do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-605/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Welmory Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku
Date: 2012-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, VAT, interpretation of the law, legal domicile, provision of services








C_2013079EN.01000802.xml










16.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Welmory Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku
(Case C-605/12)
2013/C 79/15
Language of the case: Polish

Requesting court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Welmory Sp. z o.o.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

Question referred

For the purposes of the taxation of services supplied by company A, which is established in Poland, to company B, which is established in another Member State of the European Union, in circumstances where company B carries out its economic activity by making use of company A’s infrastructure, is the fixed establishment within the meaning of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) situated in the place in which company A is established?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-553/12: Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA v OHIM
Date: 2012-12-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pleasure craft, registered trade mark, river tourism, trade-mark law








C_2013055EN.01002002.xml










23.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/20





Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA v OHIM
(Case T-553/12)
2013/C 55/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by G. Barbaut, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible;










—


annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 October 2012 in Case R 1709/2011-2;










—


alter that decision;










—


order the General Court of the European Union to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BATEAUX-MOUCHES’ in respect of services in Classes 39, 41 and 43 — Application for registration No 5 666 631

Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-559/12: Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council
Date: 2012-12-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), iron, originating product, steel








C_2013046EN.01002301.xml










16.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/23





Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council
(Case T-559/12)
2013/C 46/41
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd (Ningbo, China) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, insofar as it relates to the applicant; and










—


Order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.





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 that the exclusion from the dumping calculation of certain export transactions of the applicant violates Articles 2(11), 2(8), 2(9), 2(7)(a) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, the principle of non-discrimination and Article 2.4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the rejection of certain adjustments requested by the Applicant violates Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community and Article 2.4 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. In the alternative, the applicant considers that the Council violated Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Case C-613/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
Date: 2012-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, administrative cooperation, customs inspection, interpretation of the law, movement certificate, originating product








C_2013101EN.01000803.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
(Case C-613/12)
2013/C 101/18
Language of the case: German

Requesting court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Helm Düngemittel GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

Question referred

Has the origin of goods not been established in the case where a partial movement certificate for the goods was issued under Article 20 of Protocol 4 concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation, as amended by Decision No 1/2006 of the EU-Egypt Association Council of 17 February 2006, (1) although the requirements of that provision were not fulfilled because the goods were not under the control of the issuing customs authorities at the point in time at which the partial movement certificate was issued.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 73, p. 1.
Case C-606/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Dresser Rand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli
Date: 2012-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, carriage of goods, interpretation of the law, transfer of property








C_2013101EN.01000702.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Dresser Rand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli
(Case C-606/12)
2013/C 101/14
Language of the case: Italian

Requesting court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dresser Rand SA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli

Questions referred







1.


Does the transfer of goods to Italy from another Member State for the purpose of verifying whether those goods may be adapted to other goods acquired within Italy, without anything being done to the goods brought into Italy, come within the notion of ‘work on the goods’ referred to in Article 17(2)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and, in this connection, is it appropriate to assess the nature of the transactions which took place between F.B. ITMI and DR-IT?










2.


Is Article 17(2)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as precluding the Member States from providing in their legislation or practices that the dispatch or transport of goods is not to be treated as a transfer to another Member State except on condition that the goods are returned to the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-615/12 P: Appeal brought on 24 December 2012 by Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission
Date: 2012-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement of EU law, judicial proceedings, legal basis








C_2013063EN.01001301.xml










2.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/13





Appeal brought on 24 December 2012 by Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission

(Case C-615/12 P)
2013/C 63/21
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (represented by: H. Karl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06, the case to be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union;










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant’s appeal is founded on breach of procedural requirements, their unlawful application having led to the action being dismissed as inadmissible, as a result of which the appellant’s interests have been adversely affected, and also infringement of European Union law by the General Court.
In its decision the General Court dismissed the application as inadmissible as it was said not to have been sufficiently reasoned having regard to the legal basis, and thus did not comply with Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. That is not reflected in the case-file. The requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure were applied arbitrarily and contrary to the purpose of the provision.
The General Court also failed to take any account at all, in relation to the question of merit in accordance with Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, of the further submissions in the appellant’s reply and of the arguments in its observations on the plea of inadmissibility, or took account of them solely in order to argue their inadequacy, and thereby contrary to the rules of procedure and disregarding all arguments refused to allow the application to be admitted.
By its decision to dismiss the application on the ground of inadmissibility the General Court took a decision that could have been taken in that form and challenged as such as long ago as 2007, and thereby infringed any procedural foreseeability, transparency and efficiency. Accordingly there has been no fair and balanced procedure.
Case C-607/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Dresser Rand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli
Date: 2012-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, carriage of goods, interpretation of the law, transfer of property








C_2013101EN.01000703.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Dresser Rand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli
(Case C-607/12)
2013/C 101/15
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dresser Rand SA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli

Questions referred







1.


Does the transfer of goods to Italy from another Member State for the purpose of verifying whether those goods may be adapted to other goods acquired within Italy, without anything being done to the goods brought into Italy, come within the notion of ‘work on the goods’ referred to in Article 17(2)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and, in this connection, is it appropriate to assess the nature of the transactions which took place between F.B. ITMI and DR-IT?










2.


Is Article 17(2)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as precluding the Member States from providing in their legislation or practices that the dispatch or transport of goods is not to be treated as a transfer to another Member State except on condition that the goods are returned to the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case F-158/12: Action brought on 24 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-12-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, recruitment, servant (EU), work contract








C_2013086EN.01003001.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/30





Action brought on 24 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-158/12)
2013/C 86/50
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the request for employment of the applicant as a member of the contract staff in function group III which was made by the Office for Infrastructures and Logistics in Luxembourg and damages for the material damage suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Head of Unit of the ‘Recruitment and end of service’ unit (DG HR.B.2) of the European Commission of 6 March 2012 rejecting the application for employment of the applicant as a member of the contract staff in function group III which had been made by the Office for Infrastructures and Logistics in Luxembourg;










—


order the defendant to compensate for the material damage caused to the applicant by the contested decision; to evaluate the amount corresponding to the difference between the payments corresponding to function group III since the month of October 2011 and those payments which he continued to receive as a member of the contractual staff of function group I, plus corresponding interest from the due date of each months’ pay until the date of their actual payment;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-562/12: Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Dalli v Commission
Date: 2012-12-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, infringement of EU law, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence








C_2013046EN.01002401.xml










16.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/24





Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Dalli v Commission
(Case T-562/12)
2013/C 46/43
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: John Dalli (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: L. Levi, A. Alamanou and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the oral decision of 16 October 2012 of his termination of office with immediate effect, taken by the President of the European Commission;










—


Order the defendant to pay compensation of both the moral and material prejudice; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the entire costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 245 and 247 TFEU, as the challenged decision has been adopted by an non competent author.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, violation of Article 17.6 TEU and of the general principle of legal certainty, as the challenged decision cannot be considered as entailing a valid resignation of the applicant.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifests errors and breach of procedural rules, as the challenged decision does not rest on valid grounds and the OLAF findings, on which the challenged decision is based, result from an illegal procedure.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of defence, as the applicant was unable to make any appraisal and assessment of the facts to be held against him.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality, as the applicant was unable to know which are the objectives legitimately pursued by the challenged decision and if any possible other measure less punitive has been explored.
Case T-558/12: Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory v Council
Date: 2012-12-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), iron, originating product, steel








C_2013046EN.01002202.xml










16.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/22





Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory v Council
(Case T-558/12)
2013/C 46/40
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Changshu City Standard Parts Factory (Changshu City, China) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, insofar as it relates to the applicant; and










—


Order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.





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 that the exclusion from the dumping calculation of certain export transactions of the applicant violates Articles 2(11), 2(8), 2(9), 2(7)(a) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, the principle of non-discrimination and Article 2.4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the rejection of certain adjustments requested by the Applicant violates Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community and Article 2.4 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. In the alternative, the applicant considers that the Council violated Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.