ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/15

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — HaTeFo GmbH v Finanzamt Haldensleben

(Case C-110/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Types of enterprises taken into consideration in calculating staff numbers and financial amounts - Linked enterprises - Notion of ‘group of natural persons acting jointly’))

2014/C 112/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HaTeFo GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Haldensleben

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Annex to the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36) — Types of enterprises taken into consideration in calculating staff numbers and financial amounts — Linked enterprises — Notion of group of natural persons acting jointly.

Operative part of the judgment

The fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises must be interpreted as meaning that enterprises may be regarded as ‘linked’ for the purposes of that article where it is clear from the analysis of the legal and economic relations between them that, through a natural person or a group of natural persons acting jointly, they constitute a single economic unit, even though they do not formally have any of the relationships referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that annex.

Natural persons who work together in order to exercise an influence over the commercial decisions of the enterprises concerned which precludes those enterprises from being regarded as economically independent from each other are to be regarded as acting jointly for the purposes of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that annex. Whether that condition is satisfied depends on the circumstances of the case and is not necessarily conditional on the existence of contractual relations between those persons or a finding that they intended to circumvent the definition of a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of that recommendation.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — Udo Rätzke v S+K Handels GmbH

(Case C-319/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy - Energy labelling of televisions - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 - Responsibilities of dealers - Television supplied to the dealer without the label before the regulation became applicable - Dealer’s obligation to label that television from the date on which the regulation became applicable and to obtain a label subsequently))

2014/C 159/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Udo Rätzke

Defendant: S+K Handels GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Thüringer Oberlandesgericht — Interpretation of Article 4(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 of 28 September 2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of televisions (OJ 2010 L 314, p. 64) — Scope ratione temporis — Obligation of the dealer to ensure that each television at the point of sale bears the label, provided by the suppliers, indicating the energy efficiency class — Televisions supplied to the dealer without labels before the date on which the regulation began to apply

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 of 28 September 2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of televisions must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation for dealers to ensure that each television, at the point of sale, bears the label provided by the suppliers in accordance with Article 3(1) of that regulation applies only to televisions which have been placed on the market, that is to say, dispatched for the first time by the manufacturer with a view to their distribution in the sales chain, from 30 November 2011.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
2.

Article 85(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a Community design court to treat an unregistered Community design as valid, the right holder of that design is not required to prove that it has individual character within the meaning of Article 6 of that regulation, but need only indicate what constitutes the individual character of that design, that is to say, indicates what, in his view, are the element or elements of the design concerned which give it its individual character.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/24

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Sysmex Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

(Case C-480/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Tariff classification - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 3204, 3212 and 3822 - Substance producing, by chemical reaction and exposure to a laser light, a fluorescent effect intended for the analysis of white blood cells))

2014/C 315/35

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sysmex Europe GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in 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 Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that a product, composed of solvents and of a polymethine-based substance, which, although it may have a weak and non-permanent dyeing effect on textiles, is not in practice used for its dyeing properties and is intended exclusively for the analysis of white blood cells, by means of the deposition of ions in defined components of those blood cells, which, when exposed to laser light, become fluorescent for a limited period, comes under heading 3822 of the Combined Nomenclature relating to laboratory reagents.

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Eycke Braun v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-524/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Article 10(c) - Conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company not involving any increase in capital - Fees demanded for the drawing up of a notarial act recording that conversion))

2014/C 292/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eycke Braun

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the Treasury is to receive a share of the fees charged by a notary employed as a civil servant when he draws up a notarial act recording a transaction concerning the conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company, and which does not lead to an increase in the capital of the company making the acquisition or changing its legal form.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Baltlanta’ UAB v Lietuvos valstybė

(Case C-410/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Structural funds - Economic, social and territorial cohesion - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Article 38 - Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 - Article 19 - Fisheries - Court proceedings at national level - Obligation on the part of the Member State to take the measures necessary to ensure the successful implementation of the decision relating to the grant of funds following court proceedings))

(2014/C 395/23)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Baltlanta’ UAB

Defendant: Lietuvos valstybė

Intervening parties: Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos, Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija, Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 38(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002, and Sections 6 and 7 of the Guidelines on the closure of assistance (2000 to 2006) from the Structural Funds, adopted by Commission Decision COM(2006)3424 final of 1 August 2006, must be interpreted as neither obliging the State authorities concerned to inform the European Commission of the existence of court proceedings relating to an administrative decision on the eligibility of an application for financial assistance such as that at issue in the main proceedings, nor to take the measures necessary so that funds that have been provided are reserved for the disputed assistance until the question of the award of the assistance has been finally decided.

(1) OJ C 284, 28.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública v Banco Mais SA

(Case C-183/13) (1)

((Taxation - VAT - Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 17(5), third subparagraph, point (c) - Article 19 - Deduction of input tax - Leasing transactions - Mixed use goods and services - Rule for determining the amount of the VAT deduction - Derogation - Conditions))

2014/C 315/18

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fazenda Pública

Defendant: Banco Mais SA

Operative part of the judgment

Point (c) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) 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, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, from requiring a bank, which, inter alia, carries out leasing activities, to include in the numerator and denominator of the fraction used to determine a single deductible proportion for all of its mixed use goods and services just the part of the rental payments made by customers as part of their leasing agreements that corresponds to interest, where that use of the goods and services is primarily caused by the financing and management of those contracts, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/17

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Ronny Verest and Gaby Gerards v Belgische Staat

(Case C-489/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Income tax - Legislation for the avoidance of double taxation - Taxation of income from immovable property received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence - Method of exemption with maintenance of progressivity in the Member State of residence - Difference in treatment between immovable property situated in the Member State of residence and in another Member State))

2014/C 409/24

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ronny Verest and Gaby Gerards

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it is liable to lead, when a progressivity clause contained in a convention for the prevention of double taxation is applied, to a higher rate of tax on income merely because the method for determining income from immovable property results in income deriving from immovable property that is not rented out situated in another Member State being assessed at a higher amount than income from such property situated in the first Member State. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether that is in fact the effect of the legislation at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding — Germany) — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy (C-119/13), Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH v Tetyana Bonchyk (C-120/13)

(Case C-119/13 and C-120/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Invalid service - Effects - European order for payment declared enforceable - Opposition - Review in exceptional cases - Time-limits))

(2014/C 395/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG (C-119/13), Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH (C-120/13)

Defendants: Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy (C-119/13), Tetyana Bonchyk (C-120/13)

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure must be interpreted as meaning that the procedures laid down in Articles 16 to 20 thereof are not applicable where it appears that a European order for payment has not been served in a manner consistent with the minimum standards laid down in Articles 13 to 15 of that regulation.

Where it is only after a European order for payment has been declared enforceable that such an irregularity is exposed, the defendant must have the opportunity to raise that irregularity, which, if it is duly established, will invalidate the declaration of enforceability.

(1) OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — U v Stadt Karlsruhe

(Case C-101/13) (1)

((Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 - Document 9303 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Part 1 - Minimum security standards for passports and travel documents issued by the Member States - Machine readable passport - Inclusion of the birth name on the personal data page of the passport - Name to appear in a form not liable to give rise to confusion))

2014/C 421/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: U

Defendant: Stadt Karlsruhe

Operative part of the judgment

1. The Annex to 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, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 must be interpreted as requiring the machine readable personal data page of passports issued by the Member States to satisfy all the compulsory specifications provided for by Part 1 of Document 9303 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

2. The Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, read in conjunction with International Civil Aviation Organisation Document 9303, Part 1, must be interpreted, where the law of a Member State provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname, as not precluding that State from being entitled nevertheless to enter the birth name either as a primary identifier in Field 06 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport or as a secondary identifier in Field 07 of that page or in a single field composed of Fields 06 and 07.

3. The Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, read in conjunction with the provisions of International Civil Aviation Organisation Document 9303, Part 1, Section IV, point 8.6, must be interpreted, where the law of a Member State provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname, as precluding that State from being entitled to enter the birth name as an optional item of personal date in Field 13 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport.

4. The Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, read in conjunction with International Civil Aviation Organisation Document 9303, Part 1, must be interpreted, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter, as meaning that, where a Member State whose law provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname chooses nevertheless to include the birth name of the passport holder in Fields 06 and/or 07 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport, that State is required to state clearly in the caption of those fields that the birth name is entered there.

(1) OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by K Oy

(Case C-219/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(2) - Annex III, point 6 - Reduced rate of VAT applicable only to books printed on paper - Books published on physical supports other than paper subject to the standard rate of VAT - Fiscal neutrality))

2014/C 409/17

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

K Oy

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of and point 6 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding, provided that the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of value added tax is complied with, which is for the referring court to ascertain, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which books published in paper form are subject to a reduced rate of value added tax and books published on other physical supports such as CDs, CD-ROMs or USB keys are subject to the standard rate of value added tax.

(1) OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.
2.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 4147 of 30 June 2010, reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the following (groups of) projects: ‘Water supply to settlements in the Guadiana basin: Andévalo area’ (2000.ES.16.C.PE.133), ‘Drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir basin: Guadaira, Aljarafe and the areas of natural protection of the Guadalquivir’ (2000.ES.16.C.PE.066) and ‘Water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Malaga’ (2002.ES.16.C.PE.061);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 439/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2014 — British Telecommunications plc v European Commission and BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd

(Case C-620/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Exemption of a pension fund from the obligation to pay a contribution to a pension protection fund in respect of certain employees - Selective nature of the measure))

(2014/C 439/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: British Telecommunications plc (represented by: J. Holmes, Barrister, and H. Legge QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and N. Khan, Agents), BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, avocats, instructed by M. Farley, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders British Telecommunications plc and BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Melun — France) — Sophie Mukarubega v Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis

(Case C-166/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Procedure for the adoption of a return decision - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Right of an illegally staying third-country national to be heard before the adoption of a decision liable to affect her interests - Administrative authority refusing to grant such a national resident permit as an asylum applicant and imposing an obligation to leave the territory - Right to be heard before the return decision is issued))

(2015/C 007/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Melun

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sophie Mukarubega

Defendant: Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context 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, and in particular Article 6 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a national authority is not precluded from failing to hear a third-country national specifically on the subject of a return decision where, after that authority has determined that the third-country national is staying illegally in the national territory on the conclusion of a procedure which fully respected that person’s right to be heard, it is contemplating the adoption of such a decision in respect of that person, whether or not that return decision is the result of refusal of a residence permit.

(1) OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Ilie Nicolae Nicula v Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-331/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law))

(2014/C 462/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ilie Nicolae Nicula

Defendants: Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as precluding a system of repayment of a tax levied in breach of EU law such as the system at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.