ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 – Auditeur du travail v Yangwei

(Case C-349/11)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directive 97/81/EC – Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work – Obligation to publicise and keep employment contracts and work schedules

Social policy – Framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC – Directive 97/81 – National legislation requiring the contracts and work schedules of part-time workers to be kept and published – Whether lawful – Conditions – Determination by the national court (Council Directive 97/81, Annex, Clauses 4 and 5(1)) (see paras 22-30, 32-33, 38-39 and operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal de première instance de Liège – Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998, L 14, p. 9) – Whether permissible for national legislation to require an employer to draw up documents recording departures from work schedules and also to keep and make public the contracts and work schedules of part-time workers – Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work.

Operative part

Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes incumbent on employers the obligations to keep and to make public the contracts and work-schedules of part-time workers, if it is established that such legislation does not lead to their being treated less favourably than full-time workers in a similar situation or, if there is such a difference in treatment, it is established that it is justified on objective grounds and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives thus pursued. It is for the referring court to perform the necessary factual and legal investigation, particularly with regard to the applicable national law, in order to determine whether that is so in the case before it.

If the referring court were to conclude that the national legislation at issue is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81, clause 5(1) thereof would also have to be interpreted as precluding such legislation.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 March 2012 —

Febetra



(Case C‑333/11)

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — TIR Convention — Community Customs Code — Excise duties — Transport carried out under cover of a TIR carnet — Unlawful unloading — Determination of the place of the offence — Recovery of customs and excise duties — Jurisdiction

1. Free movement of goods — External Community transit — Transport of goods under cover of a TIR carnet — Offences or irregularities — Determining the place of that offence of irregularity — Presumption in favour of the place at which the finding was made — Rebutted on the basis of evidence produced by a guaranteeing association (Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 454(3)) (see para. 38, operative part 1)

2. Customs union — Customs debt — Value added tax — Excise duties — Directive 92/12 — Member State with competence for recovery (Council Directive 92/12, Art. 6(1) and 7(1) (see para. 43, operative part 2)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 454(3), second subparagraph, 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 1992 L 253, p. 1), of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) and of Article 37 of the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under cover of TIR carnets (TIR Convention) — Offences or irregularities — Place of the offence or irregularity — Place deemed to be where the offence or irregularity is detected, when it is impossible to determine the place where it was committed.

Operative part

1. Article 454(3) 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 1662/1999 of 28 July 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that a guaranteeing association may prove the place where an offence or irregularity was committed by relying on the place where the TIR carnet was accepted and/or where the seals were affixed. If that association succeeds in rebutting the presumption that the customs authorities of the Member State in whose territory an offence or irregularity was detected in the course of transport under cover of a TIR carnet are competent in favour of those of the Member State in whose territory that offence or irregularity was in fact committed, which it is for the referring court to determine, the customs authorities of that latter State become competent to recover the customs debt.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2012 —

Atlas Transport v OHIM



(Case C‑406/11 P)

Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Admissibility before the Board of Appeal — Failure to file a statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 59 — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 49(1) — Stay of proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 20(7)(c) — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 31, 32)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought — Pleading setting out the grounds lodged within the period prescribed — Condition of admissibility (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 59; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 49(1)) (see para. 46)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2011 in Case T‑145/08 Atlas Transport GmbH v OHIM , by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2008 (Case R 1023/2007-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between ATLAS Air Inc. and Atlas Transport GmbH — Interpretation of Article 59 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) and of Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Regulation No 40/94 (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1) — Circumstances justifying the stay of the cancellation proceedings — Application for annulment of the mark on which the opposition is founded pending before the national court.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Joined Cases T-267/08 and T-279/08

Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais

v

Commission

and

Communauté d’agglomération du Douaisis

v

Commission

dismissing the actions, initially, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 1089 final of 2 April 2008, then for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4112 final of 23 June 2010, on State aid C 38/2007 (ex NN 45/2007) implemented by France in favour of Arbel Fauvet Rail SA — Construction of railway equipment — Recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of the right to be heard.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 September 2012 — Levy and Sebbag

(Case C-540/11)

Free movement of capital — Direct taxation — Taxation of dividends — Bilateral convention which precludes double taxation — Subsequent amendment, by one of the two States party to the convention, of its national legislation, having the effect of reintroducing double taxation — Obligations of the Member States under Articles 10 EC and 293 EC

1. References for a preliminary ruling — Response which may be clearly inferred from the case-law — Question referred which is identical to a question in response to which a ruling has been given — Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(3)) (see para. 13)

2. Free movement of capital and freedom of payments — Restrictions — Fiscal legislation — Taxation of dividends — Bilateral tax convention which precludes double taxation — Subsequent amendment, by one of the two States party to the convention, of its national legislation, having the effect of reintroducing double taxation — Whether permissible — Measures to prevent double taxation which fall within the competence of the Member States (Arts 10 EC, 56 EC and 293 EC) (see paras 17-19, 21, 22, 26-29, operative part.)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 10 EC, 57(2) EC and 293 EC — Permissibility of rules of national law which allow double taxation notwithstanding the existence of a bilateral convention which precludes double taxation — Amendment of national law after the convention had been concluded — Bringing into question of an acquired right — Obstacle to the free movement of capital.

Operative part

In so far as Community law, as applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, does not lay down any general criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the European Community, Article 56 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 10 EC and 293 EC, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a situation in which the Member State, which has undertaken, in a bilateral double taxation convention, to establish a mechanism to eliminate such double taxation of dividends, then abolishes that mechanism by way of a legislative amendment that has the effect of reintroducing a double taxation.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 —

Land Wien v Commission



(Case C-608/11 P)

Appeal — Nuclear energy — Extension of the nuclear power station at Mochovce (Slovak Republic) — Commission decision to take no further action on complaint — Action for annulment — Refusal by the Commission to send the documents requested — Action for failure to act — Minimum requirements laid down in Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility

Appeals — Grounds — Necessity of a specific challenge to a point in the General Court’s reasoning (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 24, 25)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-267/10 Land Wien v Commission , by which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s action seeking, on the one hand, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 March 2010 to take no further action on its complaint regarding the project to extend blocks 3 and 4 of the nuclear power station at Mochovce (Slovak Republic) and, on the other hand, a declaration that the Commission failed to act, within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU, to the extent that not all the documents relating to that project were sent to the applicant, in breach of 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 2001 L 145, p. 43) — Infringement of the right of access to documents, of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and of the Euratom Treaty.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Particularly important principle of European Union social law (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 31(2); European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7)

2. Social policy — Framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Directive 97/81 — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88 — Entitlement to paid annual leave — National legislation or practice laying down, during a move from full-time to part-time employment, a reduction in the right to paid annual leave accumulated during the period of full-time employment — Ex post calculation of paid annual leave according to the principle of pro rata temporis — Not permissible

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7(1); Council Directive 97/81, as amended by Directive 98/23, Annex, clause 4, para. 2)

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 27-29)

2. Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Clause 4(2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work, which is annexed to Directive 97/81 concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Directive 98/23, must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or a national practice, under which the number of days of paid annual leave which a full-time worker was unable to exercise during the reference period is, due to the fact that that worker moved to a scheme of part-time work, subject to a reduction which is proportional to the difference between the number of days of work per week carried out by that worker before and after such a move to part-time work.

During a move from full-time employment to part-time employment, the principle of pro rata temporis , set out at Clause 4(2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work, cannot be applied ex post to the right to paid annul leave accumulated during the period of full-time work, without, in particular, any objective reason capable of justifying such a reduction.

(see paras 31, 36, 42, operative part)
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 May 2012 — Ciampaglia

(Case C-185/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility’

Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Request containing no precise questions and not giving enough details of the factual and legislative background — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92 and 103(1)) (see paras 4-9)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Torre Annunziata — Interpretation of Articles 8 and 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the court having competence to rule on an application for separation as regards any question relating to parental responsibility.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torre Annunziata, made by order of 14 March 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 May 2012 — Ciampaglia

(Case C-185/12)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility’

Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Request containing no precise questions and not giving enough details of the factual and legislative background — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92 and 103(1)) (see paras 4-9)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Torre Annunziata — Interpretation of Articles 8 and 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the court having competence to rule on an application for separation as regards any question relating to parental responsibility.

Operative part

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torre Annunziata, made by order of 14 March 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer — Questions bearing no relation to the subject-matter of the case in the main proceedings (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 19)

2. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Production charge — Aim — Not in the nature of a fiscal charge — Tax constituting a common agricultural policy measure adopted on the basis of Article 37 EC (Council Regulation No 318/2006, recital 19 and Art. 16; Council Regulation No 1234/2007, Art. 51) (see paras 24-37)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Regulation No 318/2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 318/2006, recital 19 and Art. 16; Council Regulation No 1234/2007, Art. 51) (see paras 39-41)

4. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Production charge — Basis of calculation — Quota allocated to undertakings — Infringement of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination — Absence (Council Regulation No 318/2006, recital 14 and Art. 16; Council Regulation No 1234/2007, Art. 51) (see paras 45-48, 50-54)

5. European Union law — Principles — Proportionality — Common agricultural policy — Implementing measures — Discretion of the Community legislature — Judicial review — Limits — Measure which is manifestly inappropriate in relation to the aim pursued (see paras 51, 52)

Subject of the case

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Validity of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 37(2) EC and 253 EC — Imposition of a charge on production in the ‘beet sugar’ sector — Lack of legal basis — Failure to state clear and unequivocal reasons — Discrimination as compared with other industries and as compared with other agricultural and non-agricultural sectors — Infringement of the principle of proportionality.

Operative part

Operative part

Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector and Article 51 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation).
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Simov v Commission and Bulgaria

(Case C-465/12 P)

‛Appeal — Commission decision — Failure to initiate infringement proceedings against the Republic of Bulgaria — Decisions taken by the Bulgarian authorities concerning the national system relating to seafarers — Alleged infringement of EU law’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 12, 14, 15)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Abstract statement of grounds — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see para. 13)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 September 2012 in Case T-271/12 Simov v Commission and Bulgaria by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision not to initiate infringement proceedings against Bulgaria for an alleged infringement of European Union law resulting from certain decisions taken by the national authorities concerning the national system relating to seafarers.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Plamen Simov is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Simov v Commission and Bulgaria

(Case C-465/12 P)

‛Appeal — Commission decision — Failure to initiate infringement proceedings against the Republic of Bulgaria — Decisions taken by the Bulgarian authorities concerning the national system relating to seafarers — Alleged infringement of EU law’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 12, 14, 15)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Abstract statement of grounds — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see para. 13)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 September 2012 in Case T-271/12 Simov v Commission and Bulgaria by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision not to initiate infringement proceedings against Bulgaria for an alleged infringement of European Union law resulting from certain decisions taken by the national authorities concerning the national system relating to seafarers.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals

—

Grounds

—

Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence

—

Inadmissibility

—

Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence

—

Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 35

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 February 2012 in Case T-291/09 Carrols Corp. v OHIM , by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2009 (Case R 632/2008-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Carrols Corp. and Mr Giulio Gambettola.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Carrols Corp. is ordered to pay the costs.