do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-438/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 9 November 2009 — Bogusław Juliusz Dankowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
Date: 2009-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, VAT, goods and services, interpretation of the law, national law, tax relief








C_2010037EN.01000201.xml










13.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/2





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 9 November 2009 — Bogusław Juliusz Dankowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
(Case C-438/09)
2010/C 37/02
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bogusław Juliusz Dankowski

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

Questions referred







1.


Do the rules of the common system of VAT, in particular Article 17(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Directive 77/388/EEC), (1) preclude legislation of a Member State under which a taxable person does not acquire the right to deduct input tax arising from a VAT invoice issued by a person who is not entered on the register of taxable persons for the purpose of tax on goods and services?










2.


Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that:






(a)


there is no doubt that the transactions indicated on the VAT invoice are subject to VAT and that they have actually been carried out;










(b)


the invoice contained all the details required under Community legislation;










(c)


a restriction on the taxable person’s right to deduct input tax arising from an invoice issued by an unregistered person operated in national law prior to the date on which the Republic of Poland acceded to the Community?














3.


Does the answer to the first question depend on additional criteria being satisfied (for example, proof that the taxable person acted in good faith)?






(1)  Council Directive 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).
Case F-94/09: Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Nikolchov v Commission
Date: 2009-11-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, indemnification, personnel administration, recruitment, regulations for civil servants, traineeship








C_2010011EN.01004202.xml










16.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/42





Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Nikolchov v Commission
(Case F-94/09)
2010/C 11/81
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Vladimir Nikolchov (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Lemal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 29 July 2009 of the appointing authority refusing to grant daily allowances to the applicant, following his recruitment as a probationary official on 16 January 2009.

Form of order sought







—


declare that this action is formally admissible;










—


declare that an infringement occurred of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of declare that there has been an infringement of the Commission decision of 15 April 2004 adopting the General implementing provisions for giving effect to Article 7(3) thereof;










—


consequently, order the annulment of the decision of the appointing authority (No R/9/09) of 29 July 2009 dismissing the applicant’s complaint seeking the grant of daily allowances on the basis of his second entry into service, in accordance with the second indent of Article 10(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant unpaid daily allowance totalling EUR 10 979,43, or any other amount fixed by the Tribunal, in addition to default interest from the date of bringing the complaint until the date of payment;










—


order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.
Case T-446/09: Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission
Date: 2009-11-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), management, project evaluation, redemption, working time








C_2010037EN.01003901.xml










13.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/39





Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission
(Case T-446/09)
2010/C 37/54
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra (Bencanta, Portugal) (represented by: J. Pais do Amaral, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought







—


Annulment of Commission Decision D(2009)224268 of 9 September 2009;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Lack of reasoning in relation to the requirement of reimbursement of the amount stipulated in point 8 of the letter of 12 August 2009.
Infringement of points 21.2 and 22 of the administrative framework provisions in relation to the other amounts, since a system was in place to record the time dedicated by each of the participants to the project, which indicated the name of the person and the time, in real time, which that person dedicated to the project.
Error of fact since the administration can act only if sure that the facts are correct. Mere doubt on the part of the administration as to whether the time recorded on the timesheets was actually dedicated to the project or not is not sufficient since the burden of proof is on the Commission.
Misassumption on the part of the Commission since there is no written obligation to adopt a specific type of system to record the duration of work carried out which is more rigorous than the recording of information on timesheets. Thus, while the contract is being executed and when it is no longer possible to alter the previous legitimate procedure for registering time dedicated to the project, namely by means of timesheets, the Commission cannot legitimately require more than what was originally stated and set out in the contract. In addition, it is inappropriate to make such an onerous demand that time dedicated to the project be recorded photographically.
The contested act infringes the principles of good faith, legitimate expectations, transparency, proportionality, and good and reasonable administration since the rules in place for recording time dedicated to the project are new, which is corroborated by the fact that those rules feature explicitly and clearly in subsequent versions of the program at issue.
Error in the assessment of the facts in so far as the size and the content of the refund ordered by the Commission is disproportionate to the content and nature of the alleged irregularities, given that it was not possible to attain the results reflected in being classed in tenth position out of 200 projects, without dedicating significantly more time to the project than actually paid for (once the refund ordered has been deducted).
Case C-437/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Périgueux (France) lodged on 9 November 2009 — AG2R Prévoyance v Beaudout Père et Fils SARL
Date: 2009-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: compulsory insurance, dominant position, health care, interpretation of the law, social security








C_2010024EN.01002602.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/26





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Périgueux (France) lodged on 9 November 2009 — AG2R Prévoyance v Beaudout Père et Fils SARL
(Case C-437/09)
2010/C 24/48
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de Grande Instance de Périgueux

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AG2R Prévoyance

Defendant: Beaudout Père et Fils SARL

Question referred

Are a provision making affiliation to a supplementary healthcare scheme compulsory, as provided for under Article L 912-1 of the Social Security Code, and the addendum, made compulsory by the public authorities at the request of organisations representing employers and workers in a given sector, which provides for affiliation to a single body, designated to manage a supplementary healthcare scheme, without any possibility for undertakings in that sector to be granted a waiver of the affiliation obligation, in compliance with Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, or are they such as to place the designated body in a dominant position constituting an abuse?
Case T-451/09: Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Wind v OHIM — Sanyang Industry (Wind)
Date: 2009-11-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010024EN.01005602.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/56





Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Wind v OHIM — Sanyang Industry (Wind)
(Case T-451/09)
2010/C 24/101
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Harry Wind (Selfkant, Germany) (represented by: J. Sroka, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sanyang Industry Co. Ltd (Hsinchu, Taiwan)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2009 in case R 1470/2008-4; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “Wind”, for goods and services in classes 11, 12 and 37

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “Wind”, for services in class 37

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/04 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal failed to conclude that there was similarity between the goods and services covered by the Community trade mark concerned.
Case C-436/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2009 — Attila Belkiran v Lord Mayor of Krefeld — Other party to the proceedings: The representative for federal interests at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Date: 2009-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU visa policy, Türkiye, foreign national, interpretation of the law, public safety, removal, residence permit








C_2010024EN.01002601.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/26





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2009 — Attila Belkiran v Lord Mayor of Krefeld — Other party to the proceedings: The representative for federal interests at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
(Case C-436/09)
2010/C 24/47
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Attila Belkiran

Defendant: Lord Mayor of Krefeld

Other party to the proceedings: The representative for federal interests at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Question referred

Is the protection against expulsion provided for in Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 (of the EEC-Turkey Association Council) and enjoyed by a Turkish national, whose legal status derives from Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 and who has resided for the previous ten years in the Member State in respect of which this legal status applies, to be determined in accordance with Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1), with the result that expulsion is permitted only on imperative grounds of public security, as defined by Member States?


(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77)