ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-542/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for persons - Access to education for migrant workers and their family members - Funding for higher educational studies pursued outside the territory of the Member State concerned - Residence requirement)

2012/C 227/02

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, J. Langer and K. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

Intervening parties in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark, (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1968(II), p. 475) — Access to education — Funding of studies abroad — Residence requirement — ‘3 out of 6 years’ rule

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by requiring that migrant workers and dependent family members comply with a residence requirement — namely, the ‘three out of six years’ rule — in order to be eligible to receive funding for higher educational studies pursued outside the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-545/09) (1)

(Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools - Interpretation and application of Articles 12(4)(a) and 25(1) - Right of seconded teachers to access to the same progression in status and pay as those enjoyed by their national counterparts - Exclusion of certain teachers seconded by the United Kingdom to the European Schools from access to improved pay scales and other additional payments available to their national counterparts - Incompatibility with Articles 12(4)(a) and 25(1))

2012/C 80/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent, and J. Coppel, Barrister)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools (OJ 1994 L 212, p. 3) — Remuneration of teachers seconded to the European Schools — Exclusion, during their secondment, from the progression in pay enjoyed by teachers employed in national schools

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that the last sentence of Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools of 21 June 1994 must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the Member States party to that Convention to ensure that teachers assigned or seconded to the European Schools enjoy, during their secondment or assignment, the same rights to career progression and retirement as those applicable to their national counterparts under the legislation of their Member State of origin;

2. Declares that by excluding English and Welsh teachers assigned or seconded to the European Schools, during their assignment or secondment, from access to the higher salary scales, in particular those known as ‘threshold pay’, ‘excellent teacher system’ or ‘advanced skills teachers’ and from access to additional payments, such as ‘teaching and learning responsibility payments’, provided for by the ‘School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document’, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has applied Articles 12(4)(a) and 25(1) of the Convention incorrectly;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
1.

Article 267 TFEU precludes Member State legislation which establishes an interlocutory procedure for the review of the constitutionality of national laws, in so far as the priority nature of that procedure prevents — both before the submission of a question on constitutionality to the national court responsible for reviewing the constitutionality of laws and, as the case may be, after the decision of that court on that question — all the other national courts or tribunals from exercising their right or fulfilling their obligation to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. On the other hand, Article 267 TFEU does not preclude such national legislation, in so far as the other national courts or tribunals remain free: — to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, at whatever stage of the proceedings they consider appropriate, even at the end of the interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality, any question which they consider necessary, — to adopt any measure necessary to ensure provisional judicial protection of the rights conferred under the European Union legal order, and — to disapply, at the end of such an interlocutory procedure, the national legislative provision at issue if they consider it to be contrary to European Union law. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings can be interpreted in accordance with those requirements of European Union law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/15

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Minerva Kulturreisen GmbH v Finanzamt Freital

(Case C-31/10) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 26 - Special scheme for travel agents and tour operators - Scope - Sale of opera tickets without the provision of supplementary services)

2011/C 55/27

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minerva Kulturreisen GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Freital

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 26 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) — Special scheme for travel agents — Sale of opera tickets without the provision of supplementary services

Operative part of the judgment

Article 26 of Sixth Council Directive 77/338/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 is to be interpreted as not applying to the sale by a travel agent of opera tickets in isolation, without the provision of a travel service.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
1.

Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria)) — Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna v ‘Auto Nikolovi’ OOD

(Case C-203/10) (1)

(Directive 2006/112/EC - Value-added tax - Second-hand parts for motor vehicles - Importation into the European Union by a taxable dealer - Margin scheme or normal VAT scheme - Origin of the right of deduction - Direct effect)

2011/C 130/13

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna

Defendant:‘Auto Nikolovi’ OOD

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Varhoven administrativen sad na Republika Balgaria — Interpretation of Articles 311(1)(1) and 314, and Article 320(1), first subparagraph, and Article 320(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Margin scheme implemented by a taxable dealer, when he imports second-hand goods into the Community — Concept of ‘second-hand goods’ and relevance, for that concept, of the possibility of actually identifying the goods in question — Moment at which the right to deduct VAT as input tax arises in favour of the taxable dealer — Direct effect of Article 314 of the Directive.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 314 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the margin scheme is not applicable to supplies of goods such as spare parts for motor vehicles, which the taxable dealer himself imported into the European Union under the normal value-added tax scheme.

2. The first subparagraph of Article 320(1) and Article 320(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national provision which provides for the deferral, until the subsequent supply under the normal value added tax scheme, of the right of the taxable dealer to deduct value added tax paid on importation of goods other than works of art, collectors’ items or antiques.

3. Article 314, the first subparagraph of Article 320(1) and Article 320(2) of Directive 2006/112 have direct effect which authorises an individual to rely on them before a national court for the purposes of having national legislation which is incompatible with those provisions disapplied.

(1) OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Poland)) — Logstor ROR Polska sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach

(Case C-212/10) (1)

(Taxation - Capital duty - Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Taxation of a loan taken up by a capital company from a person entitled to a percentage of the profits of the same company - Right of a Member State to reintroduce a tax which was no longer in force at the date of its accession to the European Union)

2011/C 232/14

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Logstor ROR Polska sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach — Interpretation of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Right of a Member State to reintroduce a tax abolished on the date on which it acceded to the European Union — Capital duty — Charging of capital duty on a loan taken out by a capital company with a person entitled to a percentage of the profits of that company

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from reintroducing a capital duty on a loan taken up by a capital company, if the creditor is entitled to a share in the profits of the company, where that Member State has previously waived the levying of that tax.

(1) OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Gebhard Stark v DAS Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG

(Case C-293/10) (1)

(Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Freedom of the insured person to choose his lawyer - Limitation of the reimbursement allowed in respect of the costs relating to representation of the insured person in judicial proceedings - Reimbursement limited to the amount corresponding to that claimed by a lawyer established in the judicial district of the court having jurisdiction at first instance)

2011/C 211/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gebhard Stark

Respondent: DAS Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77) — Insurance contract providing that, in accordance with national legislation, the person taking out legal expenses insurance is required to choose a lawyer established at the place of the court before which the proceedings are to be conducted

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision under which it may be agreed that a person covered by legal expenses insurance may select, in order to have his interests represented in administrative or judicial proceedings, only persons professionally authorised to represent parties who have their chambers at the place of the court or administrative authority having jurisdiction at first instance, on condition that, in order not to render meaningless the insured person’s freedom to choose the person instructed to represent him, that restriction relates only to the extent of the cover by the legal insurance provider in respect of costs linked to the involvement of a representative and that the reimbursement actually provided by that insurer is sufficient, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
1.

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation does not preclude a law, such as the Law on the civil service of the Land Hessen (Hessisches Beamtengesetz), as amended by the Law of 14 December 2009, which provides for the compulsory retirement of permanent civil servants — in this instance prosecutors — at the age of 65, while allowing them to continue to work, if it is in the interests of the service that they should do so, until the maximum age of 68, provided that that law has the aim of establishing a balanced age structure in order to encourage the recruitment and promotion of young people, to improve personnel management and thereby to prevent possible disputes concerning employees’ fitness to work beyond a certain age, and that it allows that aim to be achieved by appropriate and necessary means.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Viking Gas A/S v Kosan Gas A/S, formerly BP Gas A/S

(Case C-46/10) (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Articles 5 and 7 - Gas bottles protected as a three-dimensional mark - Placing on the market by an exclusive licensee - Business activity of a competitor of the licensee consisting in the refilling of those bottles)

2011/C 269/17

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Viking Gas A/S

Defendant: Kosan Gas A/S, formerly BP Gas A/S

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Articles 5 and 7 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Placing on the market, by an exclusive licensee, of a composite gas bottle the shape of which is registered as a three-dimensional national and Community trade mark constituted by its packaging — Business activity of a competitor of the licensee consisting in the refilling of the licensee’s composite gas bottles and the sale of gas in those bottles after affixing to them an adhesive label indicating that the bottles have been filled by the competitor but without having removed the figurative and word marks of the exclusive licensee

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5 and 7 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the holder of an exclusive licence for the use of composite gas bottles intended for re-use, the shape of which is protected as a three-dimensional mark and to which the holder has affixed its own name and logo that are registered as word and figurative marks, may not prevent those bottles, after consumers have purchased them and consumed the gas initially contained in them, from being exchanged by a third party, on payment, for composite bottles filled with gas which does not come from the holder of that licence, unless that holder is able to rely on a proper reason for the purposes of Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2011 — Mediaset SpA v European Commission, Sky Italia Srl

(Case C-403/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Subsidies granted by the Italian Republic to promote the purchase of digital decoders - Non-inclusion of decoders for the reception solely of television programmes broadcast by satellite - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market)

2011/C 298/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mediaset SpA (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, dikigoros, G. Rossi, avvocato, E. Petritsi, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and B. Stromsky, Agents), Sky Italia Srl (represented by: F. González Díaz, abogado and F. Salerno, avocat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2010 in Case T-177/07 Mediaset SpA v Commission dismissing an action for the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 6634 final of 24 January 2007 declaring incompatible with the common market subsidies granted by Italy, in 2004 and 2005, to enable consumers to purchase or to rent interactive digital decoders capable of receiving programmes using digital or cable terrestrial technology on the ground that those subsidies exclude decoders capable of receiving programmes using satellite television broadcasting technology (Aid No C 52/2005, ex NN 88/2005, ex CP 101/2004)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mediaset SpA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission and of Sky Italia Srl.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Deggendorf v Markus Stoppelkamp, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the estate of Harald Raab

(Case C-421/10) (1)

(VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 21(1)(b) - Determination of the place of reference for tax purposes - Services provided by a supplier residing in the same country as the customer but having established the seat of his economic activity in another country - Concept of ‘taxable person established abroad’)

2011/C 347/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Finanzamt Deggendorf

Respondent: Markus Stoppelkamp, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the estate of Harald Raab

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 21(1)(b) 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) — Determination of the place of reference for tax purposes — Services provided by a supplier residing in the same Member State as the recipients of those services but having established the seat of his economic activity in another Member State — Concept of a ‘taxable person established abroad’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21(1)(b) 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, as amended by Council Directive 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for him to be considered a ‘taxable person who is not established within the territory of the country’, it is sufficient that the taxable person should have established the seat of his economic activity outside that country.

(1) OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 331/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2011 — Bell & Ross BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Klockgrossisten i Norden AB

(Case C-426/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Signed original application lodged out of time - Regularisable defect)

2011/C 331/08

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bell & Ross BV (represented by: S. Guerlain, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent), Klockgrossisten i Norden AB

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2010 in Case T-51/10 Bell & Ross v OHIM — Klockgrossisten i Norden, whereby the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2009 (Case R 1267/2008-3) in invalidity proceedings between Klockgrossisten i Norden AB and Bell & Ross BV — Signed original application lodged out of time — Concepts of ‘excusable error’ and ‘unforeseeable circumstances’ — Principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality — Manifest inadmissibility

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Bell & Ross BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.