do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-263/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 26 May 2011 — Ainārs Rēdlihs v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Date: 2011-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, acquisition of property, economic activity, fine, principle of proportionality








C_2011226EN.01001602.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 26 May 2011 — Ainārs Rēdlihs v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-263/11)
2011/C 226/31
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ainārs Rēdlihs

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred







1.


Is a natural person who has acquired goods (a forest) for his own needs and who makes a supply of goods to alleviate the consequences generated by force majeure (for example, a storm) a taxable person for the purposes of VAT, within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and Article 4(1) and (2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, (2) who is required to pay VAT? In other words, does such a supply of goods constitute an economic activity within the meaning of those rules of European Union law?










2.


Does a regulation, under which a fine can be imposed on a person who has not registered on the register of taxable persons for the purposes of VAT, in an amount equivalent to the tax that would normally be due for the value of the goods supplied, even though that person would not have to pay the tax if he had registered on the register, comply with the principle of proportionality?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  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).
Information concerning the date of entry into force of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed in Lugano on 30 October 2007
Date: 2011-05-26
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Intergovernmental Convention (EU), civil law, commercial law








L_2011138EN.01000101.xml










26.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 138/1







Information concerning the date of entry into force of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed in Lugano on 30 October 2007
         

The Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1), signed in Lugano on 30 October 2007, entered into force between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on 1 January 2011 and between the European Union and Iceland on 1 May 2011, in accordance with Article 69(5) of the Convention.


(1)  
            OJ L 147, 10.6.2009, p. 5. The explanatory report to the Convention was published in OJ C 319, 23.12.2009, p. 1.
Case C-258/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 26 May 2011 — Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government v An Bord Pleanala
Date: 2011-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, damage, habitat, project management








C_2011226EN.01001502.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 26 May 2011 — Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government v An Bord Pleanala
(Case C-258/11)
2011/C 226/29
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

Defendant: An Bord Pleanala

Questions referred







1.


What are the criteria in law to be applied by a competent authority to an assessment of the likelihood of a plan or project the subject of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1), having ‘an adverse effect on the integrity of the site’?










2.


Does the application of the precautionary principle have as its consequence that such a plan or project cannot be authorised if it would result in the permanent non-renewable loss of the whole or any part of the habitat in question?










3.


What is the relationship, if any, between Article 6(4) and the making of the decision under Article 6(3) that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site?






(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992. OJ L 206, p. 7
Case F-83/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — Kalmár v Europol (Staff case — Europol staff — Dismissal — Request for annulment — Payment of remuneration — Effect of judgment ordering annulment)
Date: 2011-05-26
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, Europol, action by staff, dismissal, indemnification








C_2011252EN.01005101.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/51





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — Kalmár v Europol
(Case F-83/09) (1)

(Staff case - Europol staff - Dismissal - Request for annulment - Payment of remuneration - Effect of judgment ordering annulment)
2011/C 252/109
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Andreas Kalmár (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: D. C. Coppens, lawyer)

Defendant: Europol (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment of the decisions of Europol of 4 and 24 February 2009 concerning the applicant’s dismissal and his suspension for the period of notice. In addition, application for compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


annuls the decision of 4 February 2009 whereby the Director of Europol terminated Mr Kalmár’s fixed-term contract, the decision of 24 February 2009 whereby the Director of Europol relieved him of the duty to serve his period of notice, and the decision of 18 July 2009 rejecting his complaint;










2.


orders Europol to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 5 000 in damages;










3.


dismisses the action for the remainder;










4.


orders Europol to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Mr Kalmár.






(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 80.
Case C-538/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6(3) — Special areas of conservation — Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a protected site — Exemption from assessment of plans or projects which are subject to a declaratory scheme — Incorrect transposition)
Date: 2011-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, habitat, project evaluation, protection of animal life, protection of plant life








C_2011211EN.01000501.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/5





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-538/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6(3) - Special areas of conservation - Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a protected site - Exemption from assessment of plans or projects which are subject to a declaratory scheme - Incorrect transposition)
2011/C 211/07
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Marghelis, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of the provisions of Article 6(3) 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) — Obligatory environmental impact assessment where a project or a plan has an effect on a ‘Natura 2000’ site

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by not requiring an appropriate environmental impact assessment to be undertaken for certain activities, subject to a declaratory scheme, where those activities are likely to have an effect on a Natura 2000 site, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2011-05-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, catch of fish, fishing controls, fishing regulations, sea fish








C_2011156EN.01000601.xml










26.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/6





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
2011/C 156/04
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


9.5.2011




Duration


9.5.2011-31.12.2011




Member State


Portugal




Stock or Group of stocks


LEZ/8C3411




Species


Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.)




Zone


VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


492909




Web link to the decision of the Member State:
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm


(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2011 of 26 May 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-05-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit








L_2011140EN.01005001.xml










27.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 140/50








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 522/2011
of 26 May 2011
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 27 May 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 May 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


MA 


35,3 




TR 


68,6 




ZZ 


52,0 




0707 00 05 


AL 


31,8 




TR 


108,9 




ZZ 


70,4 




0709 90 70 


AR 


34,9 




MA 


86,8 




TR 


120,2 




ZZ 


80,6 




0709 90 80 


EC 


23,2 




ZZ 


23,2 




0805 10 20 


EG 


56,5 




IL 


53,6 




MA 


46,9 




TR 


74,4 




ZZ 


57,9 




0805 50 10 


AR 


72,2 




TR 


91,2 




ZA 


100,9 




ZZ 


88,1 




0808 10 80 


AR 


84,7 




BR 


79,5 




CA 


129,0 




CL 


79,7 




CN 


95,4 




CR 


69,1 




NZ 


110,3 




US 


90,7 




UY 


55,1 




ZA 


86,4 




ZZ 


88,0 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Case C-261/11: Action brought on 26 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
Date: 2011-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, capital transfer, infringement of EU law, tax system








C_2011238EN.01000501.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/5





Action brought on 26 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
(Case C-261/11)
2011/C 238/09
Language of the case: Danish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and N. Fenger, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by introducing and maintaining legislation on immediate taxation on exit of companies’ transfers of assets to another Member State without taxing corresponding transfers of assets within Denmark, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement;










—


order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Danish tax legislation, the transfer of an undertaking’s assets for use outside Denmark is regarded as a sale and is taxed accordingly, whereas an undertaking within the country is regarded as having ceased only when the assets in question are in actual fact sold. An undertaking which transfers assets between different establishments within Denmark is thus not taxed on the value of those assets in connection with such a transfer. If, however, the same undertaking transfers assets to a fixed establishment outside Denmark, it will immediately pay tax on the value of the assets in the same way as if the assets had been sold.
In the Commission’s view, that difference in treatment constitutes an obstacle to the freedom of establishment, contrary to Article 49 TFEU. The Commission does not call into question Denmark’s ability to impose tax on increases in value received by an undertaking while it is established in Denmark. However, the Commission finds that the circumstances on the basis of which the tax liability arises should be the same, that is, the realisation of an asset or a factor as a result of which depreciation can be adjusted, regardless of whether the capital values concerned are transferred abroad or remain in Denmark.
In the Commission’s view, there is no reason for tax to be collected immediately with respect to unrealised increases in value in connection with the transfer of assets in Denmark to another Member State if such a tax is not imposed in equivalent national situations. The Kingdom of Denmark could thus, for example, determine the value of the unrealised increases in value which it considers it has the right to tax, without that implying the immediate collection of tax or compliance with further conditions for deferring payment of tax.