do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-133/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Q (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Gift tax — Exemption in respect of an ‘estate’  — No exemption in respect of property situated in the territory of another Member State)
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital transfer tax, free movement of capital, heritage protection, property tax








C_2015065EN.01000501.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/5





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Q
(Case C-133/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Tax legislation - Gift tax - Exemption in respect of an ‘estate’ - No exemption in respect of property situated in the territory of another Member State))
(2015/C 065/06)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Q

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an exemption from gift tax relating to certain properties that are protected on account of their forming part of the national cultural and historical heritage is limited to those properties situated in the territory of that Member State, provided that that exemption is not excluded in the case of properties that may form part of the cultural and historical heritage of that Member State despite being located in the territory of another State.


(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014455EN.01000201.xml










18.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 December 2014
(2014/C 455/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2448




JPY


Japanese yen


145,89




DKK


Danish krone


7,4405




GBP


Pound sterling


0,79320




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5019




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2010




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2505




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,626




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,42




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,45280




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2258




RON


Romanian leu


4,4750




TRY


Turkish lira


2,9330




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5203




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4482




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6518




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6073




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6247




KRW


South Korean won


1 363,34




ZAR


South African rand


14,5710




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7143




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6700




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 758,64




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3400




PHP


Philippine peso


55,751




RUB


Russian rouble


82,1728




THB


Thai baht


41,035




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3988




MXN


Mexican peso


18,3496




INR


Indian rupee


79,1973






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-639/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2014  — Commission v Republic of Poland Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/112/EC — VAT — Reduced rate — Articles designed for fire protection
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, VAT rate, fire protection, infringement of EU law








C_2015065EN.01001502.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/15





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2014 — Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-639/13) (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Reduced rate - Articles designed for fire protection)
(2015/C 065/21)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Holds that by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to supplies of goods designed for fire protection, set out in Annex No 3 to the Law of 11 March 2004 concerning tax on goods and services, the Republic of Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III to that directive.










2.


Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7405 — Yanfeng/JCI Interiors Business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2014455EN.01000101.xml










18.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7405 — Yanfeng/JCI Interiors Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 455/01)
On 11 December 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7405. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-551/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Società Edilizia Turistica Alberghiera Residenziale (SETAR) v Comune di Quartu S. Elena (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/98/EC — Article 15 — Waste management — Possibility for the waste producer to carry out the waste treatment independently — National transposition law adopted, but not yet in force — Expiry of the transposition period — Direct effect)
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, national implementing measure, principle of proportionality, waste management








C_2015065EN.01001202.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/12





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Società Edilizia Turistica Alberghiera Residenziale (SETAR) v Comune di Quartu S. Elena
(Case C-551/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/98/EC - Article 15 - Waste management - Possibility for the waste producer to carry out the waste treatment independently - National transposition law adopted, but not yet in force - Expiry of the transposition period - Direct effect))
(2015/C 065/17)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Società Edilizia Turistica Alberghiera Residenziale (SETAR)

Defendant: Comune di Quartu S. Elena

Operative part of the judgment

EU law and Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which transposes into national law a provision of that directive, but the entry into force of which is deferred pending the adoption of a subsequent internal measure, if that entry into force takes place after the end of the transposition period prescribed by the directive.
Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98, read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 13 of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which no provision is made permitting a waste producer or waste holder to dispose of that waste independently and accordingly to be exempted from liability for payment of a municipal tax for the disposal of waste, provided that that legislation meets the requirements entailed by the principle of proportionality.


(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.
Case C-434/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014  — European Commission v Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR Srl, Parker-Hannifin Corp. (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for marine hoses — Succession of legal entities — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Reduction of the fine by the General Court — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fine, jurisdiction, restriction on competition, unlawful agreement








C_2015065EN.01000901.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/9





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014 — European Commission v Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR Srl, Parker-Hannifin Corp.
(Case C-434/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for marine hoses - Succession of legal entities - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Reduction of the fine by the General Court - Unlimited jurisdiction))
(2015/C 065/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, V. Bottka and R. Sauer, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR Srl, Parker-Hannifin Corp. (represented by: F. Amato, F. Marchini Càmia and B. Amory, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Sets aside paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Parker ITR and Parker-Hannifin v Commission (T-146/09, EU:T:2013:258);










2)


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits of the action;










3)


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
Case C-585/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Petru Chiş v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Romania, environmental tax, motor car, ownership, reduction of gas emissions, vehicle registration








C_2015107EN.01001501.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Petru Chiş v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
(Case C-585/14)
(2015/C 107/20)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Petru Chiş

Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Questions referred







1)


In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles coming from another Member State of the European Union, where that tax does not apply to the registration of domestic motor vehicles, upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, in respect of which such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid, where the amount of such a residual tax incorporated into the value of the motor vehicles on the domestic market is lower than the new tax?










2)


In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?
Case C-583/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 December 2014  — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, administrative formalities, highway code, interpretation of the law, road traffic








C_2015096EN.01000301.xml










23.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság
(Case C-583/14)
(2015/C 096/04)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Benjámin Dávid Nagy

Defendant: Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 18 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as that figuring in the main proceedings according to which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the authorities of that Member State may be used on the roads in the Member State, and a person resident in the Member State who is not a worker within the meaning of EU law and who seeks exemption from that provision on the grounds that he is using a vehicle made available to him by an undertaking established in another Member State is required to prove on the spot the lawfulness of its use under the law of the Member State concerned, during a police inspection, on pain of an immediate fine from which no exemption is possible, the amount of which is equivalent to the fine that may be imposed for failure to register the vehicle?










2.


Should Article 20(2)(a) TFEU be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as that figuring in the main proceedings according to which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the authorities of that Member State may be used on the roads in the Member State, and a person resident in the Member State who is not a worker within the meaning of EU law and who seeks exemption from that provision on the grounds that he is using a vehicle made available to him by an undertaking established in another Member State is required to prove on the spot the lawfulness of its use under the law of the Member State concerned, during a police inspection, on pain of an immediate fine from which no exemption is possible, the amount of which is equivalent to the fine that may be imposed for failure to register the vehicle?
Case C-354/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Kolding, Civilretten) — FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft v Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), acting on behalf of Billund Kommune Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Dismissal — Ground — Obesity of the worker — General principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of obesity — Lack — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of all discrimination on the basis of a disability — Existence of a ‘disability’
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European social policy, discrimination based on disability, dismissal, equal treatment, nutritional disease, working conditions








C_2015065EN.01000701.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/7





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Kolding, Civilretten) — FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft v Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), acting on behalf of Billund Kommune
(Case C-354/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Dismissal - Ground - Obesity of the worker - General principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of obesity - Lack - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of all discrimination on the basis of a disability - Existence of a ‘disability’)
(2015/C 065/09)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Retten i Kolding, Civilretten

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft

Defendant: Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), acting on behalf of Billund Kommune

Operative part of the judgment







1)


EU law must be interpreted as not laying down a general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of obesity as such as regards employment and occupation;










2)


Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the obesity of a worker can constitute a ‘disability’ within the meaning of that directive where it entails a limitation resulting in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. It is for the national court to determine whether, in the main proceedings, those conditions are met.






(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
Case C-586/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Vasile Budișan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Romania, environmental tax, motor car, ownership, reduction of gas emissions, vehicle registration








C_2015107EN.01001502.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Vasile Budișan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
(Case C-586/14)
(2015/C 107/21)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Vasile Budișan

Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Questions referred







1)


In the light of Emergency Government Order No 9/2013 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles coming from another Member State of the European Union, where that tax does not apply to the registration of domestic motor vehicles, upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, in respect of which such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid, where the amount of such a residual tax incorporated into the value of the motor vehicles on the domestic market is lower than the new tax?










2)


In the light of Emergency Government Order No 9/2013 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?
Case C-599/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao) v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 4 — General budget of the European Union — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 — Article 53b(2) — Decision 2004/904/EC — European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010 — Article 25(2) — Legal basis of the obligation to recover funds in the event of an irregularity)
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, economic support, fund (EU), general budget (EU)








C_2015065EN.01001501.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/15





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao) v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
(Case C-599/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 4 - General budget of the European Union - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Article 53b(2) - Decision 2004/904/EC - European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010 - Article 25(2) - Legal basis of the obligation to recover funds in the event of an irregularity))
(2015/C 065/20)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 53(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 of 13 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that, failing a legal basis in national law, that provision provides a legal basis for a decision of the national authorities to alter, to the detriment of the beneficiary, the amount of the grant paid out of the European Refugee Fund, where management is shared between the Commission and the Member States, and to order the recovery from the beneficiary of part of that amount. It is for the national court to determine whether, taking into account the conduct of both the beneficiary of the funds and of the national administrative authorities, the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, as understood in EU law, have been observed as regards the demand for repayment.


(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.