do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-275/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 June 2011 — GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH v Finanzamt Bayreuth
Date: 2011-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, interpretation of the law, investment company, tax exemption








C_2011269EN.01002402.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/24





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 June 2011 — GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH v Finanzamt Bayreuth
(Case C-275/11)
2011/C 269/45
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Bayreuth

Questions referred

For the purpose of interpreting the term ‘management of special investment funds’ within the meaning of Article 13B(d)(6) of Directive 77/388/EEC, (1) is the service provided by the third-party manager of a special investment fund sufficiently specific and hence exempt from taxation only if






(a)


the manager performs a management function and not only an advisory function or if










(b)


the service differs in nature from other services by reason of a characteristic feature that qualifies for tax exemption under this provision or if










(c)


the manager operates on the basis of a delegation of functions under Article 5g of Directive 85/611/EEC, (2) as amended?






(1)  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).

(2)  Directive 2001/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 January 2002 amending Council Directive 85/611/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) with a view to regulating management companies and simplified prospectuses (OJ 2002 L 41, p. 20).
Case C-274/11: Action brought on 3 June 2011 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
Date: 2011-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, enhanced cooperation, misuse of a right








C_2011219EN.01001201.xml










23.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/12





Action brought on 3 June 2011 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
(Case C-274/11)
2011/C 219/16
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


annul Council Decision 2011/167/EU; (1)











—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.




Misuse of powers since recourse was had to enhanced cooperation
 although the purpose is not to achieve integration of all the Member States — the mechanism having been used instead to avoid negotiating with a Member State, imposing upon it an opt-out solution — and although the objectives pursued in this instance could have been achieved by means of a special agreement as provided for in Article 142 of the European Patent Convention. (2)











2.




Failure to respect the judicial system of the EU
 in that no dispute resolution system is provided for in relation to certain legal rights subject to EU law.










3.




In the alternative
, should the Court find that it is appropriate in this instance to have recourse to enhanced cooperation and that it is possible to establish substantive rules for legal rights subject to EU law without making provision for a dispute resolution system in relation to those rights, the Kingdom of Spain submits that the necessary conditions for enhanced cooperation are not met for the following reasons:






3.1.




infringement of Article 20(1) TEU
, since in this instance enhanced cooperation is not a last resort and does not fulfil the objectives provided for in the TEU and since areas are referred to which are not within the scope of enhanced cooperation as they are exclusive competence of the EU.










3.2.




infringement of Article 326 TFEU
, since enhanced cooperation in this instance infringes the principle of non-discrimination and undermines the internal market and economic, social and territorial cohesion, constituting discrimination in trade between Member States and distorting competition between them.










3.3.




infringement of Article 327 TFEU
, since the enhanced cooperation does not respect the rights of the Kingdom of Spain, which is not participating in it.










(1)  Council Decision 2011/167/EU of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 53).

(2)  Convention on the Grant of European Patents of 5 October 1973.
Case T-281/11 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2011 by Diego Canga Fano against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 March 2011 in Case F-104/09, Canga Fano v Council
Date: 2011-06-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European official, action by staff, indemnification, professional career, promotion








C_2011238EN.01002002.xml










13.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 238/20





Appeal brought on 3 June 2011 by Diego Canga Fano against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 March 2011 in Case F-104/09, Canga Fano v Council
(Case T-281/11 P)
2011/C 238/37
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Diego Canga Fano (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


declare the appeal admissible;










—


set aside the judgment delivered on 24 March 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Case F-104/09;










—


grant the applications for annulment and damages which the applicant brought before the Civil Service Tribunal, subject to the proviso that the applicant would be satisfied with the annulment of the decision adopted and would accept one euro as symbolic compensation for the damage caused to him;










—


order the Council to pay the costs of both instances.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, divided into three parts and alleging an error of law.






—


In the first part, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal interpreted the applicable provisions in a manner contrary to that laid down by the Court of Justice and the General Court in their case-law concerning the appointing authority's discretion (paragraphs 35 and 36 of the judgment under appeal).










—


In the second part, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal drew conclusions unjustified in law in its review of the manifest error of assessment (paragraphs 48, 51, 52, 58, 78, and 79 of the judgment under appeal) and contradicted its own criteria, with which it claims to replace the case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court.










—


In the third part, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal's statement of reasons is vitiated by inaccuracies of fact, linked to distortion of, or failure to take account of, evidence put before it (paragraphs 80, 81, 85, 88 and 90 of the judgment under appeal).
Case C-273/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság lodged on 3 June 2011 — Mecsek-Gabona Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
Date: 2011-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, VAT, interpretation of the law, tax exemption








C_2011269EN.01002401.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/24





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság lodged on 3 June 2011 — Mecsek-Gabona Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
(Case C-273/11)
2011/C 269/44
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Baranya Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mecsek-Gabona Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the sale of a product is exempt from VAT if the product is sold to a buyer who is registered for VAT in another Member State at the time when the sale contract is concluded, and the buyer concludes the sale contract in respect of the product in such a way that the right of disposal and right of ownership are transferred to the buyer upon loading onto the mode of transportation, and the buyer assumes the obligation of transportation to the other Member State?










2.


In order to make a VAT-exempt sale, is it sufficient for the seller to satisfy himself that the goods sold are transported by foreign-registered vehicles, and that he is in possession of the CMRs returned by the buyer, or must he ensure that the product sold has crossed the national border and has been transported within Community territory?










3.


Can the fact of a VAT-exempt sale of a product be called into question purely on the basis that the tax authority of another Member State retrospectively revokes the buyer’s Community tax number with effect from a date prior to the sale of the product?






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