ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Christian Ferenschild v JPC Motor SA

(Case C-133/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Directive 1999/44/EC - Article 5(1) - Period of liability of the seller - Limitation period - Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) - Second-hand goods - Contractual reduction of the seller’s liability))

(2017/C 293/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Ferenschild

Defendant: JPC Motor SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as precluding a rule of a Member State which allows the limitation period for action by the consumer to be shorter than two years from the time of delivery of the goods where the Member State has made use of the option given by the latter of those two provisions, and the seller and consumer have agreed on a period of liability of the seller of less than two years, namely a one-year period, for the second-hand goods concerned.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/6

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — Heike Schottelius v Falk Seifert

(Case C-247/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 1999/44/EC - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Notion of ‘contract of sale’ - Inapplicability of that directive - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2017/C 374/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heike Schottelius

Defendant: Falk Seifert

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Hannover (Hanover Regional Court, Germany) by decision of 22 April 2016.

(1) OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie

(Case C-80/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a(1) - EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - Free allocation of allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Validity - Principle of sound administration - Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal - Use of data in the ‘BREF’ for iron and steel production and guidelines for establishing benchmarks for hot metal - Meaning of ‘similar products’ - Reference installations - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 309/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine SASU

Defendant: Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the questions referred has revealed nothing that could affect the validity of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
4.

In the case where the infringement referred to in point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU is established, remuneration intended for rightholders must be included, for the purpose of determining the amount of the fine, in the turnover of the copyright management organisation concerned, provided that that remuneration forms part of the value of the services provided by that organisation and that that inclusion is necessary in order to ensure that the penalty imposed is effective, proportionate and dissuasive. It is for the referring court to verify, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, whether those conditions are met.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/12

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Lutz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-556/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings - Subheading 6212 20 00 (Panty girdles) - Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature - Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System))

(2017/C 424/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lutz GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that knickers characterised by reduced horizontal elasticity, but which do not contain inelastic elements incorporated into them, may be classified under subheading 6212 20 00 of the Combined Nomenclature if an examination establishes that they have substantially reduced horizontal elasticity in order to support the human body and create a slimming effect on the silhouette.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/7

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 October 2017 — Wolf Oil Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), SCT Lubricants UAB

(Case C-437/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CHEMPIOIL - Earlier figurative mark CHAMPION - Opposition dismissed))

(2017/C 402/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Wolf Oil Corp. (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent), SCT Lubricants UAB (represented by: S. Labesius, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Wolf Oil Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Proceedings brought by POLBUD — WYKONAWSTWO sp. z o.o., in liquidation

(Case C-106/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Cross-border conversion of a company - Transfer of its registered office without transfer of its real head office - Refusal to remove it from the commercial register - National legislation whereby removal from commercial register is dependent on the winding up of a company after a liquidation procedure - Scope of freedom of establishment - Restriction on freedom of establishment - Protection of the interests of creditors, minority shareholders and employees - Prevention of abusive practices))

(2017/C 437/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

POLBUD — WYKONAWSTWO sp. z o.o., in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that freedom of establishment is applicable to the transfer of the registered office of a company formed in accordance with the law of one Member State to the territory of another Member State, for the purposes of its conversion, in accordance with the conditions imposed by the legislation of the other Member State, into a company incorporated under the law of the latter Member State, when there is no change in the location of the real head office of that company.

2. Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the transfer of the registered office of a company incorporated under the law of one Member State to the territory of another Member State, for the purposes of its conversion into a company incorporated under the law of the latter Member State, in accordance with the conditions imposed by the legislation of that Member State, is subject to the liquidation of the first company.

(1) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Istanbul Lojistik Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

(Case C-65/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey - Article 9 - Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council - Articles 4, 5 and 7 - Customs Union - Road transport - Motor vehicle tax - Taxation of heavy goods vehicles registered in Turkey crossing Hungary in transit))

(2017/C 424/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istanbul Lojistik Ltd

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union must be interpreted as meaning that a tax on motor vehicles such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which must be paid by persons operating heavy goods vehicles registered in Turkey and in transit through Hungarian territory, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty within the meaning of that article.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/9

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 November 2017 — Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-250/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Partial repayment of the sums paid to the appellant - Liquidated damages))

(2018/C 022/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — António Fernando Maio Marques da Rosa v Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA

(Case C-306/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 5 - Weekly rest period - National legislation providing for at least one rest day per seven-day period - Periods of more than six consecutive working days))

(2018/C 005/13)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: António Fernando Maio Marques da Rosa

Defendant: Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 and the first paragraph of Article 5 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not requiring the minimum uninterrupted weekly rest period of 24 hours to which a worker is entitled to be provided no later than the day following a period of six consecutive working days, but requires that rest period to be provided within each seven-day period.

(1) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2017 — European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) v Giant (China) Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-61/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 - Imports of bicycles originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 18(1) - Cooperation - Definition of ‘necessary information’ - Article 9(5) - Request for individual treatment - Risk of circumvention))

(2018/C 052/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Giant (China) Co. Ltd (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat), Council of the European Union, (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat), European Commission, (represented by J.-F. Brakeland, M. França, and A. Demeneix, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Giant (China) Co. Ltd;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Isabel Maria Pinheiro Vieira Rodrigues de Andrade, Fausto da Silva Rodrigues de Andrade v José Manuel Proença Salvador, Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais, SA, Jorge Oliveira Pinto

(Case C-514/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - Accident on a farm - Accident involving an agricultural tractor that was stationary but with the engine running in order to drive a spray pump for applying herbicide))

(2018/C 032/04)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Isabel Maria Pinheiro Vieira Rodrigues de Andrade, Fausto da Silva Rodrigues de Andrade

Defendants: José Manuel Proença Salvador, Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais, SA, Jorge Oliveira Pinto

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’, referred to in that provision, does not cover a situation in which an agricultural tractor has been involved in an accident when its principal function, at the time of that accident, was not to serve as a means of transport but to generate, as a machine for carrying out work, the motive power necessary to drive the pump of a herbicide sprayer.

(1) OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.
1.

Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 491/2009 of 25 May 2009, and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 October 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 are to be interpreted as meaning that the scope of those provisions covers a situation where a protected designation of origin, such as ‘Champagne’, is used as part of the name under which a foodstuff is sold, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, and where that foodstuff does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient which does correspond to those specifications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/12

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione) — Prequ' Italia Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-276/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of protection of the rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 244 - Recovery of a customs debt - Lack of prior hearing of the addressee before the adoption of an amended tax assessment - Right of the addressee to obtain suspension of the implementation of the amended tax assessment - Lack of automatic suspension in the event of the bringing of administrative proceedings - Reference to the conditions provided for in Article 244 of the Customs Code))

(2018/C 072/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prequ' Italia Srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Operative part of the judgment

The right of any person to be heard before the adoption of a decision likely to adversely affect his interests must be interpreted as meaning that the rights of defence of the addressee of an amended tax assessment adopted by the customs authorities, in the absence of a prior hearing of the person concerned, are not infringed if the national legislation which allows the person concerned to contest that measure in the context of an administrative review merely provides the possibility to request the suspension of the implementation of that measure until its possible amendment by referring to Article 244 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 without the initiation of an administrative appeal automatically suspending the implementation of the contested measure, since the application of the second paragraph of Article 244 of that regulation, by the customs authorities, does not restrict the grant of a suspension of implementation where there are reasons to doubt the conformity of the contested decision with the customs legislation or that irreparable damage is to be feared for the person concerned.

(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof) — Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Limited

(Case C-498/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 15 and 16 - Jurisdiction in respect of consumer contracts - Definition of ‘consumer’ - Assignment between consumers of claims against the same trader or professional))

(2018/C 104/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maximilian Schrems

Defendant: Facebook Ireland Limited

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the activities of publishing books, lecturing, operating websites, fundraising and being assigned the claims of numerous consumers for the purpose of their enforcement do not entail the loss of a private Facebook account user’s status as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that article.

2. Article 16(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to the proceedings brought by a consumer for the purpose of asserting, in the courts of the place where he is domiciled, not only his own claims, but also claims assigned by other consumers domiciled in the same Member State, in other Member States or in non-member countries.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/15

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Albacete, Spain) — José Luis Núñez Torreiro v AIG Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, formerly Chartis Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, Unión Española de Entidades Aseguradoras y Reaseguradoras (Unespa)

(Case C-334/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3, first paragraph - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - National legislation excluding the driving of motor vehicles on roads and terrain that are not ‘suitable for use by motor vehicles’, with the exception of those which, though not suitable, are nonetheless ‘ordinarily so used’))

(2018/C 072/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Albacete

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: José Luis Núñez Torreiro

Defendants: AIG Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, formerly Chartis Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, Unión Española de Entidades Aseguradoras y Reaseguradoras (Unespa)

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes it possible to exclude from compulsory insurance cover injuries and damage that result from the driving of motor vehicles on roads or terrain that are not ‘suitable for use by motor vehicles’, with the exception of roads or terrain which, although not suitable for that purpose, are nonetheless ‘ordinarily so used’.

(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 February 2018 — Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission

(Case C-16/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Consumer protection - Online gambling services - Protection of consumers and players and prevention of minors from gambling online - Commission Recommendation 2014/478/EU - EU act which is not legally binding - Article 263 TFEU))

(2018/C 134/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, M. Jacobs and J. Van Holm, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren, R. Verbeke and J. Auwerx, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Wilman and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.