do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-19/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Efir OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Plovdiv
Date: 2012-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law








C_2012089EN.01001401.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Efir OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Plovdiv
(Case C-19/12)
2012/C 89/22
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Efir OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Plovdiv

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 62(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a chargeable event relates to both taxable and exempt transactions?










2.


Should Question 1 be answered in the negative: Is a national provision such as that applicable in the main proceedings, under which a chargeable event also occurs at the time of an exempt transaction, permissible?










3.


Do Articles 62 and 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have direct effect?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-18/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Město Žamberk v Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové
Date: 2012-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, VAT, sports facilities, tax exemption








C_2012098EN.01001203.xml










31.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Město Žamberk v Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové
(Case C-18/12)
2012/C 98/19
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Město Žamberk

Defendant: Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové

Questions referred







1.


May non-organised, unsystematic and recreational sporting activities which can be carried on in that manner in an open-air swimming-pool complex (for instance, recreational swimming, recreational playing of ball games, etc.) be regarded as the exercise of sport or physical education within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1)











2.


In the event of an affirmative answer to Question 1, is the supply for consideration of access to such an open-air swimming-pool complex, which offers its visitors the above-mentioned opportunity of exercising sporting activities, although alongside other kinds of amusement or recreation, to be regarded as a service closely linked to sport or physical education supplied to persons taking part in sporting or physical education activities within the meaning of that provision of Directive 2006/112/EC, and hence as a service exempted from value added tax in so far as it is supplied by a non-profit-making organisation and the other conditions under that directive are satisfied?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-20/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Elodie Giersch, Benjamin Marco Stemper, Julien Taminiaux, Xavier Renaud Hodin and Joëlle Hodin v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2012-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, budget policy, diploma, education policy, equal treatment, higher education, interpretation of the law








C_2012098EN.01001301.xml










31.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Elodie Giersch, Benjamin Marco Stemper, Julien Taminiaux, Xavier Renaud Hodin and Joëlle Hodin v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-20/12)
2012/C 98/20
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Elodie Giersch, Benjamin Marco Stemper, Julien Taminiaux, Xavier Renaud Hodin and Joëlle Hodin

Defendant: State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Question referred

In the light of the Community principle of equal treatment set out in Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68, (1) do the considerations relating to education policy and budgetary policy put forward by the State of Luxembourg, namely seeking to encourage an increase in the proportion of people with a higher education degree, which is currently inadequate compared with other countries as far as the resident population of Luxembourg is concerned, considerations which would be seriously threatened if the State of Luxembourg had to give financial aid for higher education studies to every student, without any connection with the society of the Grand Duchy, to carry out their higher education studies in any country in the world, which would lead to an unreasonable burden on the budget of the State of Luxembourg, constitute considerations, in terms of the Community case-law cited above, which are capable of justifying the difference in treatment resulting from the residence requirement imposed both on Luxembourg nationals and on nationals of other Member States in order to obtain aid for higher education studies?


(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community. English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475.
Case T-22/12: Action brought on 16 January 2012 — Fomanu v OHIM (Qualität hat Zukunft)
Date: 2012-01-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, infringement of EU law, office supplies, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012080EN.01002201.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/22





Action brought on 16 January 2012 — Fomanu v OHIM (Qualität hat Zukunft)
(Case T-22/12)
2012/C 80/37
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Fomanu AG (Neustadt a.d. Waldnaab, Germany) (represented by T. Raible)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011 in Case R 1518/2011-1;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the these proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Qualität hat Zukunft’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 40.

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Community trade mark concerned is distinctive.
Case F-7/12: Action brought on 16th January 2012 — ZZ v European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)
Date: 2012-01-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, professional career, staff assessment








C_2012133EN.01003001.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/30





Action brought on 16th January 2012 — ZZ v European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)
(Case F-7/12)
2012/C 133/59
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the 2009 career report, the list of reclassification of the civil servants for 2010 and, if necessary, the annulment of the decision rejecting his demand on 17 October 2011.

Form of order sought







—


The annulment of the Applicant’s 2009 career development report;










—


the annulment of the 16 November 2010 decision fixing the list of staff reclassified in the reclassification exercise 2010;










—


if necessary, the annulment of the decision of 17 October 2011 rejecting the Applicant’s complaint dated 16 June 2011;










—


order ENISA to pay the costs.
Case T-35/12: Action brought on 16 January 2012 — Icelandic Group UK v Commission
Date: 2012-01-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: customs drawback, infringement of EU law, rights of the defence








C_2012073EN.01002902.xml










10.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/29





Action brought on 16 January 2012 — Icelandic Group UK v Commission
(Case T-35/12)
2012/C 73/58
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Icelandic Group UK Ltd (Grimsby, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Sloane, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Article 1(2) of Commission Decision C(2011) 8113 FINAL of 15.11.2011 finding that repayment of import duties is not justified in a particular case (rem 04/2010); and










—


Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements and Article 906a of Commission Regulation 2454/93/EEC (1), as the defendant failed to observe applicant’s rights of defence in the procedure leading to the adoption of Article 1(2) of the contested decision, by adopting a decision adversely affecting the rights of the applicant without giving it the right to be heard on the basis for that unfavourable decision, namely the defendant’s assessment that the United Kingdom authorities had not committed an error as regards imports made from 1 December 2006 to 24 July 2007.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of Article 220(2)(b), Article 236 and/or Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2), as:






—


The defendant made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the conditions for repayment of customs duty under Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 were not met in the present circumstances. The assessment of the defendant that the United Kingdom authorities had not committed an error as regards imports made from 1 December 2006 to 24 July 2007 is manifestly wrong;










—


Further or alternatively, the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in deciding that the conditions for repayment of customs duty in Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 were not met. The defendant’s assessment that the circumstances of the present case do not disclose a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 was manifestly wrong.










(1)  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)

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1)
Case C-17/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 16 January 2012 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública
Date: 2012-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, VAT, accounting, basis of tax assessment








C_2012098EN.01001202.xml










31.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 16 January 2012 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública
(Case C-17/12)
2012/C 98/18
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TVI Televisão Independente SA

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Questions referred







1.


Does the screening tax charged by the appellant to the advertisers in its capacity as tax substitute, in accordance with Article 50(1) of Decree-Law 227/2006, come within the concept of VAT taxable amount, within the meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (now Article 79(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EEC (2) of 28 November 2006) as it constitutes ‘the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier for such supplies’?










2.


Does the advertising tax charged by the appellant to the advertisers, in its capacity as tax substitute, and which is recorded in its accounts in a third party account, constitute an amount ‘received by a taxable person from his purchaser or customer as repayment for expenses paid out in the name and for the account of the latter and which [is] entered in his books in a suspense account’ within the meaning of Article 11(A)(3)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC (now Article 79(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EEC of 28 November 2006?










3.


Consequently, should these amounts charged by the appellant in respect of screening tax be included in the taxable base for the purposes of VAT?






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