do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-343/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2012 — Euronics Belgium CVBA v Kamera Express BV & Kamera Express Belgium BVBA
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, discount sale, interpretation of the law, market approval, selling price








C_2012303EN.01001601.xml










6.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2012 — Euronics Belgium CVBA v Kamera Express BV & Kamera Express Belgium BVBA
(Case C-343/12)
2012/C 303/28
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Euronics Belgium CVBA
Defendants: 






 


Kamera Express BV










 


Kamera Express Belgium BVBA





Question referred

Is Article 101 of the (Belgian) Law on market practices and consumer protection (Wet betreffende marktpraktijken en consumentenbescherming), which, inter alia, is intended to protect the interests of consumers and is worded as follows:

‘Article 101(1)All undertakings shall be prohibited from offering for sale or selling goods at a loss.
A sale at a loss shall mean any sale at a price which is not at least equal to the price at which the undertaking purchased the item or which the undertaking would have to pay to replenish its stock, after any discounts granted and definitively obtained. In order to determine whether a sale is a sale at a loss, no account shall be taken of discounts which, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, are granted in exchange for commitments entered into by the undertaking other than for the purchase of goods’,

contrary to Directive 2005/29/EC (1) in so far as it prohibits sales at a loss, whereas Directive 2005/29/EC appears not to prohibit such sales practices and the Belgian Law may be stricter than the provisions of Directive 2005/29/EC and the prohibition under Article 4 of that directive?


(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012212EN.01000201.xml










19.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

18 July 2012
2012/C 212/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2234




JPY


Japanese yen


96,63




DKK


Danish krone


7,4388




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78400




SEK


Swedish krona


8,4927




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2010




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,4825




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,278




HUF


Hungarian forint


285,90




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6959




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1795




RON


Romanian leu


4,5653




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2131




AUD


Australian dollar


1,1867




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2399




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4893




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5397




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5416




KRW


South Korean won


1 398,54




ZAR


South African rand


10,0063




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7937




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4810




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 587,05




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,8702




PHP


Philippine peso


51,021




RUB


Russian rouble


39,6991




THB


Thai baht


38,794




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4756




MXN


Mexican peso


16,1445




INR


Indian rupee


67,8280






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-334/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) — Part of a capital item forming part of the assets of a business — Temporary use for private purposes — Permanent alterations to that item — Payment of VAT in respect of the permanent alterations — Right to deduct)
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, VAT, private investment, private sector, tax exemption








C_2012295EN.01000301.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/3





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-334/10) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) - Part of a capital item forming part of the assets of a business - Temporary use for private purposes - Permanent alterations to that item - Payment of VAT in respect of the permanent alterations - Right to deduct)
2012/C 295/04
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) 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) — Deduction of input tax — Taxable person who has made temporary use for private purposes of part of a capital item forming part of the assets of his business and who has, for those purposes, made permanent alterations to that part of the item — Entitlement to deduct the VAT paid in respect of the permanent alterations

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) 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 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that, first, a taxable person who makes temporary use for private purposes of part of a capital item forming part of the assets of his business is entitled, under those provisions, to deduct the input value added tax on the expenditure incurred in carrying out permanent alterations to that item even though those alterations were carried out with a view to that temporary use for private purposes and, secondly, that right to deduct exists irrespective of whether the taxable person was charged VAT and deducted that VAT upon the acquisition of the capital item to which those alterations were made.


(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
Case C-345/12: Action brought on 19 July 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: building insulation, energy saving, national implementing measure, quality label








C_2012287EN.01002602.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/26





Action brought on 19 July 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-345/12)
2012/C 287/50
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and K. Hermann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by failing to lay down an obligation to make available, when buildings are sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate, in accordance with the provisions, and on the conditions, laid down in Articles 7 and 10 of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 10 of that directive, in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings; (2)











—


declare that, by having failed to notify all the measures transposing Article 9 of Directive 2002/91/EC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of that directive, in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings;










—


order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2002/91/EC expired on 4 January 2006. The period for transposing Articles 7 to 9 of that directive expired on 4 January 2009 and, in the Commission’s submission, Article 28 of Directive 2010/31/EU, which allows Member States to defer the application of the requirement to make energy performance certificates available, does not cover certificates already issued or to be issued on the basis of Article 7(1) of Directive 2002/91/EC.
At the date of commencement of this action, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to implement the directive.


(1)  OJ 2003 L 65, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13.
Case T-319/12: Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Spain v Commission
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, building subsidy, control of State aid, film industry








C_2012287EN.01003201.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/32





Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-319/12)
2012/C 287/60
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul European Commission Decision C(2012) of 8 May 2012 concerning State Aid SA 22668 (C 8/2008 — ex NN 4/2008), granted by Spain to ‘Ciudad de la Luz SA’;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law:






1.


Incorrect application of the private investor test, since the Commission went beyond the bounds of its margin of assessment when carrying out its analysis.










2.


Error in the assessment of the State aid on account of a failure to take into account actions in the tertiary part of the complex.










3.


Failure of the contested decision to state reasons in so far as the Commission requires recovery of the aid granted to film producers and in so far as its analysis makes no mention of that alleged aid.










4.


In the alternative, error in the analysis of the compatibility of the investment with the Guidelines on National Regional aid, since the Commission failed to consider whether the remaining aid complied with the private investor principle.










5.


In the alternative, failure to state reasons and error in the analysis of the compatibility of the aid, in the light of the rules applicable to aid in the audiovisual sector, since the Commission failed to consider why the alleged aid was not intended for cultural purposes.
Case T-324/12: Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristaleria (ECOSE TECHNOLOGY)
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building insulation, glass, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012295EN.01002602.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/26





Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristaleria (ECOSE TECHNOLOGY)
(Case T-324/12)
2012/C 295/47
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Knauf Insulation Technology (Visé, Belgium) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Saint Gobain Cristaleria, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2012 in joined cases R 1193/2011-5 and R 1426/2011-5 insofar as it has declared the opponent’s opposition successful against the CTM application for part of the goods and services applied for;










—


Order the defendant and — if applicable — the Opponent to jointly and severally pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ECOSE TECHNOLOGY’, for goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 40 — Community trade mark application No W 998610

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2556409 of the word mark ‘ECOSEC FACHADAS’, for goods in classes 17 and 19

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contested decision for the remainder

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
Case C-145/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/82/EC — Veterinary medicinal products — Decentralised procedure for the grant of marketing authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product in a number of Member States — Generic medicinal products similar to the reference medicinal products already authorised — Refusal to approve request by a Member State — Composition and form of the medicinal product)
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: market approval, pharmaceutical legislation, single market, veterinary drug








C_2012295EN.01001001.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/10





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-145/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/82/EC - Veterinary medicinal products - Decentralised procedure for the grant of marketing authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product in a number of Member States - Generic medicinal products similar to the reference medicinal products already authorised - Refusal to approve request by a Member State - Composition and form of the medicinal product)
2012/C 295/16
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, S. Menez and R. Loosli-Surrans, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 32 and 33 of Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 1) — Decentralised procedure for the grant of marketing authorisation in more than one Member State — Generic medicinal products similar to the reference medicinal products already authorised — Member State’s refusal to approve based on scientific grounds related to the composition of the medicinal product and the choice of pharmaceutical form — Principle of mutual recognition

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by refusing to approve two requests for marketing authorisation of the medicinal veterinary products CT-Line 15 % Premix and CT-Line 15 % Oral Powder in the context of the decentralised procedure provided for by Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, as amended by Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament of the Council of 31 March 2004, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 32 and 33 of that directive;










2.


Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.
Case C-591/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — (United Kingdom) — Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs (Second and Sixth VAT Directives — Input tax — Refund of excess — Payment of interest — Procedures)
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, VAT, basis of tax assessment, interest








C_2012295EN.01000501.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/5





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — (United Kingdom) — Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs
(Case C-591/10) (1)

(Second and Sixth VAT Directives - Input tax - Refund of excess - Payment of interest - Procedures)
2012/C 295/07
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others

Defendant: Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 8 and Annex A, point 13, of the Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1967 p.16) — Interpretation of Article 11C(1) of the 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) — Repayment of overpaid input tax — Interest rate applicable

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law must be interpreted as requiring that a taxable person who has overpaid value added tax which was collected by the Member State contrary to the requirements of European Union legislation on value added tax has a right to reimbursement of the tax collected in breach of European Union law and to the payment of interest on the amount of the latter. It is for national law to determine, in compliance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, whether the principal sum must bear ‘simple interest’, ‘compound interest’ or another type of interest.


(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
Case C-31/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Marianne Scheunemann v Finanzamt Bremerhaven (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)
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital transfer tax, legal domicile, social participation, tax system, third country








C_2012295EN.01000602.xml










29.9.2012   


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.