29.9.2012 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/3 Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën Bishop and R. Szostak, acting as Agents) Intervening parties in support of the Defendant: Czech Republic Re: (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and K. Najmanová, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Neder­ Bergues and A. Adam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden landen — Interpretation of Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents), and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) of Sixth Council European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation Konstantinidis, acting as Agents) of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax Re: — Taxable person who has made temporary use for private Annulment of decision — Action for annulment — Annulment purposes of part of a capital item forming part of the assets of Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 of 22 December of his business and who has, for those purposes, made 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing permanent alterations to that part of the item — Entitlement certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain to deduct the VAT paid in respect of the permanent alterations persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al- Qaeda network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 346, p. 42) — Choice of legal basis Operative part of the judgment Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Operative part of the judgment Article 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating The Court: to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 1. Dismisses the action; April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that, first, a taxable person who makes temporary use for private purposes of part of a 2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs; capital item forming part of the assets of his business is entitled, under those provisions, to deduct the input value added tax on the expen­ 3. Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Kingdom of diture incurred in carrying out permanent alterations to that item even Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs. though those alterations were carried out with a view to that temporary use for private purposes and, secondly, that right to deduct exists irrespective of whether the taxable person was charged VAT and deducted that VAT upon the acquisition of the capital item to ( 1 ) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010. which those alterations were made. 1 Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2012 ( ) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010. (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën 1 (Case C-334/10) ( ) Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) Würzburg — Germany) — Doris Reichel-Albert v and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) — Part of a Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nordbayern capital item forming part of the assets of a business — Temporary use for private purposes — Permanent alterations (Case C-522/10) ( 1 ) to that item — Payment of VAT in respect of the permanent alterations — Right to deduct) (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 44(2) — Examination of entitlement to (2012/C 295/04) old-age pension — Taking into account of child-raising periods completed in another Member State — Applicability Language of the case: Dutch — Article 21 TFEU — Free movement of citizens) (2012/C 295/05) Referring court Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Language of the case: German Parties to the main proceedings Referring court Applicant: X Sozialgericht Würzburg C 295/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 29.9.2012 Parties to the main proceedings Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent and M. Russo, avvocato dello Stato) Applicant: Doris Reichel-Albert Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nordbayern Re: Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement Re: of Articles 3, 4 and 10 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Würzburg — L 135, p. 40) Interpretation of Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1) — Conditions for taking into Operative part of the judgment account child-raising periods completed in another Member The Court: State for the purpose of examining entitlement to old-age pension — National legislation making the taking into account of such periods subject to the requirement that the person concerned, during the raising or immediately before 1. Declares that by not adopting the measures necessary in order to the birth of the child, pursued employed or self-employed ensure that: activity by way of compulsory contribution period, giving rise to the possibility that a child-raising period might not be taken into account either in the Member State of residence during the child-raising period or in the competent Member State — the agglomerations of Acri, Siderno, Bagnara Calabra, Bianco, Castrovillari, Crotone, Santa Maria del Cedro, Lamezia Terme, Mesoraca, Montebello Ionico, Motta San Giovanni, Reggio Calabria, Rende, Rossano, Scalea, Sellia Marina, Soverato, Operative part of the judgment Strongoli (Calabria), Cervignano del Friuli (Friuli-Venezia In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, Article 21 Giulia), Frascati (Lazio), Porto Cesareo, Supersano, Taviano TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the competent (Puglia), Misterbianco and others, Aci Catena, Adrano, institution of a first Member State, for the purposes of granting an Catania and others, Giarre-Mascali-Riposto and others, old-age pension, to take account of child-raising periods completed in a Caltagirone, Aci Castello, Acireale and others, Belpasso, second Member State as though those periods had been completed on Gravina di Catania, Tremestieri Etneo, San Giovanni La its national territory by a person who pursued employed or self- Punta, Agrigento and its outskirts, Porto Empedocle, employed activity only in that first Member State and who, at the Sciacca, Cefalù, Carini and ASI Palermo, Palermo and time of the birth of his of her child, had temporarily stopped working bordering areas, Santa Flavia, Augusta, Priolo Gargallo, and had, solely on family-related grounds, established his or her place Carlentini, Scoglitti, Marsala, Messina 1, Messina and of residence in the territory of the second Member State. Messina 6 (Sicily), the population equivalent of which is more than 15 000, and which discharge into receiving waters not considered to be ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of ( 1 ) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011. 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2008, are equipped with collecting systems for urban waste water, in accordance with Article 3 of that directive; Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic — in the agglomerations of Lanciano-Castel Frentano (Abruzzo), (Case C-565/10) ( 1 ) Acri, Siderno, Bagnara Calabra, Castrovillari, Crotone, Montebello Ionico, Motta San Giovanni, Reggio Calabria, (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive Rossano (Calabria), Battipaglia, Benevento, Capaccio, Capri, 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Articles 3, 4 Ischia, Casamicciola Terme, Forio, Massa Lubrense, Napoli and 10 — Collection systems — Secondary or equivalent Est, Vico Equense (Campania), Trieste-Muggia-San Dorligo treatment — Treatment plants — Representative samples) (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Albenga, Borghetto Santo Spirito, Finale Ligure, Imperia, Santa Margherita Ligure, Quinto, (2012/C 295/06) Rapallo, Recco, Riva Ligure (Liguria), Casamassima, Casarano, Porto Cesareo, San Vito dei Normanni, Supersano (Puglia), Misterbianco and others, Scordia- Language of the case: Italian Militello Val di Catania, Palagonia, Aci Catena, Giarre- Mascali-Riposto and others, Caltagirone, Aci Castello, Parties Acireale and others, Belpasso, Gravina di Catania, Tremestieri Etneo, San Giovanni La Punta, Macchitella, Niscemi, Riesi, Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Agrigento and its outskirts, Favara, Palma di Montechiaro, Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents) Menfi, Porto Empedocle, Ribera, Sciacca, Bagheria, Cefalù,.