ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Chartres — France) — Michel Bourgès-Maunoury, Marie-Louise Heintz, wife of Mr Bourgès-Maunoury v Direction des services fiscaux d’Eure-et-Loir

(Case C-558/10) (1)

(Privileges and immunities of the European Communities - Exemption from national taxes on salaries paid by the European Union - Inclusion of income paid by the European Union in the calculation of the cap for wealth tax)

2012/C 287/07

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Chartres

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michel Bourgès-Maunoury, Marie-Louise Heintz, wife of Mr Bourgès-Maunoury

Defendant: Direction des services fiscaux d’Eure-et-Loir

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande instance de Chartres –Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 13 of Chapter V of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967, 152, p. 13) — Validity of national legislation providing that the entirety of a taxpayer’s income, including Community income, is to be taken into account in calculating the cap on wealth tax — Exemption from national taxes on remuneration paid by the Communities — Former officials of the European Communities

Operative part of the judgment

The second paragraph of Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, initially annexed to the Treaty establishing a single Council and a single Commission of the European Communities, and subsequently, under the Amsterdam Treaty, to the EC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which takes account of the income, including the pensions and allowances on termination of service, paid by the European Union to its officials and other staff, or to its former officials and former staff, in calculating the cap on a tax such as the wealth tax.

(1) OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-600/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Taxation of dividends and interest paid to pension funds and pension insurance schemes - Treatment of dividends and interest paid to non-resident institutions - Deduction of operating costs directly linked to the receipt of income in the form of dividends and interest - Burden of proof)

2013/C 26/05

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and C. Schillemans, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent, and by G. Facenna, Barrister)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 63 TFEU and of Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — National legal provisions on the taxation of dividends and interest paid to pension funds and pension insurance schemes, granting certain fiscal advantages only in respect of dividends and interest paid to resident institutions

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany;

3. Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-555/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(3) and Annex II - Directive 2001/14/EC - Articles 4(2) and 14(2) - Infrastructure manager - Organisational and decision making independence - Holding company structure - Incomplete transposition)

2013/C 114/06

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, B. Simon, R. Vidal Puig and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and U. Zechner, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and with Articles 4(2) and 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/7

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2012 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-119/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 99 and 110 - Value added tax - Reduced rate - Application of a reduced rate for admission to the first performances of concerts held in establishments providing refreshments during the performance)

2012/C 118/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 99 and 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Application of a reduced rate of VAT of 2,10 % for admission to the first performances of concerts held in establishments providing refreshments during the performance — Prohibition on extending the scope of a derogation where such scope has previously been restricted

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by applying, since 1 January 2007, a reduced rate of VAT of 2,10 % for admission to the first performances of concerts held in establishments providing optional refreshments during the performance, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 99 and 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France)) — Alexandre Achughbabian v Préfet du Val-de-Marne

(Case C-329/11) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - National legislation making provision, in the event of illegal staying, for a sentence of imprisonment and a fine)

2012/C 32/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alexandre Achughbabian

Defendant: Préfet du Val-de-Marne

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Paris — Interpretation of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Compatibility of national legislation providing for the imposition of a penalty of imprisonment on a third-country national on the sole ground of his illegal entry or residence in national territory — Detention for the purposes of deportation — Possible illegal detention

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as

— precluding legislation of a Member State repressing illegal stays by criminal sanctions, in so far as that legislation permits the imprisonment of a third-country national who, though staying illegally in the territory of the said Member State and not being willing to leave that territory voluntarily, has not been subject to the coercive measures referred to in Article 8 of that directive and has not, in the event of placing in detention with a view to the preparation and implementation of his removal, reached the expiry of the maximum duration of that detention; and

— not precluding such legislation in so far as the latter permits the imprisonment of a third-country national to whom the return procedure established by the said directive has been applied and who is staying illegally in that territory with no justified ground for non-return.

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Palermo — Italy) — Amia SpA, in liquidation v Provincia Regionale di Palermo

(Case C-97/11) (1)

(Environment - Landfill of waste - Directive 1999/31/EC - Special levy on the disposal of solid waste in landfills - Landfill operator subject to that levy - Operating costs of a landfill - Directive 2000/35/EC - Default interest - Obligations of the national court)

2012/C 200/03

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Palermo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Amia SpA, in liquidation

Defendant: Provincia Regionale di Palermo

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Palermo — Interpretation of Article 10 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1), of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (JO 2000 L 200, p. 35) and of Articles 12, 14, 43 et 46 EC — National legislation establishing a special tax on the dumping of solid waste in a landfill, and placing the landfill operator under an obligation to pre-pay the tax, the amount of which depends on the volume of waste dumped and which is payable by the party which dumps the waste at the landfill.

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings:

— It is for the referring court, first, before disapplying the relevant provisions of Law No 549 of 28 December 1995 on measures to rationalise public finances, to establish whether, taking into consideration the whole body of domestic law, both substantive and procedural, there is no possibility of reaching an interpretation of its national law with which to resolve the case in the main proceedings in a manner consistent with the wording and purpose of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, and Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions;

— If such an interpretation is not possible, it is for the referring court to disapply, in the main proceedings, any national provision contrary to Article 10 of Directive 1999/31 as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003 and Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2000/35.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Klub OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-153/11) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Right of deduction - Origin of the right of deduction - Right of a company to deduct the input VAT paid for the acquisition of capital goods not yet brought into use for the company’s business activities)

2012/C 133/16

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Klub OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of the VAT paid by a taxable person in respect of goods supplied to him in so far as they are used for his taxable transactions — Right of a company, whose main activity consists in leasing its own immovable property, to deduct input VAT on the purchase of another property which has yet to be commercially exploited by that company

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who has acquired capital goods while acting as such and has allocated the goods to the assets of the business is entitled to deduct the value added tax on the acquisition of those goods in the tax period in which the tax became due, regardless of the fact that the goods are not immediately used for business purposes. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the taxable person acquired the capital goods for the purposes of his economic activity and to assess, if need be, whether there is a fraudulent practice.

(1) OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Markus Geltl v Daimler AG

(Case C-19/11) (1)

(Directives 2003/6/EC and 2003/124/EC - Inside information - Notion of ‘precise information’ - Intermediate steps in a protracted process - Reference to circumstances or an event which may reasonably be expected to come into existence or occur - Interpretation of the wording ‘may reasonably be expected’ - Public disclosure of information relating to change of a manager of a company)

2012/C 258/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Markus Geltl

Defendant: Daimler AG

In the presence of: Lothar Meier and Others

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 1, point 1 of European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/6/EC of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16) and Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC (OJ 2003 L 339, p. 70) — Interpretation of the expression ‘privileged information’ — Resignation of the chairman of a limited liability company — Whether various consultations and steps prior to the event in question needing to be taken into account in order to assess the precise nature of such information

Operative part of the judgment

1. Point 1 of Article 1 of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) and Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6 as regards the definition and public disclosure of inside information and the definition of market manipulation must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a protracted process intended to bring about a particular circumstance or to generate a particular event, not only may that future circumstance or future event be regarded as precise information within the meaning of those provisions, but also the intermediate steps of that process which are connected with bringing about that future circumstance or event;

2. Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/124 must be interpreted as meaning that the notion of ‘a set of circumstances which exists or may reasonably be expected to come into existence or an event which has occurred or may reasonably be expected to do so’ refers to future circumstances or events from which it appears, on the basis of an overall assessment of the factors existing at the relevant time, that there is a realistic prospect that they will come into existence or occur. However, that notion should not be interpreted as meaning that the magnitude of the effect of that set of circumstances or that event on the prices of the financial instruments concerned must be taken into consideration.

(1) OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Elsacom NV

(Case C-294/11) (1)

(Eighth VAT Directive - Arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country - Time-limit within which refund applications are to be submitted - Time bar)

2012/C 250/13

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant: Elsacom NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di Cassazione — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) — Period of six months from the end of the calendar year in which value added tax became chargeable within which to submit an application for refund of that tax — The legal significance of the period laid down by the directive

Operative part of the judgment

The six-month time limit laid down in the last sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country — for submitting an application for a value added tax refund is a mandatory time limit.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Pie Optiek v Bureau Gevers, European Registry for Internet Domains

(Case C-376/11) (1)

(Internet - .eu Top Level Domain - Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 - Domain names - Phased registration - Article 12(2) - Concept of ‘licensees of prior rights’ - Person authorised by the proprietor of a trade mark to register, in his own name but on behalf of that proprietor, a domain name identical or similar to that trade mark - No authorisation for other uses of the sign as a trade mark)

2012/C 295/24

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pie Optiek

Defendants: Bureau Gevers, European Registry for Internet Domains

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 12(2) and 21(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the.eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration (OJ 2004 L 162, p. 40) — Interpretation of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 April 2002 on the implementation of the.eu Top Level Domain (OJ 2002 L 113, p. 1) — Speculative and abusive registrations — Concept of ‘licensees of prior rights’ — Person authorised by the proprietor of a trade mark to register, in his own name but on behalf of the licensor, a domain name identical or similar to the trade mark, in the absence of any other use of the sign as a trade mark — Name registered without ‘rights or legitimate interest’

Operative part of the judgment

The third subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the.eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the prior right concerned is a trade mark right, the words ‘licensees of prior rights’ do not refer to a person who has been authorised by the proprietor of the trade mark concerned solely to register, in his own name but on behalf of that proprietor, a domain name identical or similar to that trade mark, but without that person being authorised to use the trade mark commercially in a manner consistent with its functions.

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem dd Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na srečo in turizem dd v Bundesminister für Finanzen

(Case C-176/11) (1)

(Article 56 TFEU - Restriction on the freedom to provide services - Games of chance - Legislation of a Member State prohibiting the advertising of casinos located in other States if the level of legal protection for gamblers in those States is not equivalent to that ensured at national level - Justification - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality)

2012/C 287/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem dd Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na srečo in turizem dd

Defendant: Bundesminister für Finanzen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verfassungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU et seq. — Freedom to provide services — Games of chance — Legislation of a Member State prohibiting the advertising in its territory of casinos located in other States if the level of legal protection for gamblers in those States is not considered equivalent to the level of protection ensured at national level

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which permits the advertising in that State of casinos located in another Member State only where the legal provisions for the protection of gamblers adopted in that other Member State provide guarantees that are in essence equivalent to those of the corresponding legal provisions in force in the first Member State.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.