ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Schindler Holding Ltd, Schindler Management AG, Schindler SA, Schindler Sàrl, Schindler Liften BV, Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-501/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators - Liability of the parent company for infringements of the law on cartels committed by its subsidiary - Holding company - Internal compliance programme - Fundamental rights - Principles of the rule of law in the context of determination of the fines imposed - Separation of powers, and principles of legality, of non-retroactivity, of the protection of legitimate expectations and of fault - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Validity - Legality of the 1998 Commission guidelines)

2013/C 260/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Schindler Holding Ltd, Schindler Management AG, Schindler SA, Schindler Sàrl, Schindler Liften BV, Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH (represented by: R. Bechtold and W. Bosch, Rechtsanwälte, and J. Schwarze, Prozessbevollmächtigter)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt), Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Simm, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Case T-138/07 Schindler Holding and Others v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators), concerning a cartel on the market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands relating to bid-rigging, the sharing of markets, the fixing of prices, the award of projects and of the related contracts and the exchange of information, and, in the alternative, seeking the reduction of the fine imposed upon the appellants

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Schindler Holding Ltd, Schindler Management AG, Schindler SA, Schindler Sàrl, Schindler Liften BV and Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon

(Case C-373/11) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of validity - Common Agricultural Policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Additional payment for specific types of farming and quality production - Discretion granted to the Member States - Discrimination - Articles 32 EC and 34 EC)

2013/C 344/13

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou

Defendants: Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon,

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Symvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 2, 32 and 34 EC — Additional payment for specific types of farming — Possibility given to the Member States to determine different proportions of the component of the national ceilings for the purposes of making the additional payment — Differences in treatment of producers of the same products according to the use made of that power by each Member State

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 69 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/12

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG

(Case C-509/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 - Rail passengers’ rights and obligations - Article 17 - Compensation in the event of a delay - Excluded in the event of force majeure - Whether permissible - First subparagraph of Article 30(1) - Powers of the national body responsible for the enforcement of the regulation - Whether it is possible to require the rail carrier to amend its conditions governing passenger compensation)

2013/C 344/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG

Intervening parties: Schienen-Control Kommission, Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 17 and the first subparagraph of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14) — Conditions governing compensation — Whether exclusion of compensation is permissible in cases of force majeure — Whether the body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation may replace the contractual terms which do not meet the criteria set out in that regulation with terms which are consistent with those criteria

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first subparagraph of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations must be interpreted as meaning that the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation may not, in the absence of any national provision to that effect, impose upon a railway undertaking whose compensation terms do not meet the criteria set out at Article 17 of that regulation the specific content of those terms.

2. Article 17 of Regulation No 1371/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that a railway undertaking is not entitled to include in its general terms and conditions of carriage a clause under which it is exempt from its obligation to pay compensation in the event of a delay where the delay is attributable to force majeure or to one of the reasons set out at Article 32(2) of the Uniform Rules concerning the Contract for International Carriage of Passengers and Luggage by Rail of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999.

(1) OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by K

(Case C-322/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Tax legislation of a Member State which does not allow deduction of the loss on the sale of immovable property situated in another Member State from the gain on the sale of securities in the Member State of taxation)

2014/C 9/03

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

K

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital — National tax legislation not allowing a person with full liability to tax to deduct the loss on the sale of immovable property situated in another Member State from the gain on the transfer of securities in the Member State of taxation

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU do not preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow a taxpayer who resides in the Member State concerned and is fully liable to income tax there to deduct the losses arising on the transfer of immovable property situated in another Member State from the income from moveable assets which is taxable in the first Member State, although that would have been possible, on certain conditions, if the immovable property had been situated in the first Member State.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/8

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

(Case C-296/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)

2013/C 344/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and C. Soulay, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. — S. Pilczer, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: The Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller and by J. Očková, Agents), the Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, Agent), the Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent), the Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, Agents), the Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, Agents), the Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the French Republic;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-639/11) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Registration of motor vehicles - Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU - Directive 70/311/EEC - Directive 2007/46/EC - Driving on the right in a Member State - Obligation, for the purpose of registration, to reposition to the left-hand side the steering equipment of passenger vehicles positioned on the right-hand side))

2014/C 142/03

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, G. Zavvos and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 34 TFEU, of Article 2a of Council Directive 70/311/EEC of 8 June 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment for motor vehicles and their trailers, as amended (OJ, English Special Edition 1970(II), p. 375) and of Article 4(3) of 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 (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1) — Legislation of a Member State prohibiting the registration of right-hand-drive vehicles.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by making registration in its territory of passenger vehicles having their steering equipment on the right-hand side, whether they are new or previously registered in other Member States, dependent on the repositioning of the steering wheel to the left-hand side, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2a of Council Directive 70/311/EEC of 8 June 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment for motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ 1970 L 133, p. 10), Article 4(3) of 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), and under Article 34 TFEU.

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

3. Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública

(Joined Cases C-618/11, C-637/11 and C-659/11) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 11(A)(1)(a), (2)(a) and (3)(c) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 73, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 - Taxable amount for the VAT payable on commercial advertising screening services - Commercial advertising screening tax)

2014/C 45/12

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TVI Televisão Independente SA

Respondent: Fazenda Pública

Intervener: Ministério Público

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 11(A)(1)(a) and (3)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Article 73 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier for certain supplies — Tax payable on the broadcasting of commercial advertising.

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 11(A)(1)(a), (2)(a) and (3)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment and Article 73, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, a tax such as the ‘screening tax’ provided for under Portuguese legislation for the benefit of the cinematographic and audiovisual arts must be included in the taxable amount for the purposes of the VAT payable on services consisting in the screening of commercial advertising.

(1) OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Maatschap L.A. en D.A.B. Langestraat en P. Langestraat-Troost v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

(Case C-11/12) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system - Reduction of or exclusion from payments in the event of non-compliance with cross-compliance rules - Vicarious liability)

2013/C 38/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maatschap L.A. en D.A.B. Langestraat en P. Langestraat-Troost

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16) — Integrated management and control system — Reductions and exclusions in the event of non compliance with the cross-compliance rules — Farmer who leased, from a third party, agricultural land and accepted, on a temporary basis, the spreading of manure on that land by that third party — Non-compliance, on the part of that third party, with the statutory management requirements

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, is to be interpreted as meaning that non-compliance with cross-compliance rules by the person to whom or from whom the agricultural land was transferred, involving reduction of the total amount of direct payments or exclusion from direct support, must be attributed in full to the farmer submitting the aid application.

(1) OJ C 98, 31.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/28

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia

(Case C-93/12) (1)

(Agriculture - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Common agricultural policy - Aid - Administrative law disputes - Determination of the court with jurisdiction - National criterion - Administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the authority which adopted the contested act is located - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

2013/C 225/45

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ET Agrokonsulting-04-Velko Stoyanov

Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ — Razplashtatelna agentsia

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of the principles of effectiveness and effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of equivalence — Aid scheme of the common agricultural policy — National procedural rule providing that administrative disputes concerning the implementation of the common agricultural policy fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the administrative court in whose judicial district the seat of the administrative authority which adopted the contested administrative act is located, but that similar disputes of a domestic nature fall within the jurisdiction of the court in whose judicial district the agricultural land in question is located.

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does not preclude a national rule of jurisdiction such as that in Article 133(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Administrativnoprotsesualen kodeks), which results in conferring on a single court all disputes relating to decisions of a national authority responsible for the payment of agricultural support under the European Union common agricultural policy, provided that actions intended to ensure the safeguarding of the rights which individuals derive from European Union law are not conducted in less advantageous conditions than those provided for in respect of actions intended to protect the rights derived from any aid schemes for farmers established under national law, and that jurisdiction rule does not cause individuals procedural problems in terms, inter alia, of the duration of the proceedings, such as to render the exercise of the rights derived from European Union law excessively difficult, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.