ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-123/09) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Combined nomenclature classification of riding gloves - Heading 3926 - Heading 6116)

(2010/C 161/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) — Textile product roughened on one side for the sole purpose of strengthening adhesion of a layer of plastic material — Classification under subheading 3926 20 00 of the Combined Nomenclature

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that riding gloves, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, made up of fabric raised on one side and covered with a layer of plastic, where the support fabric is raised on one side and the raised side is then completely covered with a layer of polyurethane foam, which has an essential function in use of the gloves as riding gloves, must be classified under subheading 3926 20 00 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Leo-Libera GmbH v Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide

(Case C-58/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(i) - Exemption of betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling - Conditions and limitations - Discretionary power of the Member States)

2010/C 221/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leo-Libera GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 135(1)(i) 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 exempting from VAT only certain forms of betting and lotteries and excluding from that exemption all other forms of gambling

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(i) 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 exercise of the discretionary power of the Member States to fix conditions and limitations on the exemption from value added tax provided for by that provision allows those States to exempt from that tax only certain forms of gambling.

(1) OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-140/09) (1)

(State aid - Subsidies paid to a maritime transport undertaking discharging public service obligations - National Law providing for the possibility of making payments on account prior to the approval of an agreement)

2010/C 209/12

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA

Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Genova — State aid — Compatibility with Articles 86 to 88 EC of national legislation under which State aid can be paid to maritime transport undertakings responsible for the performance of public service contracts, in the absence of agreements between those undertakings and the administrative authorities and without the prior establishment of precise and stringent criteria capable of ensuring that payment of the aid cannot give rise to distortion of competition

Operative part of the judgment

Under European Union law subsidies paid in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, pursuant to national legislation providing for payments on account prior to the approval of an agreement, constitute State aid if those subsidies are liable to affect trade between Member States and distort or threaten to distort competition, which it is for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-54/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - Agriculture - Common organisation of the market in wine - Aid for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards - Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 - Fixing of the definitive financial allocations made to Member States - Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 - Article 16(1) - Time-limit - Binding nature)

2010/C 246/07

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and M. Tassopoulou, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 in Case T-339/06 Greece v Commission, by which the Court dismissed an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/669/EC of 4 October 2006 fixing, for the 2006 financial year and in respect of a certain number of hectares, the definitive financial allocations to Member States for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards under Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (notified under document number C(2006) 4348) (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 62) in so far as the decision fixes the hectares and the definitive financial allocations concerning Greece

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Alexander Hengartner, Rudolf Gasser v Landesregierung Vorarlberg

(Case C-70/09) (1)

(Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Lease of hunting ground - Regional tax - Concept of economic activity - Principle of equal treatment)

2010/C 246/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alexander Hengartner, Rudolf Gasser

Defendant: Landesregierung Vorarlberg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 43 EC — Concept of economic activity — Hunting for sport and without a profit motive — Sale of game to cover part of the hunting costs — No profit

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, do not preclude a national of one of the contracting parties from being subjected in the territory of the other contracting party, as a recipient of services, to different treatment from that reserved to persons whose principal residence is in that territory, citizens of the Union, and persons who are equated to those citizens under European Union law, with respect to the charging of a tax payable for the provision of services such as the making available of a right to hunt.

(1) OJ C 102, 01.05.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland)) — Kronospan Mielec sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Rzeszowie

(Case C-222/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 9(2)(c) and (e) - Research and development work carried out by engineers - Determination of the place where services are supplied)

2010/C 328/10

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kronospan Mielec sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Rzeszowie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelncy Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 9(2)(c) and of the third indent of Article 9(2)(e) 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 Articles 52(a) and 56(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Determination, for taxation purposes, of the place where services are supplied — Research and development services provided to a taxable person established in the European Community but outside the Member State in which those services were physically carried out — Classification of those services as either ‘scientific activities’ or ‘services of engineers’

Operative part of the judgment

Services consisting of research and development work relating to the environment and technology, carried out by engineers established in one Member State on a contract basis for the benefit of a recipient established in another Member State, must be classified as ‘services of engineers’ within the meaning of Article 9(2)(e) 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.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Mega Brands Inc.

(Case C-48/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community trade mark - Suitability of a shape of goods for registration as a trade mark - Registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the upper surface and two sides of a Lego brick - Declaration of invalidity of that registration on application by an undertaking marketing toy bricks having the same shape and dimensions - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of that regulation - Sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result)

2010/C 301/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lego Juris A/S (represented by: V. von Bomhard and T. Dolde, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent), Mega Brands Inc. (represented by: P. Cappuyns and C. De Meyer, advocaten).

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2008 in Case T-270/06 Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), in which that Court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the Community three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a Lego brick for goods in Classes 9 and 28 against Decision R 856/2004-G of the Grand Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 July 2006 which had dismissed the appeal brought against the Cancellation Division’s decision declaring that mark partially invalid in the context of the application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Mega Brands — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Lego Juris A/S to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Établissements Rimbaud SA v Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence

(Case C-72/09) (1)

(Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Legal persons established in a non-member State belonging to the European Economic Area - Ownership of immovable property located in a Member State - Tax on the market value of that property - Refusal of exemption - Combating tax evasion - Assessment in the light of the EEA Agreement)

2010/C 346/18

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Établissements Rimbaud SA

Defendants: Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) (France) — Interpretation of Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) of 2 May 1992 — Tax on the commercial value of immoveable property situated in France — Exemption for legal persons established in France or in a State within the European Economic Area conditional on France having concluded with that State a convention on administrative assistance for the purposes of combating tax evasion and avoidance or on the fact that, under a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination, those legal persons are not to be taxed more heavily than companies established in France — Refusal of tax exemption to a company established in Liechtenstein

Operative part of the judgment

Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 does not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which exempts from the tax on the market value of immovable property located in a Member State of the European Union companies which have their seat in that Member State and which, in respect of a company which has its seat in a country belonging to the European Economic Area which is not a Member State of the European Union, makes that exemption conditional either on the existence of a convention on administrative assistance between the Member State and the non-member State for the purposes of combating tax evasion and avoidance or on the fact that, pursuant to a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality, those legal persons must not be taxed more heavily than companies established in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 102, 1.5.2009, p. 12.
1.

Article 40(5) 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, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the Member State in question, different per-unit values were fixed for hectares under pasture and for any other hectare eligible for aid under Article 61 of that regulation, a farmer who, on the reference date specified in that article, was under agri-environmental commitments pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, forming part of seamlessly ongoing agri-environmental commitments which had the objective of converting arable lands into permanent pastureland, is entitled to request that the entitlements referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 59(3) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Regulation No 319/2006, be calculated on the basis of the per-unit values fixed for eligible hectares other than hectares under pasture;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-226/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/18/EC - Public procurement procedures - Award of a contract for interpretation and translation services - Services falling within the ambit of Annex II B of the Directive - Services not subject to all the requirements of the Directive - Weighting of the award criteria determined after tenders have been submitted - Weighting altered following an initial review of the tenders submitted - Compliance with the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency)

2011/C 13/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, and A.M. Collins, SC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public procurement procedures — Award of a contract for interpretation and translation services — Services not subject to all the requirements of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and 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) — Weighting of the award criteria after the submission of tenders — Principles of equal treatment as between tenderers and transparency

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by altering the weighting of the award criteria for a contract for the provision of interpretation and translation services following an initial review of the tenders submitted, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principle of equal treatment and the consequent obligation of transparency, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission and Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 220, 12.09.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 — Holland Malt BV v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-464/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Guidelines for aid in the agriculture sector - Point 4.2.5 - Malt market - No normal market outlets - Aid measure declared incompatible with the common market)

2011/C 30/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Holland Malt BV (represented by: O. Brouwer, A. Stoffer and P. Schepens, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents) Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and Y. de Vries, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2009 in Case T-369/06 Holland Malt BV v Commission — Holland Malt BV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/59/EC of 26 September 2006 declaring as incompatible with the common market the aid granted by the Netherlands in favour of Holland Malt BV for the creation of a malt production plant at Eemshaven (Groningen), in the form of investment aid of EUR 7 425 000, subject to the condition precedent of its approval by the Commission (State aid No C 14/2005 — ex N 149/2004) (OJ 2007 L 32, p. 76) — Application of the Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Holland Malt BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
2.

Article 455(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) of the Customs Convention on the international transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets, signed at Geneva on 14 November 1975, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, a guaranteeing association cannot rely on the limitation period provided for in those provisions where the customs authorities of the Member State for whose territory it is responsible notify it, within a period of one year from the date on which those authorities were informed of an enforceable judgment identifying them as competent, of the facts which gave rise to the customs debt for which it is liable up to the amount that it guarantees.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/12

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Skoma-Lux sro v Celní ředitelství Olomouc

(Case C-339/09) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 2204 and 2206 - Beverage fermented on the basis of fresh grapes - Alcohol content of 15,8 % to 16,1 % by volume - Addition of corn alcohol and beet sugar during the course of production)

2011/C 55/19

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skoma-Lux sro

Defendant: Celní ředitelství Olomouc

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) — Red dessert wine Kagor — Classification under heading 2204 or heading 2206 of the combined nomenclature

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a beverage fermented on the basis of fresh grapes, sold in 0.75 litre bottles, with an alcohol content of 15,8 % to 16,1 % by volume, to which beet sugar and corn alcohol have been added during the course of its production, must be classified under heading 2206 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to that regulation.

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.