do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-342/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — EEA Agreement — Article 40 — Taxation of dividends paid to non-resident pension funds)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, discrimination on the basis of nationality, free movement of capital, infringement of EU law, supplementary pension, tax system








C_2013009EN.01000502.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/5





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
(Case C-342/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - EEA Agreement - Article 40 - Taxation of dividends paid to non-resident pension funds)
2013/C 9/06
Language of the case: Finnish

Parties


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

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by H. Walker, acting as Agent, and G. Facenna, Barrister)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Art. 63 TFEU and Art. 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax discrimination — National legislation making dividends paid by resident companies to foreign pension funds subject to a stricter tax regime than that applicable to national pension funds

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force a scheme under which dividends paid to foreign pension funds are taxed in a discriminatory manner, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992.










2.


Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
Case C-461/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt — Sweden) — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Total or partial debt relief procedure — Debtor who is a natural person — National legislation making the grant of debt relief subject to a residence condition)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, debt, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, residence








C_2013009EN.01002001.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/20





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt — Sweden) — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm
(Case C-461/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Total or partial debt relief procedure - Debtor who is a natural person - National legislation making the grant of debt relief subject to a residence condition)
2013/C 9/31
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Stockholms tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski

Defendant: Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Stockholms tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 45 TFEU — Freedom of movement for persons — Compatibility with Article 45 TFEU of national legislation making the grant of debt relief proceedings in respect of natural persons subject to a condition of residence in national territory — Debtor who is a national of Member State A, resident in Member State B, having made an application for debt relief in Member State A, the place of origin of his debts — Links with the place the application was made

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the grant of debt relief subject to a condition of residence in the Member State concerned.


(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
Case C-469/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Action for damages — Rejection of a bid submitted in a European Union tendering procedure — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run — Application of the extension of time on account of distance)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU institution, contractual liability, indemnification, invitation to tender








C_2013009EN.01002002.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/20





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
(Case C-469/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for damages - Rejection of a bid submitted in a European Union tendering procedure - Limitation period - Point from which time starts to run - Application of the extension of time on account of distance)
2013/C 9/32
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2011 in Case T-409/09 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission dismissing as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded an action for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the Commission rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant in the course of a tendering procedure — Periods prescribed for bringing proceedings — Extensions on account of distance

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.
Case C-528/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Transport — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 2001/14/EC — Articles 6(2) to (5) and 11 — Railway infrastructure capacity and charges levied for the use of railway infrastructure — Regulatory body — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, charges for use of infrastructure, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, rail transport, transport infrastructure, transport safety








C_2013009EN.01000602.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/6





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-528/10) (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 2001/14/EC - Articles 6(2) to (5) and 11 - Railway infrastructure capacity and charges levied for the use of railway infrastructure - Regulatory body - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
2013/C 9/08
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Chala)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller and by J. Očková, acting as Agents)
Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 6(2) and (5) and 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures, inter alia so far as concerns the units in which charges are levied for the use of infrastructure in the railways sector, to which Articles 6(2) to (5) and 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, relate, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Czech Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
Case T-616/11 P: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant — Reimbursement of avoidable costs — Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, expenditure, legal basis, redemption








C_2013026EN.01004801.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/48





Order of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-616/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant - Reimbursement of avoidable costs - Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal)
2013/C 26/95
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Del Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 in Case F-69/10 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, assistant, competition (EU), word processing








C_2012340EN.01001201.xml










8.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/12





NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
2012/C 340/05
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising an open competition:
EPSO/AST/124/12 — Lithuanian-language proofreaders
This competition notice is published only in Lithuanian in Official Journal C 340 A of 8 November 2012.
Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case T-268/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Commission v Strack (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Leave — Sick leave — Annulment at first instance of the Commission’s decision refusing to carry over days of annual leave not taken by the person concerned — Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations — Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations — Directive 2003/88/EC — Appeal well founded — Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given — Dismissal of the action)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, paid leave, sick leave








C_2012399EN.01001903.xml










22.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/19





Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Commission v Strack
(Case T-268/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Leave - Sick leave - Annulment at first instance of the Commission’s decision refusing to carry over days of annual leave not taken by the person concerned - Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations - Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Appeal well founded - Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given - Dismissal of the action)
2012/C 399/34
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and J. Currall, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 in Case F-120/07 Strack v Commission ECR-SC 0000 seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2011 in Case F 120/07 Strack v Commission;










2.


Dismisses the action brought by Mr Guido Strack before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-120/07;










3.


Orders Mr Strack and the European Commission to bear their own costs, both of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and at the present instance.






(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
Case T-415/11: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Hartmann v OHIM (Nutriskin Protection Complex) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark Nutriskin Protection Complex — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — OHIM’s decision-making practice — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012399EN.01002001.xml










22.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/20





Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Hartmann v OHIM (Nutriskin Protection Complex)
(Case T-415/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Nutriskin Protection Complex - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - OHIM’s decision-making practice - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
2012/C 399/35
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and A. Poch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2011 (Case R 1524/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the sign Nutriskin Protection Complex as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Paul Hartmann AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
Case C-438/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Lagura Vermögensverwaltung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen (Community customs code — Article 220(2)(b) — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Legitimate expectations — Impossibility of verifying the accuracy of a certificate of origin — Notion of ‘certificate based on an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter’ — Burden of proof — Scheme of generalised tariff preferences)
Date: 2012-11-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: certificate of origin, customs regulations, export, generalised preferences, import (EU), interpretation of the law, proof








C_2013009EN.01001901.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/19





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Lagura Vermögensverwaltung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
(Case C-438/11) (1)

(Community customs code - Article 220(2)(b) - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Legitimate expectations - Impossibility of verifying the accuracy of a certificate of origin - Notion of ‘certificate based on an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter’ - Burden of proof - Scheme of generalised tariff preferences)
2013/C 9/29
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lagura Vermögensverwaltung GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17) — Export of goods from a non-member country to the European Union — Subsequent verification of the proof of origin — Impossibility of retroactively establishing whether the content of a certificate of origin issued by the competent authorities of that non-member country is correct — Protection of the importer’s legitimate expectations

Operative part of the judgment

Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that if, owing to the fact that the exporter has ceased production, the competent authorities of the non-member country are unable, through a subsequent verification, to determine whether the certificate of origin Form A that they issued is based on a correct account of the facts by the exporter, the burden of proving that the certificate was based on a correct account of the facts by the exporter rests with the person liable for payment.


(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
Case C-506/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Gerd Schini 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.01003101.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/31





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Gerd Schini v Land Berlin
(Case C-506/12)
2013/C 26/58
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gerd Schini

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).