ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Must Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, (1) in combination with Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166/EC, (2) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law (such as § 4 of Law No 381/2001 on compulsory contractual insurance against liability for damage caused by the use of a motor vehicle, or § 6 of Law No 168/1999 [of the Czech Republic] on the same subject) according to which civil liability arising from the use of a motor vehicle does not cover non-material damage, expressed in financial form, caused to the survivors of the victims of a road accident caused by the use of a motor vehicle?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/12

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), lodged on 4 January 2012 — Maatschap L.A. and Others v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

(Case C-11/12)

2012/C 98/17

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Maatschap L.A., D.A.B. Langestraat, P. Langestraat-Troost

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

Question referred

Must Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) be interpreted as imposing a reduction or an exclusion on the farmer who has submitted an aid application, such as that which would be imposed, in respect of established non-compliance, on the actual offender, to whom or by whom the land was transferred, if that offender had himself submitted the application? Or does the provision mean solely that the established non-compliance is to be attributed to the person submitting the aid application, but that, in the determination of the (level of the) reduction or exclusion, it is still necessary to establish the extent to which there has been negligence, fault or intent on the part of the farmer himself?

(1) Council Regulation 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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/10

Appeal brought on 5 April 2012 by EI du Pont de Nemours and Company against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2012 in Case T-76/08: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company and others v European Commission

(Case C-172/12 P)

2012/C 194/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (represented by: J. Boyce, A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-76/08 insofar as it upheld the Commission's finding that the Appellant was a party to the infringement and liable to pay a fine;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant’s grounds of appeal are that the General Court erred in law in finding that the appellant was liable for infringements by DuPont Dow Elastomers (‘DDE’). Insofar as the appellant is successful on this ground of appeal, it follows that:

— as regards the period prior to the establishment of DDE (when the chloroprene rubber business had been owned by the appellant) the General Court erred in law in not ruling that the Commission was time-barred from imposing a fine on the appellant in respect of participation by its subsidiaries, and
3.

Are the provisions concerning the freedom of establishment (now Article 49 TFEU) and, as the case may be, also concerning the free movement of capital (Article 67 EEC/EC until 1993, now Articles 63 to 65 TFEU) to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a provision which excludes the set-off and payment of corporation tax on dividends of second and third-tier subsidiaries which are exempted from tax in the country of the subsidiary and which are (re)distributed to the German parent company and likewise exempted from tax in Germany, but in the case of purely domestic situations, as the case may be by means of the set-off of corporation tax on the second-tier subsidiary’s dividends in the hands of the subsidiary company and the set-off of corporation tax on the subsidiary’s dividends in the hands of the parent company, enables repayment in the event of a loss by the parent company?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ankenævnet for Uddannelsesstøtten (Denmark), lodged on 26 January 2012 — L.N.

(Case C-46/12)

2012/C 109/12

Language of the case: Danish

Referring tribunal

Ankenævnet for Uddannelsesstøtten (Appeals Tribunal, the Danish Students’ Grants and Loans Scheme)

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: L.N.

Question referred

Does Article 7(1)(c), read in conjunction with Article 24(2), of the Directive on residence) (1) mean that a Member State (host Member State), in the assessment of whether a person must be deemed to be a worker entitled to education assistance, may take account of the fact that the person entered the host Member State for the principal purpose of following a course of study, with the result that the host Member State is not obliged to grant education assistance aid for studies to that person (see aforementioned Article 24(2) of the Directive on residence)?

(1) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).
3.

Can the principles of repayment based on fiscal neutrality and of effectiveness, equivalence and equal treatment be regarded as satisfied, and the prohibition on unjust enrichment complied with, where — owing to legislation on the right to deduct that is contrary to European Union law — the tax authority of a Member State only upholds the taxpayer’s claim for repayment or damages in relation to that part or proportion not previously funded through the aid referred to in the first two questions?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 126/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Minh Khoa V o

(Case C-83/12)

2012/C 126/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Minh Khoa V o

Other party: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Question referred

Are Articles 21 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (‘the Visa Code’), (1) which regulate the issue and annulment of a uniform visa, to be interpreted as precluding criminal liability, resulting from the application of national legislation, for the smuggling of foreign nationals in cases where, although they hold visas, the persons smuggled obtained those visas by deceiving the competent authorities of another Member State as to the true purpose of their journey?

(1) OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1.
1.

Must Article 7 of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 92/42/EEC, (1) in conjunction if appropriate with Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (2) and with Article 22 of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, (3) be interpreted, in the light of the general principle of equal treatment, of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (a) as applying only to high-efficiency cogeneration plants, within the meaning of Annex III to the directive; (b) as requiring, permitting or prohibiting the availability of a support measure of the kind contained in Article 38(3) of the Walloon Region Decree of 12 April 2001 on the organisation of the regional electricity market to all cogeneration plants principally exploiting biomass and meeting the conditions laid down by that article, with the exception of cogeneration plants principally exploiting wood or wood waste?
1.

In order for the court to direct the defendant to issue a Schengen visa to the applicant, must the court be satisfied that, pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Visa Code, (1) the applicant intends to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for, or is it sufficient if the court, after examining Article 32(1)(b) of the Visa Code, has no doubts based on special circumstances as to the applicant’s stated intention to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for?
1.

Is a national rule, such as that embodied in the Flemish Decreet van 17 juli 2000 houdende de organisatie van de elektriciteitsmarkt (Decree of 17 July 2000 on the organisation of the market in electricity), as implemented by the Besluit (Decision) of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as amended by the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 25 February 2005 on the promotion of the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources, where — an obligation is imposed on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network, to submit a certain number of green certificates annually to the Regulatory Authority (Article 23 of the aforementioned Decreet); — it is expressly provided that guarantees of origin from other countries may be submitted under certain conditions in order to fulfil the quota obligation (Article 15c(2) of the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as applicable in this case); — an administrative fine is imposed by the Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG) on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network when the supplier has not submitted a sufficient number of green certificates to fulfil a quota obligation which has been imposed in respect of green certificates (Article 37(2) of the aforementioned Decreet); — the Regulatory Authority cannot or will not take into account any guarantees of origin originating from Norway and that being in the absence of implementing measures on the part of the Flemish Government, which has acknowledged the equality or equivalence of those certificates (Article 25 of the aforementioned Decreet and Article 15c(2) of the Besluit of 5 March 2004), without that equality or equivalence being investigated by the Regulatory Authority in concrete terms; — in fact, during the whole time that the Decreet of 17 July 2000 was in force, only certificates for the production of green energy generated in the Flemish Region were taken into account when ascertaining whether the quota obligation had been fulfilled, whereas for the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or transmission network there was no possibility whatsoever of demonstrating that the guarantees of origin from other Member States of the European Union met the condition of the existence of equal or equivalent guarantees regarding the granting of such certificates, compatible with Article 11 of the EEA Agreement and Article 13 of the EEA Agreement?
—

declare that, by failing fully to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2008/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Directive 2004/49/EC on safety on the Community’s railways, (1) or fully to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 7 May 2012 — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira and Others v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.

(Case C-213/12)

2012/C 209/07

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira, Maria do Carmo Ferreira dos Santos, Rosa Fernanda Santos Ferreira

Respondent: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.

Question referred

Must Article 1(1) and Article 3 of the Second Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Third Directive, (2) be interpreted as preventing national legislation from excluding any entitlement to compensation for non-financial damage for members of the driver’s family arising from the driver’s death when the accident is attributed exclusively to the driver’s fault?

(1) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

(2) Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/10

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Vodafone Omnitel Nv v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-231/12)

2012/C 217/20

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone Omnitel Nv

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

(1) Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 22 February 2012 — Domingos Freitas and Maria Adília Monteiro Pinto v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

(Case C-96/12)

2012/C 138/06

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Domingos Freitas and Maria Adília Monteiro Pinto

Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

Question referred

In a road-traffic accident involving a motor vehicle and a minor riding a bicycle, in which the cyclist suffers personal and material damage, is the exclusion or reduction of compensation for such damage where the damage-causing event is due to the conduct of the cyclist contrary to [European Union] law and, in particular, to Article 3(1) of the First Directive (72/166/EEC), (1) Article 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and Article 1a of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC), (3) inserted by Article 4 of the Fifth Directive (2005/14/EC) (4) (all relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles), in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice [of the European Union] concerning the circumstances in which compensation on the basis of compulsory motor vehicle insurance may be limited?

(1) Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

(2) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

(3) Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

(4) Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Corina-Hrisi Tulică v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor

(Case C-249/12)

2012/C 243/11

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corina-Hrisi Tulică

Defendant: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor

Question referred

If a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:

(a) the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or

(b) the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?

(1) Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
4.

Where a Community trade mark is not registered in colour, but the proprietor has used it extensively in a particular colour or combination of colours such that it has become associated in the mind of a significant portion of the public (in a part but not the whole of the Community) with that colour or combination of colours, is the colour or colours with which the defendant uses the sign complained of relevant in the global assessment of (i) likelihood of confusion under Article 9(1)(b) or (ii) unfair advantage under Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation 207/2009? If so, how?
2.

In particular, may that administrative practice consist in subjecting professionals from Member States other than Italy, even where they possess qualifications which in general make them suitable for practising as architects, to a specific examination of professional suitability, that is to say, to the authorisation to practise as an architect, which applies also to Italian professionals in the examination to establish their suitability to practise as architects, for the sole purposes of obtaining access to the professional activities referred to in Article 52, second indent, first part, of Royal Decree No [2537] of 1925?
2.

Do the common system of value added tax and the principles of neutrality, effectiveness and equal treatment preclude the refusal by a revenue authority, on the basis of a national provision transposing Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112 (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, to refund to a taxable person the VAT which that person has entered on an invoice where that tax is not owed, because the transaction in question is exempt from VAT, but was invoiced, charged and paid in error, in so far as the purchaser of the goods or recipient of the service has already been refused the right to deduct tax in respect of the same transaction by a final tax assessment notice on the ground that the supplier of goods or services charged the tax unlawfully?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 273/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen (Germany) lodged on 12 June 2012 — Michael Schwarz v Stadt Bochum

(Case C-291/12)

2012/C 273/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michael Schwarz

Defendant: Stadt Bochum

Question referred

Is Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (1) of 13 December 2004, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, valid?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1; corrected version: OJ 2009 L 188, p. 127).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2012 — Aboubacar Diakite v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-285/12)

2012/C 235/21

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aboubacar Diakite

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Question referred

Must Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees, or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, (1) be interpreted as meaning that that provision offers protection only in a situation of ‘internal armed conflict’, as interpreted by international humanitarian law and, in particular, by reference to Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (for the Amelioration of the Conditions of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, for the Amelioration of the Conditions of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, respectively)?

If the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’ referred to in Article 15(c) of Directive 2004/83 is to be given an interpretation independent of Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, what, in that case, are the criteria for determining whether such an ‘internal armed conflict’ exists?

(1) OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.
—

Declare that, by not adopting the legal or administrative provisions necessary in order to render national law compatible with Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, (1) or at least by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of that directive;