ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Daniela Mühlleitner v Ahmad Yusufi, Wadat Yusufi

(Case C-190/11) (1)

(Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 15(1)(c) - Possible limitation of that jurisdiction to distance contracts)

2012/C 355/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Daniela Mühlleitner

Defendants: Ahmad Yusufi, Wadat Yusufi

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Possible limitation of that jurisdiction to distance contracts

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not requiring the contract between the consumer and the trader to be concluded at a distance.

(1) OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/7

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Maria Kozak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

(Case C-557/11) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Transport services carried out by travel agents acting in their own name - Concept of single service - Article 98 - Reduced VAT rate)

2012/C 399/11

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Kozak

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Articles 306 to 310, and Article 98 in conjunction with point 5 of Annex III, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Scope of the special scheme for the taxation of travel agents — Refusal to apply the reduced rate of VAT, applicable to transport services, to transport services supplied by travel agents acting in their own name within the framework of the supply of an integrated travel service — Classification as a single supply

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the context of a tourist service provided to a tourist in return for an all-inclusive price imposed in conformity with those provisions, a travel agent provides to that tourist an in-house transport service which forms part of that tourist service, that supply of services is subject to the normal value added tax regime, inter alia in relation to the tax rate, and not to the special value added tax scheme applicable to transactions carried out by travel agents. In accordance with Article 98 of that directive, if the Member States have provided for a reduced rate of value added tax for transport services, that reduced rate applies to that supply of services.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/10

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-371/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Reference by domestic law to European Union law - Directive 90/435/EEC - Directive 90/434/EEC - Prevention of economic double taxation - Exception - Liquidation of a subsidiary upon a merger - Distribution of profits - Concept of ‘liquidation’)

2012/C 379/16

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — Prevention of economic double taxation — Exception in respect of profits distributed when a subsidiary is liquidated — Concept of liquidation — Merger by acquisition whereby the subsidiary companies acquired are wound up without going into liquidation — Possibility, for the national tax authorities, of considering that such an operation entails liquidation, pursuant to national tax legislation which treats identically that operation and a merger which actually entails a liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘liquidation’ in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2006/98/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the dissolution of a company in the context of a merger by acquisition cannot be considered to be such a liquidation.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/18

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — KGH Belgium NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-351/11) (1)

(Customs debt - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties - Entry of duty in the accounts - Practical procedures)

2013/C 9/27

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KGH Belgium NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Article 217(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Entry in the accounts of the duties — Practical procedures

Operative part of the judgment

Article 217(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that, since that article does not lay down any practical procedures for the entry in the accounts within the meaning of that provision, the Member States are free to determine the practical procedures for the entry in the accounts of amounts of duty resulting from a customs debt, without being under an obligation to determine, in their national legislation, how the entry in the accounts is to be made. That entry must be made in a way which ensures that the competent customs authorities enter the exact amount of the import duty or export duty resulting from a customs debt in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium, so that, inter alia, the entry in the accounts of the amounts concerned may be established with certainty, including with regard to the person liable.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — SC Gran Via Moinești SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Administrația Finanțelor Publice București Sector 1

(Case C-257/11) (1)

(Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax - Articles 167, 168 and 185 - Right of deduction - Adjustment of deductions - Acquisition of land and buildings constructed on that land, with a view to demolishing the buildings and carrying out a construction project on the land)

2013/C 26/14

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Gran Via Moinești SRL

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Administrația Finanțelor Publice București Sector 1

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel București — Interpretation of Articles 167, 168 and 185(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) — Right of deduction in respect of the VAT relating to the purchase of buildings scheduled for demolition with a view to carrying out a construction project — Economic activity prior carrying out a construction project, consisting in the initial investment expenditure for the purposes of implementing that project — Adjustment of the VAT deductions

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a company which has acquired land and buildings constructed on that land, for the purpose of demolishing the buildings and developing a residential complex on the land, has the right to deduct the value added tax relating to the acquisition of those buildings.

2. Article 185 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the demolition of buildings, acquired together with the plot of land on which they were constructed, which is carried out with a view to developing a residential complex in place of those buildings does not result in an obligation to adjust the initial deduction of the value added tax relating to the acquisition of those buildings.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Pedro Espada Sánchez, Alejandra Oviedo Gonzáles, Lucía Espada Oviedo, Pedro Espada Oviedo v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA

(Case C-410/11) (1)

(Air transport - Montreal Convention - Article 22(2) - Liability of carriers in respect of baggage - Limits of liability in the event of the destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage - Shared baggage belonging to a number of passengers - Baggage checked in by one of those passengers)

2013/C 26/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Pedro Espada Sánchez, Alejandra Oviedo Gonzáles, Lucía Espada Oviedo, Pedro Espada Oviedo

Defendant: Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Interpretation of Articles 3(3) and 22(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention), (Council Decision 2001/539/EC, OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38) — Air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air — Limits of liability in the event of the destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, read in conjunction with Article 3(3) of that convention, must be interpreted as meaning that the right to compensation and the limits to a carrier’s liability in the event of loss of baggage apply also to a passenger who claims that compensation by virtue of the loss of baggage checked in in another passenger’s name, provided that that lost baggage did in fact contain the first passenger’s items.

(1) OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV

(Case C-149/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) - ‘Genuine use of the trade mark’ - Territorial scope of use - Use of the Community trade mark in a single Member State - Whether sufficient)

2013/C 46/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leno Merken BV

Defendant: Hagelkruis Beheer BV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te’s-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Use of the mark — Genuine use — Meaning — Use of a Community trade mark on the territory of just one Member State — Use regarded as genuine by that State if it were an identical national mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the territorial borders of the Member States should be disregarded in the assessment of whether a trade mark has been put to ‘genuine use in the Community’ within the meaning of that provision.

A Community trade mark is put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 when it is used in accordance with its essential function and for the purpose of maintaining or creating market share within the European Community for the goods or services covered by it. It is for the referring court to assess whether the conditions are met in the main proceedings, taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the characteristics of the market concerned, the nature of the goods or services protected by the trade mark and the territorial extent and the scale of the use as well as its frequency and regularity.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — French Republic v European Parliament

(Joined Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Law governing the institutions - Calendar of plenary part-sessions of the European Parliament for 2012 and 2013 - Protocols on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union)

2013/C 38/06

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Pennera, N. Lorenz and E. Waldherr, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Actions for annulment — Vote of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 concerning the calendar of the session periods of the Parliament for 2012 — Calendar laying down that two of the twelve monthly plenary sessions are to be held during the same week in October — Infringement of Protocol No 3 and Protocol No 6 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices agencies and departments of the European Union — Place of work of the European Parliament.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the votes of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 adopting the Parliament’s calendar of part-sessions for 2012 and 2013 to the extent that they do not provide for 12 monthly plenary part-sessions to be held in Strasbourg in 2012 and 2013;

2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat — Austria) — Sky Österreich GmbH v Österreichischer Rundfunk

(Case C-283/11) (1)

(Directive 2010/13/EU - Provision of audiovisual media services - Article 15(6) - Validity - Events of high interest to the public that are subject to exclusive broadcasting rights - Right of access of broadcasters to such events for the purpose of making short news reports - Limitation of possible compensation for the holder of the exclusive right to additional costs incurred in providing such access - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 16 and 17 - Proportionality)

2013/C 71/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundeskommunikationssenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sky Österreich GmbH

Defendant: Österreichischer Rundfunk

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundeskommunikationssenat — Compatibility of Article 15(6) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1) with the freedom to conduct a business and the right to property as guaranteed under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Right of all broadcasters to benefit, for the production of short news programmes, from access to events of high interest to the public which are subject to exclusive broadcasting rights — Limitation of possible compensation to additional costs incurred in providing such access — Proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question raised has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 15(6) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive).

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
1.

Articles 63 and 65 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where a building right is established in favour of a company in order to erect a building, by way of consideration for construction services of certain real property in that building and that company has undertaken to deliver on a turn-key basis to the persons who established that building right, they do not preclude the VAT on those construction services from becoming chargeable as from the moment when the building right is established, that is to say, before those services are performed, provided that, at the time that right is established, all the relevant information concerning that future supply of services is already known and, therefore, in particular, the services in question are precisely identified, and the value of that right may be expressed in monetary terms, which it is for the national court to verify.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Margaret Kenny and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others

(Case C-427/11) (1)

(Article 141 EC - Directive 75/117/EEC - Equal pay for men and women - Indirect discrimination - Objective justification - Conditions)

2013/C 114/18

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Margaret Kenny, Patricia Quinn, Nuala Condon, Eileen Norton, Ursula Ennis, Loretta Barrett, Joan Healy, Kathleen Coyne, Sharon Fitzpatrick, Breda Fitzpatrick, Sandra Hennelly, Marian Troy, Antoinette Fitzpatrick, Helena Gatley

Defendants: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Finance, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court (Ireland) — Interpretation of Article 157 TFEU and Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19) (replaced by Directive 2006/54/EC) — Concept of objective justification in the context of apparent indirect discrimination between male and female workers within the civil service — Criteria

Operative part of the judgment

Article 141 EC and Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women must be interpreted as follows:

— employees perform the same work or work to which equal value can be attributed if, taking account of a number of factors such as the nature of the work, the training requirements and the working conditions, those persons can be considered to be in a comparable situation, which it is a matter for the national court to ascertain;

— in relation to indirect pay discrimination, it is for the employer to establish objective justification for the difference in pay between the workers who consider that they have been discriminated against and the comparators;

— the employer’s justification for the difference in pay, which is evidence of a prima facie case of gender discrimination, must relate to the comparators who, on account of the fact that their situation is described by valid statistics which cover enough individuals, do not illustrate purely fortuitous or short-term phenomena, and which, in general, appear to be significant, have been taken into account by the referring court in establishing that difference, and

— the interests of good industrial relations may be taken into consideration by the national court as one factor among others in its assessment of whether differences between the pay of two groups of workers are due to objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex and are compatible with the principle of proportionality.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/4

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-301/11) (1)

(Tax legislation - Transfer of a residence for tax purposes - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Taxation of unrealised capital gains - Immediate exit tax)

2013/C 86/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent), Portuguese Republic (représentant: L. Inez Fernandes, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Exit tax for undertakings ceasing to have their tax residence in the Netherlands — Taxation of unrealised capital gains in the case of changing the undertaking’s residency, moving its permanent establishment or transferring its shares to another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force a national rule providing for the taxation of unrealised capital gains on the transfer of an undertaking or when transferring a company’s registered office or actual head office to another Member State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

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

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.