ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 November 2010 in Case T-113/08 Spain v Commission in so far as, by holding that the Commission’s letter AGR 16844 of 11 July 2002 was a communication within the terms of Article 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/1999 of 22 October 1999, the General Court found that the date of notification of that letter was the reference point for the start of the 24-month period laid down in the fifth point of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 of 22 May 1995, and the fifth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, for the purposes of the financial correction applied in Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in the olive oil sector by reason of the fact that the proposals of the olive oil agency following the checks carried out at the mills had been inadequately monitored by the Spanish authorities;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — VBV — Vorsorgekasse AG v Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA)

(Case C-39/11) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Severance funds - Investment of assets - Investment funds established in another Member State - Investment in such funds permitted only when they are authorised to market their units within the national territory)

2012/C 217/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VBV — Vorsorgekasse AG

Defendant: Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 63 et seq. TFEU — Free movement of capital — Severance funds investing mandatory contributions in respect of employed and self-employed persons aimed to finance severance sums — Legislation of a Member State restricting those investments to funds which have been authorised to be sold in that national territory

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not permit a severance fund, or the undertaking for collective investment created by that severance fund to manage its assets, to invest those assets in units of an investment fund established in another Member State unless that investment fund has been authorised to market its units within the national territory.

(1) OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.
1.

Declares that, by maintaining rules according to which the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in collective investment undertakings, more than 40 % of the assets of which is invested in debt securities, and which are not authorised under Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), are not taxable where those undertakings are established in Belgium, whereas the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in such undertakings established in Norway or Iceland are taxable, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/14

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — DTZ Zadelhoff vof v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-259/11) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 5(3)(c) and 13B(d)(5) - Negotiation of a transaction involving the transfer of company shares - Transaction which also entails the transfer of the ownership of immovable property held by such companies - Exemption)

2012/C 287/23

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DTZ Zadelhoff vof

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 5(3)(c) and 13B(d)(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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions laid down in the Sixth Directive — Transactions relating to the securities referred to in Article 13B(d)(5) — Transfer of shares of companies also entailing the transfer of the ownership of immovable property belonging to those companies.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(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 meaning that the exemption from value added tax in that provision covers transactions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are designed to transfer shares in the companies concerned and have that effect but which, in the final analysis, concern immovable property held by those companies and the (indirect) transfer of that property. The exception to the exemption provided for in the second indent of that provision is not applicable if the Member State has not availed itself of the possibility provided by Article 5(3)(c) of the Sixth Directive of considering shares or interests equivalent to shares giving the holder thereof de jure or de facto rights of ownership or possession over immovable property to be tangible property.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

(Case C-177/11) (1)

(Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Article 3(2)(b) - Margin of discretion of the Member States)

2012/C 250/11

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton

Defendants: Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) and Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Condition, for carrying out an assessment of the environmental effects of a given plan or programme, that it may have significant effects on a special area of conservation — Discretion of the Member States

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to make a particular plan subject to an environmental assessment depends on the preconditions requiring an assessment under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, including the condition that the plan may have a significant effect on the site concerned, being met in respect of that plan. The examination carried out to determine whether that latter condition is fulfilled is necessarily limited to the question as to whether it can be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that that plan or project will have a significant effect on the site concerned.

(1) OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/15

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — International Bingo Technology SA v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC)

(Case C-377/11) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 11A(1)(a), 17(5) and 19(1) - Organisation of games of bingo - Legal obligation to use part of the card price to pay winnings to players - Calculation of the basis of assessment)

2012/C 295/25

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: International Bingo Technology SA

Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Interpretation of Article 11A(1)(a) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Taxable amount — Organisation of games of bingo — Sale of tickets to players — Use of part of the sums thus collected to pay out winnings to players

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 11A(1)(a) 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 98/80/EC of 12 October 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the sale of bingo cards such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the taxable amount for VAT does not include the portion of the card price fixed in advance by legislation and intended to be used to pay winnings to players;

2. Articles 17(5) and 19(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 98/80, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may not provide that, for the purposes of calculating the deductible proportion of VAT, the portion, fixed in advance by legislation, of the bingo card price which must be returned to players as winnings is to be regarded as forming part of the turnover which must be included in the denominator of the fraction referred to in Article 19(1).

(1) OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) BV

(Case C-291/11) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings 3002 and 3502 - Blood albumin prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic uses - Processing of the product)

2012/C 287/25

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) BV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Interpretation — Blood albumin prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic uses — Notion — Blood albumin which has no therapeutic effect but which is essential for, and is used exclusively for, the preparation of products which themselves do have therapeutic or prophylactic effects

Operative part of the judgment

Note 1(g) of Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature 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 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, read in conjunction with Note 1(b) of Chapter 35 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a blood albumin which does not itself have a therapeutic or prophylactic effect, but which was produced for the preparation of products having a prophylactic or therapeutic effect, which is essential to that preparation, and which, by its nature, may only be used for that purpose, was prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic use within the meaning of that note.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-150/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/37/EC - Registration documents for vehicles - Vehicles previously registered in another Member State - Change of ownership - Requirement of a roadworthiness test - Requirement of production of a certificate of conformity - Roadworthiness test carried out in another Member State - Non-recognition - Lack of justification)

2012/C 355/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and by F. Libert and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 34 TFEU and of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57) — National legislation requiring the production of a certificate of conformity of a vehicle for the purpose of a roadworthiness test prior to the registration of a vehicle which was previously registered in another Member State — Non-recognition of the results of the roadworthiness tests carried out in other Member States — Restriction on the free movement of goods — Absence of justifications

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by requiring systematically, in addition to production of a certificate of registration, production of a vehicle’s certificate of conformity, for the purpose of a roadworthiness test prior to the registration of a vehicle previously registered in another Member State, and by making such vehicles, when there is a change of ownership, subject to a roadworthiness test prior to their registration, without taking into account the results of the roadworthiness test carried out in another Member State, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, as amended by Council Directive 2006/103/EC of 20 November 2006, and under Article 34 TFEU;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Marianne Scheunemann v Finanzamt Bremerhaven

(Case C-31/11) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Inheritance tax - Conditions for the calculation of the tax - Acquisition through inheritance of a shareholding, as sole shareholder, in a capital company established in a third country - National legislation excluding shareholdings in such companies from tax advantages)

2012/C 295/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marianne Scheunemann

Defendant: Finanzamt Bremerhaven

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Acquisition by inheritance of a shareholding, as a sole shareholder, in a capital company established in a third country forming part of the private wealth of the deceased — Inheritance tax — National legislation providing for tax advantages for companies which have their registered office or principle place of business in the national territory

Operative part of the judgment

Legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, for the purposes of calculating inheritance tax, excludes the application of certain tax advantages to an estate in the form of a shareholding in a capital company established in a third country, while conferring those advantages in the event of the inheritance of such a shareholding when the registered office of the company is in a Member State, primarily affects the exercise of the freedom of establishment for the purposes of Article 49 TFEU et seq., since that holding enables the shareholder to exert a definite influence over the decisions of that company and to determine its activities. Those Treaty provisions are not intended to apply to a situation concerning a shareholding held in a company which has its registered office in a third country.

(1) OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy

(Case C-22/11) (1)

(Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation for passengers in the event of denied boarding - Concept of ‘denied boarding’ - Exclusion from characterisation as ‘denied boarding’ - Cancellation of a flight caused by a strike at the airport of departure - Rescheduling of flights after the cancelled flight - Right to compensation of the passengers on those flights)

2012/C 366/15

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finnair Oyj

Defendant: Timy Lassooy

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 2(j), 4, 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Extraordinary circumstances — Flight cancelled because of a strike by staff at the airport of departure — Rescheduling of flights in order to attenuate the adverse effects for the passengers of the cancelled flight — Rescheduling also affecting later flights after the flight which was cancelled — Right to compensation of the passengers of those flights

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘denied boarding’, within the meaning of Articles 2(j) and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as relating not only to cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds, such as operational reasons.

2. Articles 2(j) and 4(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.

(1) OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej and Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-422/11 P and C-423/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Actions for annulment - Rejection of the appeal as inadmissible - Representation before the Courts of the European Union - Lawyer - Independence)

2012/C 355/11

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellants: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (represented by: D. Dziedzic-Chojnacka and D. Pawłowska, radcowie prawni), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, A. Kraińska and D. Lutostańska, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeals brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 May 2011 in Case T-226/10 Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission by which the Court declared inadmissible the action of the Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 1234 of 3 March 2010, adopted pursuant to Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), ordering the Polish regulatory authority in the field of electronic communications services and postal services to withdraw two notified draft measures concerning the national wholesale market for IP traffic exchange (IP transit) (Case PL/2009/1019) and the wholesale market for IP peering with the network of Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. (TP) (Case PL/2009/1020) — Incorrect interpretation of the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute, and also with the sixth paragraph of Article 254 of the FEU Treaty and Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure — Infringement of Article 67(1) of the FEU Treaty, in conjunction with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure — Infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) of the EU Treaty, in conjunction with Article 4(1) of the EU Treaty and Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure — Infringement of Article 5(4) of the EU Treaty, in conjunction with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure — Failure to state reasons — Inadmissibility of an action in the event of representation by lawyers in an employment relationship with the party

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders the Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej and the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.