do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-668/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Alliance One International, Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Whether unlawful conduct of a subsidiary attributable to its parent company — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Cooperation — Obligation to state reasons — Mitigating circumstances)
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, competition, equal treatment, fixing of prices, infringement of EU law, market-sharing agreement, restriction on competition, subsidiary, tobacco industry








C_2013344EN.01001801.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/18





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Alliance One International, Inc. v European Commission
(Case C-668/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Whether unlawful conduct of a subsidiary attributable to its parent company - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Cooperation - Obligation to state reasons - Mitigating circumstances)
2013/C 344/29
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Alliance One International, Inc. (represented by: M. Odriozola and A. Vide, Abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, and J. Bourke, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-38/05 Agroexpansion v Commission, by which the General Court rejected, in part, an application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B2 — Raw tobacco — Spain)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Alliance One International, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
Case C-293/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special regime for travel agencies — Differences between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers — Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’ )
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Greece, VAT, basis of tax assessment, infringement of EU law, invoicing, tax relief, tax system, travel agency, traveller








C_2013344EN.01000702.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/7





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-293/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special regime for travel agencies - Differences between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)
2013/C 344/09
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Hellenic Republic;










3.


Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
Case C-172/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — EI du Pont de Nemours and Company v European Commission, DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for chloroprene rubber — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company — Joint control by two parent companies — Decisive influence — Joint and several liability — Limitation period — Legitimate interest)
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition, fixing of prices, infringement of EU law, market-sharing agreement, restriction on competition, subsidiary, synthetic rubber








C_2013344EN.01002702.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/27





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — EI du Pont de Nemours and Company v European Commission, DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA
(Case C-172/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for chloroprene rubber - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company - Joint control by two parent companies - Decisive influence - Joint and several liability - Limitation period - Legitimate interest)
2013/C 344/46
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (represented by: J. Boyce and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and A. Biolan, acting as Agents), DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA (represented by: J. Boyce and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 in Case T-76/08 EI du Pont de Nemours and Others v Commission, in which that Court dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber) concerning a cartel in the market for chloroprene rubber in the European Economic Area (EEA), relating to market-sharing and price-fixing, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant — Joint venture — Imputability of the unlawful conduct

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders EI du Pont de Nemours and Company to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.
Case C-518/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 26 September 2013 — The Queen on the application of Eventech Ltd v The Parking Adjudicator
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bus, means of public conveyance, road traffic, transport regulations








C_2013367EN.01002402.xml










14.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 367/24





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 26 September 2013 — The Queen on the application of Eventech Ltd v The Parking Adjudicator
(Case C-518/13)
2013/C 367/43
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: The Queen on the application of Eventech Ltd

Defendant: The Parking Adjudicator

Interested parties: London Borough of Camden, Transport for London

Questions referred







1.


Does making a bus lane on a public road available to Black Cabs but not minicabs, during the hours of operation of that bus lane, involve the use of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, in the circumstances of the present case?










2.








(a)


In determining whether making a bus lane on a public road available to Black Cabs but not minicabs, during the hours of operation of that bus lane, is selective for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, what is the relevant objective by reference to which the question whether Black Cabs and minicabs are in a comparable legal and factual situation should be assessed?










(b)


If it can be shown that the relevant objective, for the purposes of question 2(a), is at least in part to create a safe and efficient transport system, and that there are safety and/or efficiency considerations that justify allowing Black Cabs to drive in bus lanes and that do not apply in the same way to minicabs, can it be said that the measure is not selective within the meaning of Article 107 (1) TFEU?










(c)


In answering question 2(b), is it necessary to consider whether the Member State relying on that justification has demonstrated, in addition, that the favourable treatment of Black Cabs by comparison with minicabs is proportionate and does not go beyond what is necessary?














3.


Is making a bus lane on a public road available to Black Cabs but not to minicabs, during the hours of operation of that bus lane, liable to affect trade between Member States for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, in circumstances where the road in question is located in central London, and there is no bar to citizens from any Member State owning or driving either Black Cabs or minicabs?
Case C-546/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund, acting on behalf of Erik Toftgaard v Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet (Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) and (2) — Refusal to grant availability pay to civil servants who have reached the age of 65 and are entitled to a pension)
Date: 2013-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, civil servant, equal treatment, pension scheme








C_2013344EN.01001302.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/13





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund, acting on behalf of Erik Toftgaard v Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet
(Case C-546/11) (1)

(Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) and (2) - Refusal to grant availability pay to civil servants who have reached the age of 65 and are entitled to a pension)
2013/C 344/21
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund, acting on behalf of Erik Toftgaard

Defendant: Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet

Interveners: Centralorganisationernes Fællesudvalg (CFU), Kommunale Tjenestemænd og Overenskomstansatte (KTO), Personalestyrelsen, Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), Danske Regioner

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Art. 6(1) and (2) of 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) — Fixing of age limits for access or entitlement to retirement or invalidity benefits under occupational social security schemes — Discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation providing, in the event that a worker’s post ceases to exist, for compensation up to the amount of his salary for three years or until he has reached retirement age — Retirement pension paid to a worker who has reached the age of 65 whose post has ceased to exist, irrespective of his entitlement to continue working after the age of 65

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as being applicable only to retirement or invalidity benefits under an occupational social security scheme.










2.


Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which a civil servant who has reached the age at which he is able to receive a retirement pension is denied, solely for that reason, entitlement to availability pay intended for civil servants dismissed on grounds of redundancy.






(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.