ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 370/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-311/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/46/EC - Approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed - Incomplete transposition)

2011/C 370/20

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and Ł. Habiak, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate to the European Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions implementing Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations sunder Article 48 of that directive;

2. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2007/46, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of that directive;

3. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/9

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — National Grid Indus BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond/kantoor Rotterdam

(Case C-371/10) (1)

(Transfer of a company’s place of effective management to a Member State other than that in which it is incorporated - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Taxation of unrealised capital gains relating to the assets of a company transferring its place of management between Member States - Determination of the amount of tax at the time of the transfer of the place of management - Immediate recovery of the tax - Proportionality)

2012/C 32/14

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: National Grid Indus BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond/kantoor Rotterdam

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU) — National tax legislation providing for immediate taxation on exit for companies transferring their place of management or assets to another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

1. A company incorporated under the law of a Member State which transfers its place of effective management to another Member State, without that transfer affecting its status of a company of the former Member State, may rely on Article 49 TFEU for the purpose of challenging the lawfulness of a tax imposed on it by the former Member State on the occasion of the transfer of the place of effective management.

2. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as: — not precluding legislation of a Member State under which the amount of tax on unrealised capital gains relating to a company’s assets is fixed definitively, without taking account of decreases or increases in value which may occur subsequently, at the time when the company, because of the transfer of its place of effective management to another Member State, ceases to obtain profits taxable in the former Member State; it makes no difference that the unrealised capital gains that are taxed relate to exchange rate gains which cannot be reflected in the host Member State under the tax system in force there; — precluding legislation of a Member State which prescribes the immediate recovery of tax on unrealised capital gains relating to assets of a company transferring its place of effective management to another Member State at the very time of that transfer.

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bruchsal — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against QB (*1)

(Case C-405/10) (1)

(Protection of the environment - Regulations (EC) Nos 1013/2006 and 1418/2007 - Control of shipments of waste - Prohibition on the shipment of spent catalysts to Lebanon)

(2012/C 25/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bruchsal

Party in the main proceedings

QB (*1)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Bruchsal — Interpretation of Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1), read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply (OJ 2007 L 316, p. 6) — Prohibition on the shipment of waste which falls within waste category B 1120 (catalysts) to Lebanon

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 36(1)(f) and 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation No 1013/2006 to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 740/2008 of 29 July 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the export from the European Union to Lebanon of waste, intended for recovery, which falls within category B1120 in List B in Part 1 of Annex V to Regulation No 1013/2006 is prohibited.

(*1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
2.

It is for the national court to determine, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration, in particular Article L. 223-4 of the Code du travail, and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, with a view to ensuring that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 is fully effective and achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it, whether it can find an interpretation of that law that allows the absence of the worker due to an accident on the journey to or from work to be treated as being equivalent to one of the situations covered by that article of the Code du travail. If such an interpretation is not possible, it is for the national court to determine whether, in the light of the legal nature of the respondents in the main proceedings, the direct effect of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 may be relied upon against them. If the national court is unable to achieve the objective laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, the party injured as a result of domestic law not being in conformity with European Union law can none the less rely on the judgment of 19 November 1991 in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others in order to obtain, if appropriate, compensation for the loss sustained.
1.

Article 3(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that a ‘database’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive is protected by the copyright laid down by that directive provided that the selection or arrangement of the data which it contains amounts to an original expression of the creative freedom of its author, which is a matter for the national court to determine. As a consequence: — the intellectual effort and skill of creating that data are not relevant in order to assess the eligibility of that database for protection by that right; — it is irrelevant, for that purpose, whether or not the selection or arrangement of that data includes the addition of important significance to that data, and — the significant labour and skill required for setting up that database cannot as such justify such a protection if they do not express any originality in the selection or arrangement of the data which that database contains.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Case C-338/10) (1)

(Dumping - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(7)(a) - Determination of normal value - Non-market economy country - Commission’s obligation to take due care to determine normal value on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country)

2012/C 133/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS)

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Validity, in the light of Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1), of Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2008 of 4 July 2008 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 178, p. 19) and of Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35) — Determination of normal value for a country which does not have a market economy — Determination of normal value on the basis of the price actually paid or payable for like products in the European Union — Obligation imposed on the Commission by Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 to take the measures necessary to determine normal value on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market-economy third country.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China is invalid.

(1) OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.
1.

Declares that, by applying reduced rates of VAT to transactions relating to equidae and, in particular, to horses, where they are not as a matter of course intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs or in agricultural production, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Insinööritoimisto InsTiimi Oy

(Case C-615/10) (1)

(Directive 2004/18/EC - Public contracts in the field of defence - Article 10 - Article 296(1)(b) EC - Protection of a Member State’s essential security interests - Trade in arms, munitions and war material - Product procured by a contracting authority specifically for military purposes - Existence, as regards that product, of a potential and largely identical civilian application - Tiltable turntable for carrying out electromagnetic measurements - Contract not put out to tender in accordance with the procedures provided for by Directive 2004/18)

2012/C 217/04

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Insinööritoimisto InsTiimi Oy,

party heard in the matter: Puolustusvoimat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 10 of 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) and Article 346 TFEU — List of arms, munitions and war material adopted by Decision No 255/58 of the Council of 15 April 1958 — Scope of the directive — Material intended primarily for military use — Turntable equipment for electromagnetic measurements

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of 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, read in conjunction with Article 296(1)(b) EC, must be interpreted as authorising a Member State to set aside the procedures laid down by that directive in the case of a public contract awarded by a contracting authority in the field of defence for the acquisition of material which, although intended for specifically military purposes, also presents possibilities for essentially identical civilian applications only if that material, by virtue of its intrinsic characteristics, may be regarded as having been specially designed and developed, also as a result of substantial modifications, for such purposes, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 4 of the Law on Medicinal Products (Prawo farmaceutyczne) of 6 September 2001, as amended by the Law of 30 March 2007, inasmuch as that statutory provision dispenses with the requirement for a marketing authorisation for medicinal products from abroad which have the same active substances, the same dosage and the same form as those having obtained a marketing authorisation in Poland, on condition that, in particular, the price of those imported medicinal products is competitive in relation to the price of products having obtained such authorisation, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — Alliance One International Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc v Trans-Continental Tobacco Leaf Corp. Ltd, European Commission and European Commission v Alliance One International Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd

(Joined Cases C-628/10 P and C-14/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies - Presumption of innocence - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Equal treatment)

2012/C 295/08

Language of the cases: English

Parties

Appellants: Alliance One International Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc. (represented by: M. Odriozola Alén and A. João Vide, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd, European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

and

Appellant: European Commission (represented by F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Alliance One International Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd (represented by M. Odriozola Alén and A. João Vide, abogados)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05 Alliance One International and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed, as regards Alliance One International, Inc. and Standard Commercial Tobacco Co., Inc., an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) concerning a cartel relating to the fixing of prices paid to producers and of quantities bought from them on the Spanish raw tobacco market

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Alliance One International Inc. and Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in relation to the appeal in Case C-628/10 P;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Alliance One International Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc. and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd in relation to the appeal in Case C-14/11 P.

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — European Commission v Agrofert Holding a.s., Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-477/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to merger control proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations, commercial interests, legal advice and the decision-making process of the institutions)

2012/C 258/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Costa de Oliveira and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Agrofert Holding a.s. (represented by: R. Pokorný and D. Šalek, advokáti), Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (represented by: S. Sołtysiński, K. Michałowska and A. Krasowska Skowrońska, lawyers), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: S. Juul Jørgensen, Agent), Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Petkovska and S. Johannesson, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2010 in Case T-111/07 Arofert Holding a.s. v Commission, by which that Court annulled Commission Decision D(2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007, refusing to grant the applicant access to certain unpublished documents relating to a procedure concerning a merger between undertakings (Case COMP/M.3543 — PKN Orlen v Unipetrol)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 July 2010 in Case T-111/07 Agrofert Holding v Commission in so far as it annuls Commission Decision D(2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 refusing access to the documents of Case COMP/M.3543 concerning the merger between Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA and Unipetrol, exchanged between the Commission and the notifying parties and between the Commission and third parties;

2. Annuls paragraph 3 of the operative part of that judgment;

3. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

4. Dismisses the action brought by Agrofert Holding a.s. before the General Court of the European Union seeking the annulment of Commission Decision D(2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 refusing access to the documents in Case COMP/M.3543 concerning the merger between Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA and Unipetrol, exchanged between the Commission and the notifying parties and between the Commission and the third parties;

5. Orders the European Commission and Agrofert Holding a.s. to bear their own costs both at first instance and in this appeal;

6. Orders Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 328 4.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Pelati d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-603/10) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Article 11(1)(a) - National legislation under which authorisation must be obtained for the grant of tax advantages - Application for authorisation to be made at least 30 days before the proposed operation is effected)

2012/C 379/08

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pelati d.o.o.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Interpretation of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1) — Article 11(1)(a) — Tax advantages in connection with division — National legislation setting a time-limit for submitting applications for those advantages — Refusal of the tax advantages in question because of non-compliance with the time-limit — Compatibility of the refusal with the directive in question

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the grant of the tax advantages applicable to a division in accordance with that directive is subject to the condition that the application relating to that operation is submitted within a specified period. However, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the details of the implementation of that period, and more particularly the determination of its starting-point of the period, are sufficiently precise, clear and foreseeable to enable taxpayers to ascertain their rights and to ensure that they are in a position to enjoy the tax advantages provided for by that directive.

(1) OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.