EUROPEAN COURTS

JUDGMENTS FROM THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RGHTS AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

No. 2 (February 2013)

Abduction of Europa (Rembrandt van Rijn, 1632 - detail)

European Courts is a EU and ECHR law blog for judges, legal practitioners, legal academics and other interest groups. Its general objective is a better understanding of EU and human rights law. This blog also aims at bridging the gap between the law in the books and the law in action. It creates a platform of exchange of knowledge and experiences between judges and academics. European Courts publishes a monthly newsmagazine that provides an overview of recent case law from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the Court of Justice of the European Union. This newsletter is still under construction.

Follow us at @EuropeanCourts

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

INDEX
1. JUDGMENTS FROM THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS RIGHT TO LIFE (Article 2) PROHIBITION OF TORTURE (Article 3) RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY (Article 5) RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (Article 6) NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW (Article 7) FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION (Article 9) FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (Article 10) ADMISSIBILITY CRITERIA (Article 35) PROTECTION OF PROPERTY (Article 1 PROTOCOL NO. 1) RIGHT TO EDUCATION (Article 2 PROTOCOL NO. 2)

2. JUDGMENTS FROM THE EU COURT OF JUSTICE AGRICULTURECOMPETITION COMMON FOREIGN AND SOCIAL SECURITY POLICY CONSUMER PROTECTION CRIMINAL MATTERS ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNITY SCHENGEN ENVIRONMENT FREE MOVEMENT OF SERVICES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PUBLIC HEALTH REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING STATE AID TAXES TENDER PROCEDURE (AIR)TRANSPORT

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

1. JUDGMENTS FROM THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

STRASBOURG

JUDGMENTS
RIGHT TO LIFE (Article 2)
17 January 2013 Mosendz v. Ukraine press release judgment Failure to duly account for a conscripts death allegedly driven to suicide by his supervisors bullying. The case concerned the death of the applicants son (D.M.), while he was on guard duty, during his mandatory military service. The Court held that the authorities had not effectively investigated and duly accounted for D.M.s death, and that they had not adequately protected his life. The Court, having noted widespread concern over the existence of hazing (didivshchyna2) in the Ukrainian army, found in particular that limiting the responsibility for D.M.s death to wrongdoings of individual officers instead of allocating responsibility to upper hierarchical authority levels was especially worrying.

PROHIBITION OF TORTURE (Article 3)

29 January 2013 S.H.H. t. United Kingdom press release judgment A disabled asylum seeker failed to prove that his removal would expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment In its Chamber judgment in the case of S.H.H. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 60367/10), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held by four votes to three, that: there would be no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if Mr S.H.H., a failed asylum seeker with physical disabilities were removed to Afghanistan. The Court noted in particular that Article 3 did not oblige a Contracting State to provide all illegal immigrants with free and unlimited health care. It held that the responsibility of Contracting States under Article 3 could only be engaged in very exceptional cases of general violence where the humanitarian grounds against removal were compelling, which the applicant had failed to prove in his case.

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

17 January 2013 Karabet and others v. Ukraine press release judgment Group of prisoners tortured in search and security operation following their hunger strike The case concerned the treatment of a group of detainees during and after a search and security operation conducted in January 2007 in Izyaslav Prison. The Court held in particular that the large-scale violence against the prisoners, intended to punish them for their peaceful hunger strike, had amounted to torture. 10 January 2013 Claes v. Belgium press release judgment The Court criticises the inadequate care of persons with mental disabilities in Belgian prisons The case concerned the applicants detention for over 15 years in a prison psychiatric wing. A court had ruled that he was not criminally responsible for his actions. The Court considered that the national authorities had not provided the applicant with adequate care and that he had been subjected to degrading treatment as a result. The Court stressed that a structural problem existed on account of the inability to afford appropriate care to persons with mental disorders who were held in prison owing to the shortage of places in psychiatric facilities elsewhere. 8 January 2013 Torreggiani and others v. Italy press release judgment The Court calls on Italy to resolve the structural problem of overcrowding in prisons, which is incompatible with the Convention The Courts judgment is a pilot judgment concerning the issue of overcrowding in Italian prisons. This structural problem has now been acknowledged at national level. The Court called on the authorities to put in place, within one year, a remedy or combination of remedies providing redress in respect of violations of the Convention resulting from overcrowding in prison. The Court decided to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in view of the growing number of persons potentially concerned in Italy and of the judgments finding a violation liable to result from the applications in question.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY (Article 5)

29 January 2013 Betteridge v. United Kingdom press release judgment

13-month delay in Parole Board review of prisoners detention was too long In its judgment in the case of Betteridge v. the United Kingdom (application no. 1497/10), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 5 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned Mr Betteridges complaint about the delays in his case being heard by the Parole Board. The Court noted in particular that, even though the national courts had acknowledged in June 2009 that there had been a violation of Mr Betteridges right under the European Convention to a speedy review of his detention, the Parole Board hearing in his case had still not taken place for some eight months after that. Furthermore, although steps had been taken by the authorities to try and address the systemic delays in Parole Board hearings by the time of the judgment in Mr Betteridges case, the fact remained that the authorities had failed to anticipate the demand which would be placed on the prison system

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

following the introduction of the IPP sentencing scheme (indeterminate imprisonment for the public protection) and that it was for the State to organise its judicial system in such a way as to enable its courts to comply with the requirements of the Convention. 22 January 2013 Mihailovs v. Letland press release judgment Disabled man should not have been held in social care institution against his will for years without review The case concerned the complaint of a man who had been divested of his legal capacity that he had been held against his will in a social care institution for more than ten years without possibility of release. The Court found that Mr Mihailovs placement in the institution in le parish had been unlawful, in particular as there had been no objective medical opinion to justify his detention, and that under Latvian law there was no possibility for a person in such a situation to have their detention reviewed by the courts.

RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (Article 6)

10 January 2013 Legillon v. France press release judgment and Agnelet v. France press release judgment Judgments concerning the reasoning of assize court judgments in France In both cases the applicants complained of a lack of reasoning in the assize court judgments by which they were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. The Court reiterated the conclusions it reached in the Taxquet v. Belgium case3, and in particular the fact that the absence of a reasoned verdict by a lay jury does not in itself constitute a breach of the accused's right to a fair trial. Having examined both the bill of indictment and the questions put to the jury in each case, it found that Mr Legillon had had sufficient guarantees to enable him to understand the verdict by which he was convicted, but that Mr Agnelet had not. The Court also took note of the 2011 reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the reasoning of assize court judgments. 9 January 2013 Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine press release judgment Proceedings leading to dismissal of Supreme Court Judge were unfair The case concerned the dismissal of a Supreme Court Judge. The Court held in particular: that the proceedings leading up to Mr Volkovs dismissal had not fulfilled the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal; that the proceedings before the High Council of Justice, which initiated the inquiries leading up to his dismissal, had been unfair as there were no time-limits for such proceedings; that the vote in Parliament on his dismissal had been unlawful; and, that the chamber of the Higher Administrative Court, which reviewed the case, had not complied with the principle of a tribunal established by law. Under Articles 41 (just satisfaction) and 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), the Court, in view of the serious systemic problems concerning the functioning of the Ukrainian judiciary disclosed in Mr Volkovs case, recommended Ukraine to urgently reform its system of judicial discipline. It further held that, given the very exceptional circumstances of the case, Ukraine was to reinstate Mr Volkov in the post of Supreme Court judge at the earliest possible date.

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

8 January 2013 Balti v. Letland press release judgment Latvian courts should have examined complaint of man convicted of drug offence that he was incited by the police The case concerned the complaint of a man convicted of acquisition of drugs that he had been incited by an undercover police agent to commit this offence. The Court found that the Latvian courts had not properly addressed Mr Balti incitement complaint, in particular since they had failed to scrutinise the prosecutors decision to authorise the undercover operation.

NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW (Article 7)

22 January 2013 Camilleri v. Malta press release judgment Punishment in drug trafficking cases under Maltese law not foreseeable enough The case concerned the discretion of the public prosecutor to decide in which court to try a drug trafficking case and therefore the punishment bracket (six months to ten years if tried in the Court of Magistrates, or four years to life if tried in the Criminal Court). The Court found that Maltese law was not sufficiently foreseeable in that it did not provide for any guidance on what would amount to a more serious offence or a less serious one.

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION (Article 9)

15 January 2013 Eweida and others v. United Kingdom press release judgment Right to manifest religion at work is protected but must be balanced against rights of others All four applicants are practising Christians. Ms Eweida, a British Airways employee, and Ms Chaplin, a geriatrics nurse, complained that their employers placed restrictions on their visibly wearing Christian crosses around their necks while at work. Ms Ladele, a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and Mr McFarlane, a Relate counsellor complained about their dismissal for refusing to carry out certain of their duties which they considered would condone homosexuality. The Court did not consider that the lack of explicit protection in UK law to regulate the wearing of religious clothing and symbols in the workplace in itself meant that the right to manifest religion was breached, since the issues could be and were considered by the domestic courts in the context of discrimination claims brought by the applicants. In Ms Eweidas case, the Court held that on one side of the scales was Ms Eweidas desire to manifest her religious belief. On the other side of the scales was the employers wish to project a certain corporate image. While this aim was undoubtedly legitimate, the domestic courts accorded it too much weight. As regards Ms Chaplin, the importance for her to be allowed to bear witness to her Christian faith by wearing her cross visibly at work weighed heavily in the balance. However, the reason for asking her to remove the cross, namely the protection of health and safety on a hospital ward, was inherently more important than that which applied in respect of Ms Eweida and the hospital managers were well placed to make decisions about clinical safety. In the cases of Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlane, it could not be said that national courts had failed to strike a fair balance when they upheld the employers decisions

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

to bring disciplinary proceedings. In each case the employer was pursuing a policy of non-discrimination against service-users, and the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation was also protected under the Convention.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (Article 10)

22 January 2013 kran Aydin and others v. Turkey press release judgment Conviction for speaking Kurdish during election campaigns breached freedom of expression The case concerned the applicants complaint about a law, amended in 2010, which prohibited the use of any language other than Turkish during election campaigns. The Court held in particular that, while States had discretion to determine their linguistic policies and were entitled to regulate the use of languages during election campaigns, a blanket ban on the use of unofficial languages coupled with criminal sanctions were not compatible with freedom of expression.

ADMISSIBILITY CRITERIA (Article 35)

15 January 2013 E.B. (nr. 2) v. Hungary press release decision Complaint concerning new legislation in Hungary on private pension funds inadmissible In its decision in the case of E.B. (No. 2) v. Hungary (application no. 34929/11) the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final. The case concerned changes to the Hungarian pension system in 2010 via new laws and the allegation that the new legislation effectively amounted to confiscating private pension contributions for the benefit of the State. The Court held that there had been no interference with Ms E.B.s property rights, including her legitimate expectation to receive a pension in the future, as she was entitled to future pension payments through the contributions she had made during the entire period of her employment either to a private pension fund or the State fund.

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY (Article 1 PROTOCOL NO. 1)

29 January 2013 Zolotas v. Greece (nr. 2) press release judgment The Greek authorities confiscated a bank account that had been dormant for 20 years, breaching the right to protection of property In todays Chamber judgment in the case of Zolotas v. Greece (no. 2) (application no. 66610/09), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case the applicant complained that the Greek courts had found his claims in respect of his bank account to be time-barred and had assigned the balance to the State. The Court accepted that the idea of subjecting the right of bank-account holders to a limitation period had the legitimate aim of terminating legal relationships that had been created so long before that their existence had become uncertain. The Court, however, took the view that the State had failed in its duty to ensure that a fair

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

balance was struck between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of an individuals right to the protection of his property, because it had not obliged banks to warn their customers of the risks incurred in the run-up to the end of the limitation period.

RIGHT TO EDUCATION (Article 2 PROTOCOL NO. 2)

ARREST 29 January 2013 Horvth and Kiss t. Hungary press release judgment Placement of Roma children in school for the mentally disabled was discriminatory In its Chamber judgment in the case of Horvth and Kiss v. Hungary (application no. 11146/11), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) to the European Convention on Human Rights read in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. The case concerned the complaints of two young men of Roma origin that they had been wrongly placed in schools for the mentally disabled and that their education there had amounted to discrimination. The Court underlined that there was a long history of wrongful placement of Roma children in special schools in Hungary. It found that the applicants schooling arrangement indicated that the authorities had failed to take into account their special needs as members of a disadvantaged group. As a result, the applicants had been isolated and had received an education which made their integration into society at large difficult.

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

2. JUDGMENTS FROM THE EU COURT OF JUSTICE

LUXEMBURG

JUDGMENTS
AGRICULTURE
24 January 2013 Case C-568/11 Agroferm opinion Common agricultural policy Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 Production refund for the processing of sugar Classification in the Combined Nomenclature of a product containing lysine sulphate Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 Recovery of unduly paid sums Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations judgment 17 January 2013 Case C-623/11 Socit Geodis Calberson GE judgment Agriculture Food aid Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 Programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation Successful tenderer for a contract for the transport of beef Conferring of jurisdiction Arbitration clause

COMPETITION
22 January 2013 Case C-286/11 P Commission / Tomkins Grand Chamber judgment Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices European market for copper and copper alloy fittings Liability of the parent company stemming solely from the unlawful conduct of its subsidiary Principle of ne ultra petita Effect on the legal situation of the parent company of an annulment determined by a judgment concerning a subsidiary

COMMON FOREIGN AND SOCIAL SECURITY POLICY

29 January 2013 Case T-496/10 Bank Mellat / Council judgment Common foreign and security policy Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation Freezing of funds Obligation to state reasons Rights of the defence Right to effective judicial protection Manifest error of assessment

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

22 January 2013 Case C-239/12 P Abdulrahim / Council and Commission Grand Chamber opinion Appeal Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Osama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 Removal of the interested party from the list of persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources Interest in bringing proceedings No need to adjudicate

CONSUMER PROTECTION
17 January 2013 Case C-206/11 Kck judgment Consumer protection Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market Legislation of a Member State providing for prior authorisation of announcements of sales

CRIMINAL MATTERS
29 January 2013 Case C-396/11 Radu Grand Chamber judgment Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of prosecution Grounds for refusing execution

ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNITY

IMMIGRATION

31 January 2013 Case C-175/11 HID and BA judgment Request for a preliminary ruling Common European Asylum System Application by a national of a third country seeking refugee status Directive 2005/85/EC Article 23 Possibility of prioritising the processing of asylum applications National procedure applying a prioritised procedure for the examination of applications by persons belonging to a certain category defined on the basis of nationality or country of origin Right to an effective judicial remedy Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 Concept of court or tribunal within the meaning of that article 31 January 2013 Case C-534/11 Arslan opinion Onderdaan van derde land Illegaal verblijf Bewaring met het oog op uitzetting Richtlijn 2008/115/EG Verzoek om internationale bescherming Richtlijn 2005/85/EG Richtlijn 2003/9/EG Misbruik van rechten 15 January 2013 Case C-529/11 Alarape and Tijani opinion Free movement of persons Directive 2004/38/EC Right of permanent residence Article 16 Legal residence Residence based on Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
SCHENGEN

17 January 2012 Case C-23/12 Zakaria judgment Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) Alleged violation

10

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

of the right to respect for human dignity Effective judicial protection Right of access to a court

ENVIRONMENT
31 January 2013 Case C-26/11 Belgische Petroleum Unie e.a. judgment Directive 98/70/CE Quality of petrol and diesel fuels Articles 3 to 5 Environmental specifications for fuels Directive 98/34/EC Information procedure in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services Articles 1 and 8 Concept of technical regulation Obligation to communicate draft technical regulations National rules requiring petroleum companies placing petrol and/or diesel fuels on the market in the same calendar year also to place on the market a quantity of biofuels

FREE MOVEMENT OF SERVICES

24 January 2013 Joined cases C-186/11 + C-209/11 Stanleybet e.a. Sportingbet press release judgment Articles 43 and 49 EC National legislation granting an exclusive right for the running, management, organisation and operation of games of chance to a single undertaking, in the form of a public limited company listed on the stock exchange Advertising of the games and expansion in other Member States of the European Union State controls 22 January 2013 Case C-283/11 Sky sterreich Grand Chamber press release judgment commentaar Directive 2010/13/EU Provision of audiovisual media services Article 15(6) Validity Events of high interest to the public that are subject to exclusive broadcasting rights Right of access of broadcasters to such events for the purpose of making short news reports Limitation of possible compensation for the holder of the exclusive right to additional costs incurred in providing such access Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Articles 16 and 17 Proportionality

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
24 January 2013 Joined cases C-457/11 + C-458/11 + C-459/11 + C-460/11 VG Wort Fujitsu Technology Solutions Hewlett-Packard opinion Copyright and related rights in the information society Temporal effect of Directive 2001/29/EC Reproduction right Exceptions or limitations Fair compensation Notion of reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects Reproductions made by means of printers or personal computers Reproductions from a digital source Reproductions made using a chain of devices Consequences of non-use of available technological measures designed to prevent or restrict unauthorised acts Consequences of implicit or explicit authorisation to make reproductions 22 January 2013 Joined cases T225/06 RENV + T255/06 RENV, + T257/06 RENV + T309/06 RENV Budjovick Budvar / OHMI - AnheuserBusch (BUD) press release judgment comment Community trade mark Opposition proceedings Applications for Community word and figurative marks BUD Appellations bud Relative grounds for refusal Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

11

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

15 January 2013 Case T-237/11 Lidl Stiftung / OHMI - Lactimilk (BELLRAM) judgment Community trade mark Opposition proceedings Application for the Community word mark BELLRAM Earlier national word and figurative marks RAM and Ram Relative ground for refusal Likelihood of confusion Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 Right to be heard Articles 63(2), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 Opposition period 15 January 2013 Case T-625/11 BSH / OHMI (ecoDoor) judgment Community trade mark Application for Community word mark ecoDoor Absolute ground for refusal Descriptive character Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

PUBLIC HEALTH
31 January 2013 Case C-535/11 Novartis Pharma opinion Public health Procedures for the authorisation of medicinal products for human use Medicinal product with marketing authorisation specifying the container in which the product is to be placed on the market Product transferred into another container Whether a new marketing authorisation is required

REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING

31 January 2013 Case C-394/11 Belov judgment Request for a preliminary ruling Article 267 TFEU Concept of national court Lack of jurisdiction of the Court 15 January 2013 Case C-416/10 Krian e.a. Grand Chamber press release judgment Article 267 TFEU Annulment of a judicial decision Referral back to the court concerned Obligation to comply with the annulment decision Reference for a preliminary ruling Whether possible Environment Aarhus Convention Directive 85/337/EEC Directive 96/61/EC Public participation in the decisionmaking process Construction of a landfill site Application for a permit Trade secrets Non-communication of a document to the public Effect on the validity of the decision authorising the landfill site Rectification Assessment of the environmental impact of the project Final opinion prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union Application in time of Directive 85/337 Effective legal remedy Interim measures Suspension of implementation Annulment of the contested decision Right to property Interference

STATE AID
24 January 2013 Case C-73/11 P Frucona Koice / Commissie judgment Appeal State aid Cancellation of 65% of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery Private creditor test Limits of judicial review Substitution by the General Court of its own grounds for those set out in the contested decision Manifest error of assessment Distortion of evidence

12

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

24 January 2013 Case C-529/09 Commission / Spain judgment Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations State aid incompatible with the common market Obligation of recovery Failure to comply with a Commission Decision Objection of inadmissibility Res judicata by means of a previous judgment of the Court 24 January 2013 Case C-646/11 P 3F (anciennement SID) / Commission judgment Appeal State aid Tax-reduction measures Seafarers working on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register Article 88(3) EC Preliminary examination stage Commission decision not to raise objections Action for annulment Conditions for initiating the formal investigation procedure Existence of doubts regarding the compatibility of the aid with the common market Period for the examination 22 January 2013 Case T-308/00 Salzgitter / Commission judgment State aid Steel industry Tax incentives for the development of the border zone between the former German Democratic Republic and the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic Non-notified aid Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market Recovery Delay Legal certainty Calculation of the aid to be repaid Aid falling within the scope of the ECSC Treaty Investments for the protection of the environment Discount rate 17 January 2013 Case C-111/10 E.A. Commission / Council Grand Chamber opinion State aid Competence of the Council Third subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU Existing aid schemes Proposal for appropriate measures Effects Regulation No 659/1999 Aid for investment in the purchase of agricultural land in Lithuania

TAXES
CUSTOMS

17 January 2013 Case C-361/11 Hewlett-Packard Europe judgment Common Customs Tariff Combined Nomenclature Tariff classification Multifunctional printers combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function CN code 8443 31 91 Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 31 January 2013 Case C-155/12 RR Donnelley Global Turnkey Solutions Poland opinion Tax legislation Value added tax Article 47 of Directive 2006/112/EC Place where a service is supplied Service connected with immovable property Storage of goods 31 January 2013 Case C-642/11 Stroy trans judgment Taxation VAT Directive 2006/112/EC Principle of fiscal neutrality Right of deduction Refusal Article 203 Entry of the VAT on the invoice Chargeability Existence of a taxable transaction Identical determination in respect of the issuer of the invoice and its recipient Necessity

13

EUROPEAN COURTS NO. 2 (february 2013)

31 January 2013 Case C-643/11 LVK judgment Taxation VAT Directive 2006/112/EC Principle of fiscal neutrality Right of deduction Refusal Article 203 Entering of the VAT on the invoice Chargeability Existence of a taxable transaction Identical determination in respect of the issuer of the invoice and its recipient Necessity 31 January 2013 Case C-663/11 Scandic Distilleries opinion Directive 92/12/EEC Excise duty on products for consumption in another Member State Refusal to reimburse duty paid in the first Member State Compatibility with Union law 17 January 2013 Case C-224/11 BG Leasing judgment VAT Leasing services supplied together with insurance for the leased item, subscribed to by the lessor and invoiced by the latter to the lessee Classification Single complex service or two distinct services Exemption Insurance transaction 17 January 2013 Case C-360/11 Commission / Spain press release judgment Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Value added tax Directive 2006/112/EC Application of a reduced rate Articles 96 and 98(2) Points 3 and 4 of Annex III Pharmaceutical products normally used for health care, prevention of illnesses and as treatment for medical and veterinary purposes Medical equipment, aids and other appliances normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, for the exclusive personal use of the disabled 17 January 2013 Case C-543/11 Woningstichting Maasdriel judgment Value-added tax Directive 2006/112/EC Article 135(1)(k), read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) Land which has not been built on Building land Definitions Demolition work for the purposes of future construction Exemption from VAT

TENDER PROCEDURE
29 January 2013 Joined cases T-339/10 + T-532/10 Cosepuri / EFSA judgment Public service contracts Tender procedure Shuttle service in Italy and Europe Tenderers bid rejected Decision to award the contract to another tenderer Non-contractual liability Access to documents Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 Bid of the successful tenderer Access refused Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party

(AIR)TRANSPORT
31 January 2013 Case C-12/11 McDonagh press release judgment Air transport Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 Notion of extraordinary circumstances Obligation to provide assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight due to extraordinary circumstances Volcanic eruption leading to the closure of air space Eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajkull

14