do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-433/11: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — SKP k.s. v Kveta Polhošová (Request for a preliminary ruling — Lack of adequate information on the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Questions submitted in a context which precludes any useful answer — Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovakia, company in difficulties, consumer protection, credit sale, domestic market, interpretation of the law, legal expenses, restriction on competition, unfair terms of contract








C_2013108EN.01000401.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/4





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — SKP k.s. v Kveta Polhošová
(Case C-433/11) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Lack of adequate information on the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Questions submitted in a context which precludes any useful answer - Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred - Manifest inadmissibility)
2013/C 108/06
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SKP k.s.

Defendant: Kveta Polhošová

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Krajský súd v Prešove — Interpretation of Articles 5 to 9 of 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 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22), Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29), and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Concept of unfair commercial practice — Contract for the sale of goods by hire purchase concluded with a consumer and containing an unfair term — Assignment by the undertaking of the claim under the contract to a bankrupt company, making it impossible for the consumer to recover the costs of legal proceedings if she wins the case

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia), by decision of 10 August 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
Case C-351/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — KGH Belgium NV v Belgische Staat (Customs debt — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Entry of duty in the accounts — Practical procedures)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: CCT duties, customs debt, customs regulations, interpretation of the law








C_2013009EN.01001801.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/18





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — KGH Belgium NV v Belgische Staat
(Case C-351/11) (1)

(Customs debt - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties - Entry of duty in the accounts - Practical procedures)
2013/C 9/27
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KGH Belgium NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Article 217(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Entry in the accounts of the duties — Practical procedures

Operative part of the judgment

Article 217(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that, since that article does not lay down any practical procedures for the entry in the accounts within the meaning of that provision, the Member States are free to determine the practical procedures for the entry in the accounts of amounts of duty resulting from a customs debt, without being under an obligation to determine, in their national legislation, how the entry in the accounts is to be made. That entry must be made in a way which ensures that the competent customs authorities enter the exact amount of the import duty or export duty resulting from a customs debt in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium, so that, inter alia, the entry in the accounts of the amounts concerned may be established with certainty, including with regard to the person liable.


(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012340EN.01000101.xml










8.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

7 November 2012
2012/C 340/01

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2746




JPY


Japanese yen


102,11




DKK


Danish krone


7,4594




GBP


Pound sterling


0,79840




SEK


Swedish krona


8,5547




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2065




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,3195




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,395




HUF


Hungarian forint


282,10




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6963




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1131




RON


Romanian leu


4,5163




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2713




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2228




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2662




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,8788




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5403




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5586




KRW


South Korean won


1 384,34




ZAR


South African rand


11,0253




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9770




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5375




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 251,94




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,8917




PHP


Philippine peso


52,183




RUB


Russian rouble


40,0973




THB


Thai baht


39,117




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5911




MXN


Mexican peso


16,5991




INR


Indian rupee


69,1020






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-299/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Vlaardingen (Taxation — VAT — Taxable transactions — Application for the purposes of a business of goods obtained ‘in the course of such business’ — Treatment as a supply for consideration — Sports pitches belonging to the taxable person and transformed by a third person)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, real property, tax system








C_2013009EN.01001701.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/17





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Vlaardingen
(Case C-299/11) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Taxable transactions - Application for the purposes of a business of goods obtained ‘in the course of such business’ - Treatment as a supply for consideration - Sports pitches belonging to the taxable person and transformed by a third person)
2013/C 9/26
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Gemeente Vlaardingen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 5(5), Article 5(7)(a) and Article 11(A)(1)(b) 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) — Taxable transactions — Use of materials for the purposes of the business — Use, for exempt activities of a business, of land owned by it and converted to its order by a third person for remuneration

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(7)(a) 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, read in conjunction with Article 11(A)(1)(b) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the application by a taxable person, for the purposes of an economic activity exempt from value added tax, of sports pitches which he owns and which he has had transformed by a third person can be subject to value added tax calculated on the basis of the aggregate arrived at by adding to the transformation costs the value of the ground on which the pitches lie, to the extent that the taxable person has not yet paid the value added tax relating to that value or to those costs, and provided that the pitches at issue are not covered by the exemption provided for in Article 13(B)(h) of the Sixth Directive.


(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Case C-507/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 8 November 2012 — Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, job application, labour relations, motherhood, residence permit, wage earner








C_2013026EN.01003201.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/32





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 8 November 2012 — Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Case C-507/12)
2013/C 26/59
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jessy Saint Prix

Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Questions referred







1.


Is the right of residence conferred upon a ‘worker’ in Article 7 of the Citizenship Directive (1) to be interpreted as applying only to those (i) in an existing employment relationship, (ii) (at least in some circumstances) seeking work, or (iii) covered by the extensions in article 7(3), or is the Article to be interpreted as not precluding the recognition of further persons who remain ‘workers’ for this purpose?










2.








(i)


If the latter, does it extend to a woman who reasonably gives up work, or seeking work, because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy (and the aftermath of childbirth)?










(ii)


If so, is she entitled to the benefit of the national law's definition of when it is reasonable for her to do so?










(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 (Text with EEA relevance).
OJ L 158, p. 77
Case C-244/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Scheme under which prior authorisation is required for the acquisition of voting rights representing 20 % or more of the share capital in certain ‘strategic public limited companies’ — Arrangements for ex post control of certain decisions taken by those companies)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, infringement of EU law, public limited company, right to vote, share capital








C_2013009EN.01001501.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/15





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-244/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Scheme under which prior authorisation is required for the acquisition of voting rights representing 20 % or more of the share capital in certain ‘strategic public limited companies’ - Arrangements for ex post control of certain decisions taken by those companies)
2013/C 9/22
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and G. Zavvos, Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — National legislation under which prior approval is required for the acquisition of voting rights corresponding to 20 % or more of the total share capital in companies of national strategic importance — Breach of Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by laying down the requirements referred to in Article 11(1), read in conjunction with Article 11(2), and those referred to in Article 11(3) of Law 3631/2008 on the creation of a national fund for social cohesion, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC on the freedom of establishment;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 219, 23.07.2011.
Case F-69/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 November 2012 — Dekker v Europol
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, enforcement of ruling, payment








C_2013038EN.01003302.xml










9.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/33





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 November 2012 — Dekker v Europol
(Case F-69/12) (1)

2013/C 38/65
Language of the case: Dutch
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012, p. 17.
Case C-502/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Jens Schombera v Land Berlin
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European treaties, Federation State, age discrimination, civil servant, indemnification, interpretation of the law, national implementing measure, professional experience, remuneration of work, secondary legislation








C_2013026EN.01002801.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/28





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Jens Schombera v Land Berlin
(Case C-502/12)
2013/C 26/54
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jens Schombera

Defendant: Land Berlin

Questions referred







1.


Is European primary and/or secondary law, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) to be interpreted as a comprehensive prohibition of unjustified age discrimination, such that it also covers national rules on the remuneration of Land civil servants?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law mean that a national provision under which the level of the basic pay of a civil servant on establishment of the status of civil servant is substantially dependent on his age and also, in particular, rises according to the duration of civil servant status constitutes direct or indirect age discrimination?










3.


If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law preclude the justification of such a national provision by the legislative aim of making payment for professional experience?










4.


If Question 3 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, where a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has not been implemented, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective remuneration of those discriminated against at the highest pay step in their pay grade?
Does the legal consequence of infringement of the prohibition of discrimination in that case follow from European primary and/or secondary law itself, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, or does the claim follow only from the point of view of failure to implement the rules of European law in accordance with the claim to State liability under European Union law?










5.


Does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law preclude a national measure which makes the claim to (retrospective) payment or compensation dependent on the civil servants’ having enforced that claim in good time?






(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Case T-194/10: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Hungary v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 — E-Bacchus database — Registration of the protected designation of origin ‘Vinohradnícka oblast’ Tokaj’, in respect of Slovakia — Measure not subject to review — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Slovakia, database, designation of origin, originating product, wine








C_2012399EN.01001802.xml










22.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/18





Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Hungary v Commission
(Case T-194/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 - E-Bacchus database - Registration of the protected designation of origin ‘Vinohradnícka oblast’ Tokaj’, in respect of Slovakia - Measure not subject to review - Inadmissibility)
2012/C 399/31
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hungary (represented initially by J. Fazekas, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, then by M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, V. Bottka and M. Vollkommer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action for annulment of the registration of the protected designation of origin ‘Vinohradnícka oblasť Tokaj’, with Slovakia indicated as country of origin, in the electronic register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications for wine (the E-Bacchus database).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Republic of Slovakia to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
Case T-489/12: Action brought on 8 November 2012 — Planet v Commission
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: audit, complaint to the Commission, expenditure, manager, personnel administration, provision of documents, works contract








C_2013026EN.01005501.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/55





Action brought on 8 November 2012 — Planet v Commission
(Case T-489/12)
2013/C 26/111
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Planet AE, a public limited consultancy company (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare that the European Commission, by disallowing personnel costs for the applicant’s high ranking staff, infringed the ONTOGOV, FIT and RACWeb contracts and that the personnel costs submitted to the Commission in respect of the abovementioned contracts for the applicant’s high ranking staff, amounting to EUR 547 653,42 are consequently eligible costs and ought not to be repaid by the applicant to the Commission, and










—


order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the Commission’s liability under the following contracts: (a) No 507237 for completion of the project ‘Ontology enabled E-Gov Service Configuration (ONTOGOV)’, (b) No 027090 for completion of the project ‘Fostering self-adaptive e-government service improvement using semantic technologies (FIT)’ and (c) No 045101 for completion of the project ‘Risk Assessment for Customs in Western Balkans (RACWeb)’, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. Specifically, the applicant claims that, although it performed its contractual obligations fully, properly and very successfully, the Commission, contrary to the above mentioned contracts and the rules governing audit procedure, disallowed the applicant’s personnel costs which relate to its three high ranking staff.
More particularly, the applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of its action:






 


First, the applicant maintains that in no way did it infringe its contractual obligations concerning personnel costs, since (a) the personnel costs for the applicant’s three high ranking staff meet all the conditions of eligibility, in accordance with the terms of the contracts at issue, and (b) in no way do the contracts prohibit the participation of high ranking staff in the funded projects.










 


Secondly, the applicant maintains that the Commission was in breach of its contractual obligations in the audit procedure, since (a) the Commission’s audit was conducted in breach of Greek and International Standards on Auditing, (b) the Commission’s request for the production of documentation which Planet was under no obligation to preserve is contrary to the contracts at issue and is an attempt to effect a retrospective unilateral alteration of Planet’s contractual obligations and (c) the conclusions of the audit at issue are incompatible with the conclusions of previous audits by the Commission at Planet.