ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága (Hungary) lodged on 21 January 2011 — Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt., Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt., Gépjármű Márkakereskedők Országos Szövetsége, Magyar Peugeot Márkakereskedők Biztosítási Alkusz Kft. And Paragon-Alkusz Zrt., legal successor of Magyar Opelkereskedők Bróker Kft. v Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

(Case C-32/11)

2011/C 145/04

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt., Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt., Gépjármű Márkakereskedők Országos Szövetsége, Magyar Peugeot Márkakereskedők Biztosítási Alkusz Kft., Paragon-Alkusz Zrt., legal successor of Magyar Opelkereskedők Bróker Kft.

Defendant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

Question referred

Do bilateral agreements between an insurance company and individual car repairers, or between an insurance company and a car repairers’ association, under which the hourly repair charge paid by the insurance company to the repairer for the repair of vehicles insured by the insurance company depends, among other things, on the number and scale of insurance policies taken out with the insurance company by the repairer, as the insurance broker for the insurance company in question, qualify as agreements which have as their object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, and thus contravene Article 101(1) TFEU?
1.

Can a national rule which, like the 67-year rule, gives rise to a difference of treatment on grounds of age be legitimate even if it is not possible to determine clearly from the context in which the rule has come into being or from other information what aim or purpose the rule is intended to serve?
1.

Is the requirement in Article 5(1) of [Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers (1) in respect of distance contracts] to the effect that a consumer must receive confirmation of the information specified there in a durable medium available and accessible to him, unless the information has already been given to him on conclusion of the contract in a durable medium available and accessible to him, satisfied, where that information is made available to the consumer by means of a hyperlink on the trader’s website which is contained in a line of text that the consumer must mark as read by ticking a box in order to be able to enter into a contractual relationship?
If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative:

Can an agreement conferring jurisdiction reached prior to the existence of a dispute confer jurisdiction on a court outside the scope of Regulation No 44/2001, if, by virtue of the agreement conferring jurisdiction, the jurisdiction conferred under Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation No 44/2001 would not apply?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 160/12

Action brought on 8 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-122/11)

2011/C 160/13

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and G. Rozet, lawyers)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by having removed with effect only from 1 August 2004 the condition of residence which precluded the indexation of the pensions of citizens of the European Union and of the EEA residing outside a country having concluded a reciprocal agreement with Belgium, and by not having removed the discrimination which they suffered throughout the period before 1 August 2004, by being deprived of part of their pension, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (1) and Article 18 and 45 TFEU which lay down the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality;

— Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission claims that the national legislation discriminates between nationals of other Member States to the extent that it imposes only on them a condition of residence on the territory of one of the Member States or of one of the countries which concluded a reciprocal agreement with Belgium in order to benefit from the indexation of their pension for the period up to 1 August 2004.

The Commission pleads, in addition, that the said Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 no longer provides that residence on the territory of a Member State is necessary in order to be able to rely on the principle of equal treatment. The persons covered by that regulation may therefore request the application of that principle even if they reside in a third State. Thus, a State may no longer reserve indexation of pensions for its nationals alone, but must also grant such indexation to retired persons residing in a third State.

Finally, according to the Commission, legitimate expectations, practical difficulties and the financial impact, grounds relied on by the Belgian authorities to justify the impossibility of applying the amended legislation retroactively, cannot be accepted.

(1) OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 1.
2.

Is subparagraph 4 of Article 3(1) of Decree No 38 of 27 July 1967 organising the social security scheme for self-employed persons compatible with the law of the European Union and, in particular, with freedom of movement and of residence as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in so far as it does not allow a person who is resident in another Member State and who manages from abroad a company which is liable to Belgian tax to rebut the presumption that he is covered by the social security scheme for self-employed persons, whereas an agent who is resident in Belgium and who does not manage such a company from abroad has the right to rebut that presumption and to adduce evidence that he is not carrying on an activity as a self-employed person for the purposes of subparagraph 1 of Article 3(1) of Royal Decree No 38?
1.

Must Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who fulfils the material conditions for the right to deduct VAT in accordance with the provisions of that Directive may be deprived of his right to deduct by national legislation or practice that prohibits deductions in respect of VAT paid when a product is bought, where the invoice is the only valid document that confirms that the product was sold, and the taxable person is not in possession of any document from the issuer of the invoice which certifies that it was in possession of the product, and could have supplied it or satisfied its obligations as regards declaration? May a Member State require the recipient of the invoice to be in possession of a document proving that it is in possession of the product, or that the product was supplied or delivered to it, to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion under Article 273 of the Directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/15

Action brought on 20 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-193/11)

2011/C 204/28

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

— declare that, by applying the special VAT scheme for travel agents in cases involving the sale of travel services to persons who are not travellers, as provided for in Article 119(3) of the Law of 11 March 2004 on the taxation of goods and services (the Polish Law on VAT), the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; (1)

— order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the Commission’s view, the application by the Republic of Poland, on the basis of Article 119 of the Polish Law on VAT, of the special VAT scheme for travel agents also to cases in which the recipient of travel services is not a traveller is incompatible with Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC as currently in force.

In support of its contention, the Commission submits that Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC correspond to the wording previously set out in Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive. Five out of the six official language versions at that time (that is to say, all of the language versions except for the English) were entirely consistent and consistently used the term ‘traveller’ throughout the text of Article 26. The use of the term ‘customer’ [‘nabywca’] is found solely in a number of language versions of Article 306 of Directive 2006/112/EC which are based on the English-language version. In those cases, however, the further provisions relating to the special scheme (Articles 307 to 310) use the notion of ‘traveller’, which indicates that the notion of ‘customer’ was wrongly used in Article 306.

Furthermore, even if it were to be agreed that the purpose of the special VAT scheme for travel agents, that is to say, the simplification of account settling, would be more effectively achieved by an interpretation which took account of customers, it appears from the Court’s case-law that application of that scheme based exclusively on a purposive construction, contrary to the unequivocal decision of the European Union legislature which follows from the content of the provisions currently in force, cannot be supported.

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/11

Action brought on 28 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-95/11)

2011/C 186/18

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent, and H. Peytz, lawyer)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by allowing for non-taxable persons to be part of a VAT group, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; (1)

— order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In order to simplify administration and prevent certain forms of abuse, the VAT Directive allows the Member States to regard two or more taxable persons as a single taxable person. The Commission takes the view that the Directive does not allow non-taxable persons to be part of such a VAT group and thereby be covered by the rights and obligations which apply to taxable persons. Therefore, the Danish legislation, which allows non-taxable persons to be part of a VAT group, is not compatible with the Directive.

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
2.

Are Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts — in so far as they are applicable — in conjunction with point 1(j) and the second sentence of point 2(b) of the annex referred to in Article 3(3) of that directive, and Article 3(3) of, in conjunction with points (b) and/or (c) of Annex A to, Directive 2003/55/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC to be interpreted as meaning that contractual terms concerning price variations in natural-gas supply contracts with special customers meet the requirements for plain and intelligible wording and/or possess the requisite degree of transparency if, although the grounds, preconditions and scope of a change in price are not set out, it is nevertheless ensured that the gas supply company informs its customers of every price increase in good time in advance and those customers have the right to terminate the contract by way of notice if they do not wish to accept the amended conditions of which they have been informed?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland) lodged on 1 April 2011 — Bawaria Motors Spółka z o.o. and Minister Finansów

(Case C-160/11)

2011/C 204/25

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Bawaria Motors Spółka z o.o., Minister Finansów

Question referred

Are the provisions of Articles 313(1) and 314 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (‘Directive 2006/112’), in conjunction with Articles 136 and 315 thereof, to be interpreted as permitting the application of the special ‘margin’ scheme for taxable dealers in relation to supplies of second-hand goods also where they resell the purchased passenger vehicles and other motor vehicles to which the tax exemption for the supply of passenger vehicles and other vehicles by taxable persons who only have a partial right to deduct input tax on the purchase thereof, as laid down in Article 86(3) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 (Dziennik Ustaw No 54, item 535, as amended; hereinafter: ‘Law on VAT’), was applied pursuant to the Polish national provisions laid down in Paragraph 13(1)(5) of the Decree of the Minister for Finance of 28 November 2008 on the implementation of certain provisions of the Law on the tax on goods and services (Dziennik Ustaw No 212, item 1336, as amended), where those passenger vehicles and motor vehicles were second-hand goods within the meaning of Article 43(2) of the Law on VAT and Article 311(1)(1) of Directive 2006/112?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347 p. 1.
(b)

If the answer to the first question is that the service providing insurance for a leased item and the leasing service are to be treated as separate services, must Article 135(1)(a) of Directive 2006/112, in conjunction with Article 28 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the service providing insurance for a leased item is to be exempt in the case where the lessor insures that item and charges the costs of that insurance to the lessee?
—

Annul the decision of the Commission (DG ENVI) to reject the bids submitted by the applicant for each of the three lots relating to open Invitation to Tender DG ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 ‘Framework contract for Emission Trading Scheme — CITL/CR’ (2008/S72-096229) and to award those contracts to another tenderer,
2.

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 129/2005 (1) of 20 January 2005 … invalid because in that regulation the Commission incorrectly classified the network analysers mentioned in points 3 and 4, namely, under CN code 9031 80 39, instead of under code 9030 40?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/12

Action brought on 19 May 2011 — French Republic v European Parliament

(Case C-237/11)

2011/C 226/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul the vote of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 concerning the calendar of session periods of the Parliament for 2012;

— Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on a single plea in law in support of its action alleging, first, infringement of Protocol No 6 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union, annexed to the TFEU, and of Protocol No 3 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union, annexed to the EAEC Treaty and, second, failure to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-345/95 France v Parliament [1997] ECR I-5235.

According to the French Government, by laying down that two of the twelve periods of monthly plenary sessions which must take place in Strasbourg every year will be shortened from 4 to 2 days and will take place, in 2012, during the same week of October, the European Parliament has sought to circumvent the rule according to which the twelve periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, must take place in Strasbourg. The contested vote amounts, in practice, to the abolition of one of the twelve periods of monthly plenary sessions which must take place in Strasbourg every year. Its only objective is thus to reduce the length of time members of the European Parliament spend at the seat of the European Parliament, which is not justified by any requirement relating to the internal organisation of the Parliament’s work.
3.

Is it sufficient, for the purposes of correcting any discrepancies which doubtless exist between Member States, if the contracting authority ensures that there is an opportunity to employ external resources (Article 47(3)), in addition to the documents selected as proof of economic and financial standing, or must the contracting authority, in order to meet the requirement of consistency as regards all the documents selected by it, ensure that that capacity can be demonstrated in another manner (Article 47(5))?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/21

Action brought on 9 June 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-293/11)

2011/C 232/33

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafillou and C. Soulay)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by applying the special VAT scheme for travel agents in cases where the travel services have been sold to a person other than the traveller, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC; (1)

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The scheme for travel agents applies only to services which are supplied directly to travellers, in accordance with the directive’s wording in most languages. Even the English version, which uses, at one point only, the term ‘customer’, would not make sense unless it related solely to travellers. The same conclusion results from a combined reading of all the relevant provisions (systemic argument). A historic interpretation also supports the same conclusion, since the VAT directive merely codified the Sixth Directive, without altering its content. So far as concerns a teleological interpretation, what is important is that double taxation of agents in certain Member States not be allowed (by the exclusion of deductions in the event of extended application of the scheme for travel agents). Any shortcoming of the directive cannot be corrected by individual States without its text being officially amended.

(1) OJ L 347, 11.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 238/2

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Palermo (Italy) lodged on 28 February 2011 — Amia SpA, in liquidation v Provincia Regionale di Palermo

(Case C-97/11)

2011/C 238/02

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

Question referred

In the light of the judgment in Case C-172/08 (1), may paragraphs 26 and 31 of Article 3 of Law No 549 of 28 December 1995 be treated as not to be applied because they are contrary to Article 10 of Directive 1999/31/EC (2) and similarly because they are contrary to Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/35/EC (3)?

(1) Judgment of the Court of 25 February 2010 (Case C-172/08 Pontina Ambiente v Regione Lazio [2010] ECR I-0000).

(2) OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

(3) OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35.
—

declare that, by applying, in Paragraph 80 of Law on value added tax (1501/1993), the special scheme for travel agents to travel services sold to persons other than travellers, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 June 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Vlaardingen

(Case C-299/11)

2011/C 269/48

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Gemeente Vlaardingen

Question referred

Must Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 5(5) and Article 11(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive, be interpreted as meaning that, upon the occupation of immovable property by a taxable person for exempt purposes, a Member State may charge VAT in a case where:

— that immovable property consists of a (building) work completed on the taxable person’s own land and to his own order by a third person for consideration, and

— that land was previously used by the taxable person for (the same) exempt business purposes, and the taxable person did not previously enjoy a VAT deduction in respect of that same land,

with the result that (the value of that) same land becomes included in the VAT charge?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/4

Appeal brought on 29 June 2011 by Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 April 2011 in Case T-466/08: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH

(Case C-334/11 P)

2011/C 282/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, J. Pagenberg, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant requests the Court of Justice to decide as follows:

— The judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2011 in Case T-466/08 an the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of 29 July 2008 in Case R 1796/2007-1 are annulled.

— The costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office, before the General Court and before this court shall be borne by the Office and by the Intervener.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant claims that the contested judgment must be annulled because the General Court violated Article 43 (2) and (3) CTMR and committed legal error in deciding that in the contested case the five-year period following registration within which the earlier German mark FOCUS on which the opposition against the CTM application for ACNO FOCUS was based must be put to genuine use did not begin to run until 13 January 2004.

The Appellant does not challenge the finding of likelihood of confusion. While the Appellant disagrees with the finding, the Appellant considers that the General Court did not commit any error of law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/19

Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by Verein Deutsche Sprache eV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2010 in Case T-245/10 Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. v Council of the European Union

(Case C-93/11 P)

2011/C 269/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. (represented by: K.T. Bröcker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

By order of 28 June 2011 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.