EUROPEAN COURTSJUDGMENTS FROM THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RGHTS AND THE

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

No. 6 (June 2013)

European Courts is an 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.

Editors: Marc de Werd, Roel Andrea, Robin Cozijnsen, Menco Rasterhoff, Nienke de Visser, Mirjam Winkels.

Copyright © 2013 Marc de Werd

Follow European Courts on twitter: @EuropeanCourts

EUROPEAN COURTS No. 6 (June 2013)

INDEX

1. JUDGMENTS FROM THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

READ THE COURT’S CASE LAW INFORMATION NOTES PROHIBITION OF TORTURE (Article 3) RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY (Article 5) RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE (Article 8) DECISION ON ADMISSIBILTY PROTECTION OF PROPERTY (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) \ RIGHT TO EDUCATION (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1) RIGHT TO FREE ELECTIONS (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1)

2. JUDGMENTS FROM THE EU COURT OF JUSTICE

AGRICULTURE CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS COMMON FOREIGN AND SOCIAL SECURITY POLICY COMPETITION LAW CONSUMERS IMMIGRATION LAW INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS SOCIAL SECURITY STATE AID TAXES (AIR)TRANSPORT

2

EUROPEAN COURTS No. 6 (June 2013)

1. JUDGMENTS FROM THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

STRASBOURG

JUDGMENTS

READ THE COURT’S CASE LAW INFORMATION NOTES

The Court publishes fact sheets on Strasbourg case law and case law information notes.

PROHIBITION OF TORTURE (Article 3)

28 May2013 – Eremia and others v. Moldavia – press release – judgment

Moldovan authorities failed to prevent a police officer from repeatedly beating his wife in front of their two daughters.

The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the Moldovan authorities’ failure to protect them from the violent and abusive behaviour of their husband and father, a police officer. The Court held that, despite their knowledge of the abuse, the authorities had failed to take effective measures against Ms Eremia’s husband and to protect his wife from further domestic violence. It also considered that, despite the detrimental psychological effects of her daughters witnessing their father’s violence against their mother in the family home, little or no action had been taken to prevent the recurrence of such behaviour. Finally, the Court found that the authorities’ attitude had amounted to condoning violence and had been discriminatory towards Ms Eremia as a woman.

23 May 2013 – E. A. v. Russia – press release – judgment

The applicant, E.A., is an Uzbek national who was born in 1966. In August 2003, he was arrested in Perm (Russia) and placed in pre-trial detention. In April 2004, he was convicted of, in particular, causing fatal injuries to a person and sentenced to six years and one month’s imprisonment. After having served his sentence, he was released in September 2008. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that from 2003 to 2006 he had not received appropriate medical care in detention. Having been diagnosed with HIV, he complained in particular that an immunological assessment - being an indispensable element of the medical care for HIV patients - should have been, but had not been, carried out on a regular basis. Violation of Article 3 (inappropriate medical care in detention)

3

EUROPEAN COURTS No. 6 (June 2013)

RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY (Article 5)

2 May 2013 – Petukhova v. Russia – press release – judgment

Russian authorities should not have authorised the involuntary psychiatric examination of a schizophrenic

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Petukhova v. Russia (application no. 28796/07), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.The case concerned a Russian national who complained in particular that she had been unlawfully held in police custody before being transferred to hospital for an involuntary psychiatric examination. Given that the Russian courts had failed to review whether the applicant had indeed refused to have a psychiatric examination, the Court considered that the order authorising her involuntary psychiatric examination had been unlawful. It further held that, since the applicant had neither been informed about the order nor given an opportunity to comply with it, her detention at the police station prior to her transfer to the hospital for involuntary examination had been inconsistent with one of the exceptions set out under Article 5 § 1 (b), which allowed deprivation of liberty in order to ensure compliance with “a lawful order of a court”. Her complaint concerning her involuntary hospitalisation was declared inadmissible.

RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE (Article 8)

28 May 2013 – Leventoğlu Abdulkadiroğlu v. Turkey – press release – judgment

Impossibility for married women to use just their maiden name is discriminatory.

The case concerned the complaint by a woman that, under Turkish law, she was not allowed to keep just her maiden name in official documents after getting married, whereas married men kept their surname. The Court held that this difference in treatment on grounds of sex between persons in an analogous situation had no objective and reasonable justification.

16 May 2013 – Garnaga v. Oekraine – press release – judgment

Restrictions on changing patronymic unjustified

The case concerned the Ukrainian authorities’ refusal to allow Ms Garnaga to change her patronymic – the middle name derived from the father’s forename. The Court held in particular that the applicable law had not been clear enough and that the authorities had not given a justification for the restrictions on changing the patronymic while at the same time there was almost complete liberty to change one’s forename or surname.

14 May 2013 – Gross t. Zwitserland – press release – judgment

Swiss law not clear enough as to when assisted suicide is permitted

The case concerned the complaint of an elderly woman, who wishes to end her life but does not suffer from a clinical illness, that she was unable to obtain the Swiss authorities’ permission to be provided with a lethal dose of a drug in order to commit suicide. The Court held in particular that Swiss law, while providing the possibility of obtaining a lethal dose of a drug on medical prescription, did not provide sufficient guidelines ensuring clarity as to the extent of this right. This uncertain situation was likely to have caused Ms Gross a considerable degree of anguish. At the same time, the Court did not take a stance on the question of whether she should have been granted the possibility to acquire a lethal dose of medication allowing her to end her life.

“In the case Haas v. Switzerland it had already acknowledged that an individual’s right to decide the way in which and at which point his or her life should end, provided that he or she was in a position to freely form his or her judgment and to act accordingly, was one of the aspects of the right to respect for private life.”“The Court considered that this lack of clear legal guidelines was likely to have a deterrent effect on doctors who would have otherwise be inclined to provide a person in Ms Gross’ situation with the requested situation”.

4

EUROPEAN COURTS No. 6 (June 2013)

RELINQUISHMENT TO THE GRAND CHAMBER (Article 30)

30 May 2013 – S.A.S. v. France – press release – Case

Relinquishment to the Grand Chamber of a case concerning the wearing of the burka in public places in France.

Under Law no. 2010-1192 of 11 October 2010, which came into force on 11 April 2011, it is forbidden to conceal one’s face in public places. The applicant, who is a practising Muslim, states that she wears the burka in order to live according to her faith, her culture and her personal convictions. She specifies that it is a garment that covers the entire body and includes both a thin veil covering the face and the niqab, a veil covering the entire face except the eyes. She points out that neither her husband nor any other member of her family puts pressure on her to wear the burka. She adds that she wears the niqab in public and in private, but not systematically. She agrees not to wear the niqab in some circumstances but wants to be able to wear it when she chooses to. Her purpose, she states, is not to inconvenience others but to live according to her principles.

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILTY

7 May 2013 – Kupenova and others v. Bulgaria – press release – decision AND Nedelcheva and others v. Bulgaria– press release – judgment

Black sea coastal resort restitution of land cases

Both cases concerned applications brought by 12 Bulgarian nationals who live in Burgas (a port city on the Black Sea) and Sozopol (a resort on the Black Sea). All the applicants complained that the authorities had refused to restore to them land expropriated from their ancestors after 1945 and on which the State-owned seaside resort “Duni” had subsequently been constructed.In the Chamber judgment Nedelcheva and Others the Court found in particular that the authorities had failed to enforce a final court judgment of 4 January 2008 in which the applicants had been awarded compensation in lieu of restitution of the land and that they had been responsible for lengthy delays in the procedures for restitution and compensation. However, in the decision Kupenova and Others, which raised similar factual and legal issues, the Court rejected the applicants’ complaints as inadmissible as the case did not concern compensation for loss of property but the provision of an alternative means of completing the restitution process and, as it had been established that restitution in kind was impossible, it still remained open for the applicants to assert their restitution rights by claiming the compensation provided for by domestic law.

30 april 2013 – Hasan Uzun t. Turkije – press release – decision

An individual application must be lodged with the Turkish Constitutional Court before the case can be taken to Strasbourg

The Court reiterated that the rule of the exhaustion of domestic remedies was an indispensible part of the functioning of the Convention mechanism. Having examined the main aspects of the new remedy before the Turkish Constitutional Court, the Court found that the Turkish Parliament had entrusted that court with powers that enabled it to provide, in principle, direct and speedy redress for violations of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention.

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)

98 per cent tax on part of the severance pay of a Hungarian civil servant violated her right to peaceful enjoyment of property

14 May 2013 – N.K.M. v. Hungary – press release – judgment

The case concerned a civil servant who complained in particular that the imposition of a 98 per cent tax on part of her severance pay under a legislation entered into force ten weeks before her dismissal had amounted to an unjustified deprivation of property. Despite the wide discretion that the Hungarian authorities enjoyed in matters of taxation, the Court held that the means employed had been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued of protecting the public purse against excessive severance payments. Nor had the applicant

5

EUROPEAN COURTS No. 6 (June 2013)

been provided with a transitional period in which to adjust to the new severance scheme. Moreover, in depriving her of an acquired right which served the special social interest of reintegrating the labour market, the Hungarian authorities had exposed the applicant to an excessive individual burden.

2 May 2013 – Panteliou-Darne and Blantzouka t. Griekenland – press release – judgment

Two air-hostesses working in the public sector sought the retroactive payment of family allowances that their employer, under statutory provisions that were declared unconstitutional in 2001, had stopped paying them in 1997.In view of the period of several years that had elapsed before the applicants brought their cases to a court, the Court found that their employer had been legitimately entitled to conclude that they had waived any claims to such allowances. In addition, the Court took the view that the retroactive payment of family allowances to all employees would have had serious consequences for the economic viability of the airline – which was already in administration. The Court thus concluded that the Greek courts’ dismissal of the applicants’ claims had not upset the fair balance between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

RIGHT TO EDUCATION (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1)

30 May 2013 – Lavida and others v. Greece – press release – judgment

School placements for Roma children must not amount to ethnic or racial segregation

The case concerned the education of Roma children who were restricted to attending a primary school in which the only pupils were other Roma children. The Court found that the continuing nature of this situation and the State’s refusal to take anti-segregation measures implied discrimination and a breach of the right to education.

RIGHT TO FREE ELECTIONS (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1)

7 May 2013 – Shindler v. United Kingdom – press release – judgment

The case concerned whether the right to vote of a British national not resident in the United Kingdom since 1982 had been violated by election laws preventing those resident outside of the United Kingdom for more than 15 years from voting. The Court, taking into account the room for manoeuvre (‘margin of appreciation’) to be left to the United Kingdom Government in regulating its parliamentary elections, decided that the election law in question had not gone too far in restricting the right to Mr Shindler’s right to free elections.

6

EUROPEAN COURTS No. 6 (June 2013)

2. JUDGMENTS FROM THE EU COURT OF JUSTICE

LUXEMBURG

JUDGMENTS

AGRICULTURE

30 May 2013 – Cases T-454/10 + T-482/11 – Anicav / Commission + Agrucon / Commission – judgment

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Aid in the fruit and vegetable sector – Actions for annulment – Whether directly concerned – Admissibility – Processed fruit and vegetables – Operational funds and operational programmes – Funding of ‘[non-]genuine processing activities’

29 May 2013 – Case C-101/12 – Schaible – opinion

Agriculture – Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 – Identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals – Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 20 of the Charter – Proportionality – Equality

CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNION

29 May 2013 – Case C-140/12 – Brey – opinion

Citizenship of the Union – Freedom of movement for persons – Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of residence for a period longer than three months on the territory of another Member State – Persons having ceased their professional activity – Conditions for residence – Application for a special non-contributory cash benefit (‘Ausgleichszulage’) – Notion of ‘social assistance’

29 May 2013 – Case C-95/12 – Commission / Germany – opinion

Action under Article 260(2) TFEU – Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations – Meaning and scope of the judgment – Financial penalties – Penalty payment – Lump sum payment – Alleged ambiguity of the judgment – Time elapsed between the end of the pre-litigation procedure and the commencement of proceedings before the Court – Application for interpretation

8 May 2013 – Case C-87/12 – Ymeraga e.a. –judgment

Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Right of residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen who has not exercised his right of freedom of movement – Fundamental rights

8 May 2013 –C-197/11 + C-203/11 – Libert e.a. All Projects & Developments – judgment

Fundamental freedoms – Restriction – Justification – State aid – Concept of ‘public works contract’ – Land and buildings located in certain communes – National legislation making the transfer of land and buildings subject to the condition that there exists a ‘sufficient connection’ between the prospective buyer or tenant and the target commune – Social obligation on subdividers and developers – Tax incentives and subsidy mechanisms

7

EUROPEAN COURTS No. 6 (June 2013)

8 May 2013 – Case C-529/11 – Alarape en Tijani – judgment

Freedom of movement for persons – Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 – Article 12 – Divorced spouse of a national of a Member State who has worked in another Member State – Adult child pursuing his studies in the host Member State – Right of residence of parent who is national of a non-Member State – Directive 2004/38/EC – Articles 16 to 18 – Right of permanent residence of family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State – Legal residence – Residence based on Article 12 above

CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS

16 May 2013 – Case C-157/12 – Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel – opinion

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Enforcement of a judgment given in another Member State – Grounds for refusing enforcement – Previous decision from the same Member State in proceedings involving the same subject-matter and cause of action, and between the same parties – Irreconcilable judgments

16 May 2013 – Case C-228/12 – Melzer – judgment

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Special jurisdiction in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict – Cross-border participation by several persons in the same unlawful act – Possibility of establishing territorial jurisdiction according to the place where the act was committed by one of the perpetrators of the damage other than the defendant (‘wechselseitige Handlungsortzurechnung’)

COMMON FOREIGN AND SOCIAL SECURITY POLICY

28 May 2013 – Case T-187/11 – Trabelsi - judgment

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia – Freezing of funds – Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Action for damages – Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Inadmissibility

28 May 2013 – Case C-239/12 – Abdulrahim – judgment

Appeal – Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban – Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 – Action for annulment – Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned – Interest in bringing proceedings

17 May 2013 – Case T-146/09 – Parker ITR en Parker-Hannifin – judgment

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European market for marine hoses – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Price-fixing, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information – Attributability of unlawful conduct – Fines – 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Legal certainty – Ceiling of 10% – Mitigating circumstances – Cooperation

17 May 2013 – Gevoegde zaken T-147/09 + T-148/09 – Trelleborg Industrie / Trelleborg - judgment

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European market for marine hoses – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Price-fixing, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information – Concept of continuing or repeated infringement – Limitation period – Legal certainty – Equal treatment – Fines – Gravity and duration of the infringement

8 May 2013 – Case C-508/11 P – ENI - judgment

Appeals – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market manufactured by emulsion polymerisation – Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies – Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence – Obligation to state reasons – Gravity of the infringement – Multiplier for deterrence – Actual impact on the market – Aggravating circumstances – Repeated infringements

8

EUROPEAN COURTS No. 6 (June 2013)

COMPETITION LAW

30 May 2013 – Case C-40/12 P – Gascogne Sack Deutschland (anciennement Sachsa Verpackung - opinion

Appeal – Competition – Cartel – Industrial plastic bags sector – Fines – Breach of fundamental right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by the General Court

30 May 2013 – Case C-50/12 P – Kendrion – opinion AND 30 May 2013 – Case C-58/12 P – Groupe Gascogne – opinion

Appeal – Competition – Cartel – Industrial plastic bags sector – Fines – Breach of fundamental right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by the General Court

CONSUMERS

30 May 2013 – Case C-397/11 – Jőrös – judgment

Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair – Consequences to be drawn by the national court from a finding that the term is unfair

30 May 2013 – Case C-488/11 – Asbeek Brusse AND de Man Garabito – judgment

Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Residential tenancy agreement between a landlord acting on a commercial basis and a tenant acting on a non-commercial basis – Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair – Penalty clause – Annulment of the clause

DATA PROTECTION

30 May 2013 – Case C-342/12 – Worten – judgment

Processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Article 2 – Concept of ‘personal data’ – Articles 6 and 7 – Principles relating to data quality and criteria for making data processing legitimate – Article 17 – Security of processing – Working time – Record of working time – Access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions – Employer’s obligation to make available the record of working time so as to allow its immediate consultation

IMMIGRATION LAW

30 May 2013 – Case C-528/11 – Halaf – judgment

Asylum – Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 – Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national – Article 3(2) – Discretion of the Member States – Role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees – Obligation of Member States to request that Office to present its views – None

30 May 2013 – Case C-534/11 – Arslan – judgment

Area of freedom, security and justice – Directive 2008/115/EC – Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals – Applicability to asylum seekers – Possibility of keeping a third-country national in detention after an application for asylum has been made

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

30 May 2013 – Case T-396/11 – ultra air / OHMI - Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international) – judgment

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark ultrafilter international – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Abuse of rights

16 May 2013 – Case C-609/11 P – Centrotherm Systemtechnik / centrotherm Clean Solutions – opinion

9

EUROPEAN COURTS No. 6 (June 2013)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Application for revocation – Evidence filed after expiry of the time-limit set by OHIM – Allocation of the burden of proof – Examination of facts by OHIM of its own motion – Probative value of sworn statement

16 May 2013 – Case C-610/11 P – Centrotherm Systemtechnik / centrotherm Clean Solutions – opinion

Appeal – Community trade mark – Application for revocation – Evidence filed after expiry of the time-limit set by OHIM – Allocation of the burden of proof – Examination of facts by OHIM of its own motion – Probative value of sworn statement

16 May 2013 – Case C-122/12 P – Rintisch / BHIM – opinion

Appeal – Community trade mark – Opposition – Evidence of existence and validity of earlier mark – Evidence and translations filed after expiry of the time-limit set by OHIM – Discretion of the Board of Appeal

16 May 2013 – Case C-621/11 P – New Yorker SHK Jeans / BHIM – opinion

Appeal – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Proof of genuine use – Evidence filed after the expiry of the time-limit set

14 May 2013 – Case T-249/11 – Sanco / OHMI - Marsalman (Représentation d'un poulet) – judgment

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark representing a chicken – Earlier national figurative mark representing a chicken – Relative ground for refusal – Similarity between goods and services – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

14 May 2013 – Case T-244/12 – Unister / OHMI (fluege.de) – judgment

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark fluege.de – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – No distinctive character – Distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

7 May 2013 – Case T-579/10 – macros consult / OHMI - MIP Metro (makro) – judgment

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark makro – Company name macros consult GmbH – Right acquired prior to the application for registration of a Community trade mark and entitling its holder to prohibit the use of the Community trade mark applied for – Non-registered signs protected under German law – Article 5 of the Markengesetz – Article 8(4), Article 53(1)(c), and Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

MEDIA

16 May 2013 – Case C-234/12 – Sky Italia – opinion

Directive 2010/13/EU – Audiovisual media services – Limitation of transmission time for television advertising – Stricter national rules for pay TV than for free-to-air TV – General principle of equal treatment under EU law – Fundamental freedoms of the European internal market – Freedom and pluralism of the media

MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

30 May 2013 – Case C-109/12 – Laboratoires Lyocentre – opinion

Medicinal product – Medical device – CE marking – Product classification – Procedure

SOCIAL SECURITY

16 May 2013 – Case C-598/10 – Wencel – judgment

Article 45 TFEU – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Article 10 – Old-age benefits – Habitual residence in two different Member States – A survivor’s pension received in one of those States and a retirement pension in the other – Withdrawal of one of those benefits – Recovery of benefits to which it is alleged the recipient was not entitled

STATE AID

10

EUROPEAN COURTS No. 6 (June 2013)

30 May 2013 – Case C-677/11 – Doux Élevage en Coopérative agricole UKL-ARREE – judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU – State aid – Concept of ‘State resources’ – Concept of ‘imputability to the State’ – Inter-trade organisations in the agricultural sector – Recognised organisations – Common activities decided on by those organisations in the interests of trade – Financing by means of contributions introduced on a voluntary basis by those organisations – Administrative measure making those contributions compulsory for all traders in the agricultural industry affected

TAXES30 May 2013 – Case C-651/11 – X – judgment

VAT – Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Article 5(8) – Concept of ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’ – Disposal of 30% of the shares in a company to which the transferor supplies services that are subject to VAT

30 May 2013 – Case C-663/11 – Scandic Distilleries – judgment

Request for a preliminary ruling – Directive 92/12/EEC – Excise duties – Products released for consumption in a Member State where the excise duty was paid – Same products transported to another Member State where the excise duty has also been paid – Request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the first Member State – Refusal for not introducing the request before the goods were dispatched – Compatibility with European Union law

16 May 2013 – Case C-169/12 – TNT Express Worldwide - judgment

Value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 66(a) to (c) – Transport and shipping services – Chargeability – Date on which payment is received and no later than 30 days from the date on which the services are supplied – Invoice issued earlier

16 May 2013 – Case C-191/12 – Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft. – judgment

Non-repayment of the entirety of value added tax unduly paid – National legislation precluding repayment of VAT because it has been passed on to a third party – Compensation in the form of aid covering a fraction of the non-deductible VAT – Unjust enrichment

8 May 2013 – Case C-142/12 – Marinov – judgment

Value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 18(c), 74 and 80 – Cessation of the taxable economic activity – Removal of the taxable person from the VAT register by the tax authorities – Retention of goods on which the VAT became deductible – Taxable amount – Open market value or purchase value – Determination at the time of the transaction – Direct effect of Article 74

8 May 2013 – Case C-271/12 – Petroma Transports - judgment

Taxation – Value added tax – Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Right to deduct input tax – Obligations of the taxable person – Possession of improper or inaccurate invoices – Omission of mandatory particulars – Refusal of the right to deduct – Evidence subsequent to the occurrence of the transactions invoiced – Correcting invoices – Right to refund of VAT – Principle of neutrality

(AIR)TRANSPORT

30 May 2013 – Case C-512/10 – Commissie / Polen – judgment

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Transport – Directive 91/440/EEC – Development of the Community’s railways – Directive 2001/14/EC – Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity – Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/14 – Continued absence of financial balance – Articles 6(1) and 7(3) and (4) of Directive 91/440 – Absence of incentives for infrastructure managers – Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14 – Calculation of the minimum access charge

11