ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/22

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 31 May 2010 — Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA) v Belgische Staat

(Case C-271/10)

()

2010/C 234/36

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auteurs (VEWA)

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Does Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC (1) of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, now Article 6(1) of Directive 2006/115/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, according to which at least authors should obtain a remuneration for public lending, preclude a national provision which sets the remuneration at a flat rate of EUR 1 per adult per year and of EUR 0,5 per minor per year?

(1) OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61.

(2) OJ 2006 L 376, p. 28.
1.

Is Article 11(2) of Presidential Decree 164/2004, which provides that, in order to establish that the preconditions for conversion of fixed-term contracts to contracts of indefinite duration are met, the employee must submit an application to the relevant body, containing information establishing satisfaction of the said preconditions, within two months of the entry into force thereof, in keeping with the purpose of Article 139(2) EC and the effectiveness, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work, in view of the fact that the cut-off deadline causes employees to lose their right to convert their contracts if an application is not submitted by the two-month deadline?
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive), (1) or, in any event, by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Is an entity, in the persons of future partners, which effects investment expenditure before formal registration of the partnership as an entity governed by commercial law or registration for purposes of value added tax, entitled, following registration of the partnership as an entity governed by commercial law and registration for purposes of value added tax, to exercise, pursuant to Article 9 and Articles 168 and 169 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) the right to deduct input tax incurred in connection with investment expenditure which is used for taxable activities carried out within the framework of the partnership?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) lodged on 2 July 2010 — SIAT SA v Belgian State

(Case C-318/10)

()

2010/C 246/44

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SIAT SA

Respondent: Belgian State

Question referred

Must Article 49 of the EC Treaty, in the version applicable to this case (the facts giving rise to the dispute having occurred prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009), be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State according to which payments for supplies or services are not to be regarded as deductible business expenses where they are made or attributed directly or indirectly to a taxpayer resident in another Member State or to a foreign establishment which, by virtue of the legislation of the country in which they are established, are not subject there to a tax on income or are subject there, for the relevant income, to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous than the one to which such income is subject in the Member State whose national legislation is at issue, unless the taxpayer proves, by any legal means, that such payments relate to genuine and proper transactions and do not exceed the normal limits, whereas such proof is not required, as a precondition for the deduction of payments for supplies or services made to a taxpayer residing in that Member State, even if the taxpayer is not subject to any tax on income or is subject to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous than the one laid down by the ordinary law of that State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 27 May 2010 — Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

(Case C-262/10)

()

2010/C 246/29

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

Question referred

Is Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it also applies to non-fulfilment of those obligations which are to be fulfilled only after discharge of the relevant customs procedure which has been used, so that where goods imported under an inward processing procedure in the form of a system of suspension have been partly re-exported within the time-limit the failure to fulfil the obligation to supply the bill of discharge to the supervising office within 30 days of the expiry of the time-limit for discharging the procedure gives rise to a customs debt in respect of the entire quantity of the imported goods covered by the bill of discharge if the requirements of Article 859(9) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Article 1(30)(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001 (3) are not fulfilled?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code; OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code; OJ 2001 L 141, p. 1.
5.

If question 4 is answered in the negative by the Court of Justice of the European Union or by the Bundesarbeitsgericht on the basis of the principles set out by the Court of Justice in its preliminary ruling: Having regard to the right of the parties to a collective agreement to collective bargaining, would it be compatible with the Union law prohibition on age discrimination and the requirement for an effective sanction in the event of a breach of that prohibition, to grant the parties to a collective agreement a manageable deadline (e.g. six months) in which to retrospectively correct the invalidity of the pay structure they have agreed, and stipulate that in the event that no new structure which is in conformity with Union law is introduced within the deadline, in applying collective rules in each case the highest age category will be taken as a basis and, if so, what discretion in terms of the duration of the retrospective effect of the new structure which is in conformity with Union law could be granted to the parties to a collective agreement?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/11

Appeal brought on 23 July 2010 by Ravensburger AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-243/08: Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras S.A.

(Case C-370/10 P)

()

2010/C 260/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ravensburger AG (represented by: H. Harte-Bavendamm, M. Goldmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras S.A.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Allow the Appeal against the Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 (Case T-243/08);

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court;

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 April 2008 (Case R 597/2007-2);

— As appropriate remit the case to the OHIM for fresh consideration;

— Order the Intervener and the OHIM to pay the Appellant's costs of this Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law in finding that it need not take into account the reputation of the earlier trade marks in finding that the conditions for the applicability of Article 8 (1)(b) and 8(5) Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) were not met.

The General Court violated the system of Article 8 Community Trade Mark Regulation I carrying out a single factual assessment of similarity with implications both under Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) Community Trade Mark Regulation, even though both provisions have entirely distinct sets of tests.

The General Court erred in law and violated Article 76 Community Trade Mark Regulation in leaving the Second Board of Appeal's conclusion unobjected that the market circumstances as regards the use of house marks on the one hand and trademarks for specific products on the other hand were irrelevant.

The General Court violated Article 77 Community Trade Mark Regulation by leaving the Board of Appeal's manifestly wrongful use of its discretion to hold an oral hearing unobjected.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu v Victor Vinel Ijac

(Case C-336/10)

()

2010/C 274/11

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu

Defendant: Victor Vinel Ijac

Question referred

Is the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a tax with the characteristics of the pollution tax governed by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, which levies a pollution tax on the registration in Romania of imported second-hand motor vehicles already registered in other Member States of the European Union, while that tax is not levied on second-hand motor vehicles registered in Romania in the event of their re-sale and consequent re-registration, in that such a tax could amount to a domestic tax on goods from other Member States which is indirectly discriminatory when compared with the tax treatment of domestic goods?
—

declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/CE (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Directive.
1.

Is the failure, in disregard of the obligations imposed on the warehouse keeper under the Community customs legislation, to keep stock records of products or goods placed under the customs warehousing procedure sufficient to deprive the exporter who has placed his products or his goods in that warehouse of entitlement to the advance payment provided for by the provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 (1) relating to the system of export refunds in conjunction with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products (2)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-323/10)

()

2010/C 274/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Question referred

Does a carcase in subheading 0207 12 90 (1) have to be completely drawn (= without residue), so that it is detrimental for tariff classification purposes if, after going through a mechanical gutting process, a carcase is still left, for example, with part of the guts or trachea?

(1) OJ 1999 L 338, p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Póvoa de Lanhoso (Portugal) lodged on 21 July 2010 — Maria de Jesus Barbosa Rodrigues v Companhia de Seguros Zurich SA

(Case C-363/10)

()

(2010/C 288/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial de Póvoa de Lanhoso

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria de Jesus Barbosa Rodrigues

Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Zurich SA

Question referred

In a motor-vehicle collision in which none of the drivers is liable for the accident on the basis of fault, and which has resulted in the death of one them, is it contrary to Community law, in particular Article 3(1) of the First Directive (Directive 72/166/EEC), (1) Article 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and Article 1 of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC), (3) as those provisions have been interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, for it to be possible to apportion liability for risk (Article 506(1) and (2) of the Código Civil) with a direct impact on the amount of compensation to be awarded to the persons having a right to compensation — the victim’s parents — (since that apportionment of liability for risk will entail a commensurate reduction in the amount of compensation)?

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

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

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

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, do those provisions imply that, where a vehicle is purchased in another Member State, national legislation making the grant of a subsidy for the purchase of clean vehicles which have already been registered subject to the condition that the registration certificate bear, by virtue of the legislation of the Member State, the statement ‘demonstration vehicle’ must be disapplied, where the seller of the vehicle has not himself been able to benefit from that subsidy and where: — either the purchaser produces a vehicle registration document issued in the other Member State and specific to vehicles intended for use for the purposes of demonstration, — or the vehicle has the characteristics, relating in particular to the date of its first entry into service, required by national legislation for it to be classified as a demonstration vehicle?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/18

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Vieira do Minho (Portugal) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Manuel Afonso Esteves v Axa — Seguros de Portugal SA

(Case C-437/10)

()

2010/C 317/33

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial de Vieira do Minho

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Manuel Afonso Esteves

Defendant: Axa — Seguros de Portugal SA

Question referred

In a motor-vehicle collision in which none of the drivers is liable for the accident on the basis of fault, and which has caused personal injury and material loss to one of the drivers (the injured party claiming compensation), is it contrary to Community law, in particular Article 3(1) of the First Directive (72/166/EEC), (1) Article 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and Article 1 of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC), (3) as those provisions have been interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, for it to be possible to apportion liability for risk (Article 506(1) and (2) of the Portuguese Civil Code) with a direct impact on the amount of compensation to be awarded to the injured party for the material and non-material loss resulting from the personal injuries suffered (since that apportionment of liability for risk will entail a commensurate reduction in the amount of compensation)?

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

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

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

Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1), 11(2), 14(1) and 30(1) 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 and safety certification, (1) and under Article 10(7) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways. (2)
2.

Are the criteria determining what is an unfair commercial practice in accordance with European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29/EC (2) of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business to consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council such as to permit the conclusion that, if a supplier quotes in the contract a lower annual percentage rate (APR) than is in fact the case, it is possible to regard that step by the supplier towards the consumer as an unfair commercial practice? If there is a finding of an unfair commercial practice, does Directive 2005/29/EC permit there to be any impact on the validity of a credit agreement and on the achievement of the objective in Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, if invalidity of the contract is more advantageous for the consumer?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/30

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2010 — Belgian State v Maître Pierre Henfling, Maître Raphaël Davin, Maître Koenraad Tanghe (acting as trustees in bankruptcy of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA)

(Case C-464/10)

()

2010/C 346/49

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgian State

Defendants: Maître Pierre Henfling, Maître Raphaël Davin, Maître Koenraad Tanghe (acting as trustees in bankruptcy of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA)

Question referred

Must Articles 6(4) and 13(B)(f), 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, be interpreted as precluding tax exemption in respect of services supplied by a commission agent acting in its own name, but on behalf of a principal who organises supply of services referred to in Article 13(B)(f)?
1.

May Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on any consumer where a body appointed by law and competent for that purpose seeks a declaration of the invalidity of that unfair term which has become part of a consumer contract on behalf of consumers in an action in the public interest (popularis actio)? May Article 6(1) of that directive be interpreted, where an order which benefits consumers who are not party to the proceedings is made, or the application of an unfair standard contract term is prohibited, in an action in the public interest, as meaning that an unfair term which has become part of a consumer contract is not binding on all consumers or as regards the future, so that the court has to apply the consequences in law thereof of its own motion?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/20

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy), lodged on 25 October 2010 — Denise Bernardi, represented by Katia Mecacci v Fabio Bernardi

(Case C-507/10)

()

2011/C 13/36

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Denise Bernardi, represented by Katia Mecacci

Defendant: Fabio Bernardi

Question referred

Must Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (1) be interpreted as precluding national provisions, such as Article 392(1a) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as the latter does not impose an obligation on the Public Prosecutor to request an early hearing and examination of a victim who is a minor by means of the Special Inquiry procedure prior to the main proceedings, and Article 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which does not make it possible for that minor victim himself or herself to appeal to the courts against a negative decision by the Public Prosecutor on his or her request to be heard in accordance with the appropriate Special Inquiry procedure?

(1) OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/14

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 October 2010 — Rico Graf and Rudolf Engel v Landratsamt Waldshut, Landwirtschaftsamt

(Case C-506/10)

()

2011/C 30/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rico Graf and Rudolf Engel

Defendant: Landratsamt Waldshut — Landwirtschaftsamt

Question referred

Is Paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Law of the German Land of Baden-Württemberg on Implementation of the Law on property transactions and of the Law on agricultural tenancy transactions (Ausführungsgesetz zum Grundstücksverkehrsgesetz und zum Landpachtverkehrsgesetz), as amended on 21 February 2006 (Gesetzblatt, p. 85), compatible with the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons ? (1)

(1) OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.