premises - Services connected with the leasing - Classification of the transaction for VAT purposes - Transaction consisting of a single supply or several independent supplies)

2012/C 366/24

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation 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 for other activities — Scope of the VAT exemption for the leasing of immovable property — Inclusion of charges for certain management and maintenance services for the building and the common parts — Classification of the transaction, for VAT purposes, as a single supply or as independent supplies — Interpretation of the Court's judgment of 11 June 2009 in Case C-572/07 RLRE Tellmer Property

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the leasing of immovable property and the supplies of services linked to that leasing, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, may constitute a single supply from the point of view of value added tax. The fact that the lease gives the landlord the right to terminate it if the tenant fails to pay the service charges supports the view that there is a single supply, but does not necessarily constitute the decisive element for the purpose of assessing whether there is such a supply. On the other hand, the fact that services such as those at issue in the main proceedings could in principle be supplied by a third party does not allow the conclusion that they cannot, in the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, constitute a single supply. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of the interpretative guidance provided by the Court in this judgment and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the transactions in question are so closely linked to each other that they must be regarded as constituting a single supply of the leasing of immovable property.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Pioneer Hi Bred Italia Srl v Ministero delle Politiche agricole alimentari e forestali

(Case C-36/11) (1)

(Agriculture - Genetically modified organisms - Council Directive 2002/53/EC - Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species - Genetically modified organisms accepted for inclusion in the common catalogue - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Article 20 - Existing products - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 26a - Measures to avoid the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms - National measures prohibiting the cultivation of genetically modified organisms accepted for inclusion in the common catalogue and authorised as existing products pending measures based on Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC)

2012/C 355/06

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pioneer Hi Bred Italia Srl

Defendant: Ministero delle Politiche agricole alimentari e forestali

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Second Chamber — Interpretation of Articles 16, 19, 22 and 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 19 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ 2002 L 193, p. 1) — Application for authorisation to cultivate GMOs listed in the European common catalogue — Refused by the competent authority because of the lack of internal general measures governing such matters.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The cultivation of genetically modified organisms such as the MON 810 maize varieties cannot be made subject to a national authorisation procedure when the use and marketing of those varieties are authorised pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed and those varieties have been accepted for inclusion in the common catalogue provided for in Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species, as amended by Regulation No 1829/2003;

2. Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, as amended by Directive 2008/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, does not entitle a Member State to prohibit in a general manner the cultivation on its territory of such genetically modified organisms pending the adoption of coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms in other crops.

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/14

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — CS AGRO Ronov s.r.o. v Ministerstvo zemědělství

(Case C-390/11) (1)

(Agriculture - Sugar sector - Common organisation of the markets - Application for restructuring aid - Undertaking by the producer to cease delivery of a certain quantity of quota sugar beet - Definition - Unilateral declaration of the producer - Refusal to grant aid - Need to terminate the existing delivery contract)

2012/C 366/22

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CS AGRO Ronov s.r.o.

Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Article 4a of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1261/2007 of 9 October 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (OJ 2007 L 283, p. 8) — Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Meaning of ‘undertaking’ having to accompany an application for restructuring aid, whereby a sugar beet producer enters into an obligation to cease delivery of a certain quantity of quota sugar beet to the undertakings with which it concluded a supply contract during the previous marketing year — Refusal to grant restructuring aid on the ground that that undertaking should take the form of termination of the existing supply contract rather than a unilateral declaration by the producer

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4a(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the European Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1261/2007 of 9 October 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the undertaking to cease delivery of a certain quantity of sugar beet during the marketing year 2008/2009 may take the form of a unilateral declaration by the producer.

2. Article 4a(1) of Regulation No 320/2006, as amended by Regulation No 1261/2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the unilateral undertaking of the producer to cease delivery of a certain quantity of sugar beet during the marketing year 2008/2009 does not as such entail the inapplicability of its contractual obligations towards the sugar company.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/15

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-244/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Scheme under which prior authorisation is required for the acquisition of voting rights representing 20 % or more of the share capital in certain ‘strategic public limited companies’ - Arrangements for ex post control of certain decisions taken by those companies)

2013/C 9/22

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and G. Zavvos, Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — National legislation under which prior approval is required for the acquisition of voting rights corresponding to 20 % or more of the total share capital in companies of national strategic importance — Breach of Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by laying down the requirements referred to in Article 11(1), read in conjunction with Article 11(2), and those referred to in Article 11(3) of Law 3631/2008 on the creation of a national fund for social cohesion, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC on the freedom of establishment;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 219, 23.07.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/8

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Anssi Ketelä

(Case C-592/11) (1)

(Agriculture - Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005 and 1974/2006 - Setting up aid for young farmers - Conditions for grant - Setting up for the first time on an agricultural holding as head of the holding - Conditions governing applicability where the person concerned sets up using a legal person)

2012/C 399/12

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anssi Ketelä

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 22(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1) and Article 13(4) and (6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 15) — Conditions for the grant of setting-up support for young farmers — First establishment support on an agricultural holding as heading of holding — Setting-up support granted to a natural person on the basis of acquiring a family farm — Interruption of the payment of the support on the ground that the recipient of the support had previously been a minority shareholder and general manager of a joint-stock company rearing pigs in particular.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement laid down by that provision that the person concerned must be setting up for the first time on an agricultural holding as ‘head of the holding’ means, in a situation in which the person concerned sets up using a limited company, that he has effective and long-term control and management of the agricultural holding.

While it is open to the Member States to lay down conditions from which it may be concluded that an aid applicant has the capacity of head of the holding, this is subject to the proviso that such conditions do not go beyond the framework that they aim to define and, therefore, in compliance with the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1698/2005, ensure that that applicant has effective and long-term control and management of the agricultural holding. National provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings satisfy such requirements as they provide that where a young farmer sets up using a legal person, the grant of aid is conditional on the fact that he has the decision-making power in the company, which requires that he holds more than half of the shares in that company and that those shares represent more than half of the votes.

(1) OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/19

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bremen — Germany) — Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG v Samskip GmbH

(Case C-456/11) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 32 and 33 - Recognition of judgments - Concept of ‘judgment’ - Effects of a judgment on international jurisdiction - Jurisdiction clause)

2013/C 9/30

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG

Defendant: Samskip GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Bremen — Interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Recognition of judgments issued in a Member State — Purely procedural judgment (‘Prozeßurteil’) — Judgment concerning the interpretation of a clause allocating jurisdiction, by which the national court declares that it lacks jurisdiction in holding that the court of a third State has jurisdiction — Extent of recognition

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 32 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 must be interpreted as meaning that it also covers a judgment by which the court of a Member State declines jurisdiction on the basis of a jurisdiction clause, irrespective of how that judgment is categorised under the law of another Member State.

2. Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the court before which recognition is sought of a judgment by which a court of another Member State has declined jurisdiction on the basis of a jurisdiction clause is bound by the finding — made in the grounds of a judgment, which has since become final, declaring the action inadmissible — regarding the validity of that clause.

(1) OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht München — Germany) — Johann Odar v Baxter Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-152/11) (1)

(Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition against any discrimination on grounds of age or disability - Compensation on termination of employment - Social plan providing for a reduction in the amount of redundancy compensation paid to disabled workers)

2013/C 26/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Johann Odar

Defendant: Baxter Deutschland GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht München — Interpretation of Articles 1, 6(1), second subparagraph, point (a), and 16 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 legislation making it possible to exclude from receipt of the benefits provided for under an occupational pension scheme workers in age brackets close to the age at which a right to a retirement pension arises — Prohibition on all discrimination based on age and disability

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 2(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 must be interpreted as not precluding rules of an occupational social security scheme under which, in the case of workers older than 54 years of age who are made redundant on operational grounds, a calculation is to be made of the compensation on the basis of the earliest possible date on which their pension will begin — unlike the standard method of calculation, which takes account in particular of the length of service — with the result that the compensation paid to those workers is lower than the compensation resulting from the application of that standard method, though still at least one half of the standard amount.

2. Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding rules of an occupational social security scheme under which, in the case of workers older than 54 years of age who are made redundant on operational grounds, the compensation to which they are entitled is calculated on the basis of the earliest possible date on which their pension will begin — unlike the standard formula, under which account is taken inter alia of the length of service — with the result that the compensation paid is lower than the standard formula compensation, although still at least one half thereof, and that alternative calculation method takes account of the possibility of receiving an early retirement pension on the ground of disability.

(1) OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Société Geodis Calberson GE v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

(Case C-623/11) (1)

(Agriculture - Food aid - Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 - Programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation - Successful tenderer for a contract for the transport of beef - Conferring of jurisdiction - Arbitration clause)

2013/C 63/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Geodis Calberson GE

Defendant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’Etat — Interpretation of Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3) — Conferring of jurisdiction in a dispute between the successful tenderer for a contract for transporting beef and the national competent intervention agency concerning the payment procedure and compensation for damage suffered — Arbitration clause

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1125/1999 of 28 May 1999, must be interpreted as conferring on the Court of Justice of the European Union jurisdiction to rule on disputes relating to the conditions under which the intervention agency designated to receive the tenders submitted during a tendering procedure for the free supply of agricultural products to the Russian Federation makes the payment owed to the successful tenderer and releases the supply security lodged by that tenderer in favour of that agency, in particular actions for compensation in respect of damage suffered as a result of misconduct by the intervention agency while carrying out those transactions..

(1) OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-310/11) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Second Directive 67/228/EEC - Article 8(a) - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Supply of goods - Basis of assessment - Commission paid by a mail order company to its agent - Purchases by third-party customers - Price reduction after the chargeable event - Direct effect)

2013/C 46/10

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Grattan plc

Respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Article 8(a) of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 16) — Basis of assessment — Supply of goods — Commission paid by a mail order company to its agent, acting as intermediary in the supply of goods to the final consumer — Commission taking the form either of a payment of money or of a credit against amounts owed to the company in respect of goods purchased by the agent for the agent’s own use — Retrospective reduction of the basis of assessment of supplies of goods made before 1 January 1978, by virtue of the direct effect of Article 8(a) of the directive and/or application of the principles of fiscal neutrality or equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(a) of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not conferring upon a taxable person the right to treat the basis of assessment of a supply of goods as retrospectively reduced where, after the time of that supply of goods, an agent received a credit from the supplier which the agent elected to take either as a payment of money or as a credit against amounts owed to the supplier in respect of supplies of goods that had already taken place.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.