ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Manfred Beker, Christa Beker v Finanzamt Heilbronn

(Case C-168/11) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Income tax - Income from capital - Convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Dividends distributed by companies established in Member States and third countries - Calculation of the maximum amount of foreign withholding tax deductible against national income tax - Failure to take account of personal and lifestyle costs - Justification)

2013/C 114/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Manfred Beker, Christa Beker

Defendant: Finanzamt Heilbronn

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 56 EC — National legislation on income tax on natural persons which allows deduction of income tax paid abroad only with regard to the share of national income tax charged on the foreign revenue — Method of determining that share of national income tax resulting in deductible expenses and extraordinary costs also being allocated proportionately to the foreign income, and thus resulting in a corresponding reduction of the maximum amount deductible with regard to taxes paid abroad

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State under which, in the context of a system aimed at limiting double taxation, where persons subject to unlimited tax liability pay on foreign income, in the State where that income originates, a tax equivalent to the income tax levied by the said Member State, the offsetting of that foreign tax against the amount of income tax levied in the said Member State is carried out by multiplying the amount of the tax due in respect of taxable income in the same Member State, including foreign income, by the proportion that that foreign income bears to total income, that latter sum not taking into account special expenditure or extraordinary costs such as costs relating to lifestyle or to personal and family circumstances.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia — Bulgaria) — Valeri Hariev Belov v CHEZ Elektro Balgaria AD and Others

(Case C-394/11) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Concept of ‘national court’ - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

2013/C 86/06

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, Bulgaria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valeri Hariev Belov

Defendants: CHEZ Elektro Balgaria AD, Lidia Georgieva Dimitrova, Roselina Dimitrova Kostova, Kremena Stoyanova Stoyanova, CHEZ Razpredelenie Balgaria AD, Ivan Kovarzhchik, Atanas Antonov Dandarov, Irzhi Postolka,Vladimir Marek, Darzhavna Komisia po energi

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia — Interpretation of Article 2(1)(a) and (b), Article 3(1)(h) and Article 8(1) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22), Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recital 29 in the preamble to, and Articles 1 and 13(1) of, Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 64), Article 3(5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC — Statements made with regard to decommissioning and waste management activities (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37), Article 3(7) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55) — Administrative practice of granting an electricity distribution undertaking freedom to install in Roma districts electricity meters attached to electricity poles in the streets at a height which is not accessible to users, and which does not enable consumers living in those districts to read their meters, whereas electricity meters are installed at an accessible height outside of Roma districts — Right or interest of the final electricity user to regularly check the electricity meeting reading — Burden of proof in discrimination cases.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia in its order for reference of 19 July 2011.

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Česká spořitelna, a.s. v Gerald Feichter

(Case C-419/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Articles 5(1)(a) and 15(1) - Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘contract concluded by a consumer’ - Promissory note - Aval - Guarantee provided for a credit contract)

2013/C 141/08

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Česká spořitelna, a.s.

Defendant: Gerald Feichter

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Městský soud v Praze — Interpretation of Articles 5(1)(a) and 15(1) 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) — Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘contract concluded by a consumer’ — Jurisdiction in a dispute relating to an obligation of a manager of a company having given the aval to a blank promissory note issued by that company in favour of a bank to guarantee a credit agreement — Determination of the place of performance of the obligation where the promissory note did not originally indicate the place of payment

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 15(1) 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 meaning that a natural person with close professional links to a company, such as its managing director or majority shareholder, cannot be considered to be a consumer within the meaning of that provision when he gives an aval on a promissory note issued in order to guarantee the obligations of that company under a contract for the grant of credit. Therefore, that provision does not apply for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State.

2. Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 applies for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/8

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — European Commission v Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o., Republic of Poland

(Case C-405/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Restructuring of the Polish steel industry - Concept of State aid - Recovery of public debts - Classification as State aid of the failure to request the liquidation of the debtor undertaking - Private creditor test - Allocation of the burden of proof - Limits of judicial review)

2013/C 156/11

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o. (represented by: J. Jurczyk, radca prawny), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Krasnodębska-Tomkiel, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 May 2011 in Case T-1/08 Buczek Automotive v Commission by which the General Court partially annulled Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C-23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 26) — Classification as State aid of the failure to request the liquidation of the debtor undertaking — Error of law in the assessment of the Commission’s application of the hypothetical private creditor test and in the allocation of the burden of proof

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
2.

Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that: — where a national court, before which an action has been brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer concerning the performance of a contract, has the power, under internal procedural rules, to examine of its own motion whether the term upon which the claim is based is contrary to national rules of public policy, it must, in the same way, where it has established that that term falls within the scope of that directive, assess of its own motion whether that term is unfair in the light of the criteria laid down in that directive; — where the national court has the power, under internal procedural rules, to annul of its own motion a term which is contrary to public policy or to a mandatory statutory provision the scope of which warrants such a sanction, it must, as a rule, after having invited each of the parties to set out its views on that matter, with the opportunity to challenge the views of the other party, annul of its own motion a contractual term which it has found to be unfair in the light of the criteria laid down by that directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-95/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be considered as a single taxable person subject to VAT)

2013/C 171/07

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Očková and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Clohessy SC and N. Travers BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Hall QC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of taxable person — National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be part of a VAT group

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-485/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 12 - Administrative charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations - National legislation - Electronic telecommunications operators - Requirement to pay an additional charge)

2013/C 225/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and G. Braun, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of France (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó, K. Molnár and A. Szilágyi, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 12 of 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 (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — Charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — Compatibility of national legislation introducing an additional charge on electronic telecommunications operators

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and Hungary to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/16

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — European Commission v Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-615/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for failure to act - Article 232 EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 20(2) - State aid allegedly granted to Italian airlines - Complaint - Lack of a decision from the Commission)

2013/C 225/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ryanair Ltd (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, dikigoros), Air One SpA (represented by: M. Merola, M.C. Santacroce and G. Belotti, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case T-442/07 Ryanair v Commission upholding in part an action for failure to act seeking a finding that the Commission had unlawfully failed to adopt a decision on Ryanair’s complaints concerning aid allegedly granted by Italy to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana in the form of various measures granting advantages to those companies

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Donau Chemie AG, Donauchem GmbH, DC Druck-Chemie Süd GmbH & Co KG, Brenntag Austria Holding GmbH, Brenntag CEE GmbH, ASK Chemicals GmbH, formerly Ashland-Südchemie-Kernfest GmbH, ASK Chemicals Austria GmbH, formerly Ashland Südchemie Hantos GmbH

(Case C-536/11) (1)

(Competition - Access to the file - Judicial proceedings relating to fines for infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Third-party undertakings wishing to bring an action for damages - National rules making access to the file subject to the consent of all parties to the proceedings - Principle of effectiveness)

2013/C 252/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde

Defendants: Donau Chemie AG, Donauchem GmbH, DC Druck-Chemie Süd GmbH & Co KG, Brenntag Austria Holding GmbH, Brenntag CEE GmbH, ASK Chemicals GmbH, formerly Ashland-Südchemie-Kernfest GmbH, ASK Chemicals Austria GmbH, formerly Ashland Südchemie Hantos GmbH

In the presence of: Bundeskartellamt, Verband Druck und Medientechnik

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Wien — Interpretation of provisions of European Union law relating to cartels — Access to the file — National legislation whereby, in administrative proceedings relating to competition, access to the file by third parties is subject to the consent of all parties to the proceedings and there is no weighing of all competing interests, whereas such weighing does take place in respect of access to the file in comparable civil and criminal proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, precludes a provision of national law under which access to documents forming part of the file relating to national proceedings concerning the application of Article 101 TFEU, including access to documents made available under a leniency programme, by third parties who are not party to those proceedings with a view to bringing an action for damages against participants in an agreement or concerted practice is made subject solely to the consent of all the parties to those proceedings, without leaving any possibility for the national courts of weighing up the interests involved.

(1) OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-350/11) (1)

(Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Deduction for risk capital - Notional interest - Reduction of the amount deductible by companies with establishments abroad the income from which is exempt under double taxation conventions)

2013/C 245/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Deduction for risk capital (‘notional interest’) — Reduction of the amount deductible, for companies with establishments abroad the income from which is exempt under agreements to prevent double taxation conventions

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, for calculation of a deduction granted to a company subject to full tax liability in a Member State, the net value of the assets of a permanent establishment situated in another Member State is not taken into account when the profits of that permanent establishment are not taxable in the first Member State by virtue of a double taxation convention, whereas the assets attributed to a permanent establishment situated in the territory of the first Member State are taken into account for that purpose.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
1.

Article 5(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications must be interpreted as meaning that national rules such as, first, Paragraph 12(1) of the Code of professional conduct for doctors in Hesse, under which fees must be reasonable and, unless provided otherwise by law, calculated on the basis of the official Regulation on doctors’ fees, and, secondly, Paragraph 27(3) of that code, which prohibits doctors from engaging in unprofessional advertising, do not fall within its material scope. It is, however, for the referring court to ascertain, taking into account the indications given by the Court of Justice of the European Union, whether those rules constitute a restriction within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU, and, if so, whether they pursue an objective in the public interest, are appropriate to ensuring that it is attained, and do not go beyond what is necessary for attaining it.
1.

Point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 6(2) and Article 13(B)(b) 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as precluding the making available of part of immovable property belonging to a legal person to its manager for his private use, without there being provision for the beneficiaries of that arrangement to pay a rent in money by way of consideration for the use of that property, from constituting an exempted letting of immovable property within the meaning of that directive; the fact that the making available of that property is deemed, under the relevant national income tax legislation, to be a benefit in kind stemming from the beneficiaries’ performance of their corporate duties or under their contract of employment is of no import in that regard;
1.

Declares that, by failing to ensure the independence of the infrastructure manager with regard to the setting of charges for access to the infrastructure and the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 30(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/15

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-609/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Regulations (EC) Nos 207/2009 and 2868/95 - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark CENTROTHERM - Genuine use - Concept - Evidence - Sworn statement - Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - General Court’s powers of review - Scope of pleas in law and forms of order sought by an intervener)

2013/C 344/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, Rechtsanwälte, and by F. Schmidt, Patentanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Löffel and P. Lange, Rechtsanwälte), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2011, in Case T-427/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM, in which the General Court dismissed the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4), in so far as it annulled in part the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 October 2007 — Genuine use of the mark — Proof

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG;

3. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.