ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/26

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC and Others v Delta Center a.s.

(Case C-494/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2004/48/EC - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Notion of ‘intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right’ - Tenant of market halls subletting sales points - Possibility of an injunction against that tenant - Article 11))

(2016/C 335/35)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC, Urban Trends Trading BV, Rado Uhren AG, Facton Kft., Lacoste SA, Burberry Ltd

Defendant: Delta Center a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as meaning that the tenant of market halls who sublets the various sales points situated in those halls to market-traders, some of whom use their pitches in order to sell counterfeit branded products, falls within the concept of ‘an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right’ within the meaning of that provision.

2. The third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions for an injunction within the meaning of that provision against an intermediary who provides a service relating to the letting of sales points in market halls are identical to those for injunctions which may be addressed to intermediaries in an online marketplace, set out by the Court in the judgment of 12 July 2011 in L’Oréal and Others (C-324/09, EU:C:2011:474).

(1) OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-240/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 3 - Impartiality and independence of the national regulatory authorities - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 12 - Administrative charges - National regulatory authority subject to provisions applicable to public finances and to provisions for limiting and streamlining public authority spending))

(2016/C 350/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Defendants: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that subjects a national regulatory authority, within the meaning of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, to provisions of national law applicable to public finances and, in particular, to provisions for limiting and streamlining the spending of public administrative authorities, such as those at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/20

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hőszig Kft. v Alstom Power Thermal Services

(Case C-222/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction clause - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Clause inserted in the general conditions - Consent of the parties to those conditions - Validity and precision of such a clause))

(2016/C 335/27)

Language of the case: Hungary

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hőszig Kft.

Defendant: Alstom Power Thermal Services,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) 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 a jurisdiction clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, first, is set out in the client’s general terms and conditions, referred to in the instruments witnessing the contracts between those parties and forwarded upon their conclusion, and, secondly, designates as courts with jurisdiction those of a city of a Member State, meets the requirements of that provision relating to the consent of the parties and the precision of the content of such a clause.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
2.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on operators wishing to respond to a call for tenders for the grant of concessions in the field of betting and gambling the obligation of providing evidence of their economic and financial standing by means of statements issued by at least two banks, without also allowing that standing to be proved by other means, where such a provision is capable of satisfying the conditions of proportionality laid down by the case-law of the Court, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
1.

Member State liability for damage caused to individuals as a result of a breach of EU law by a decision of a national court may be incurred only where that decision is made by a court of that Member State adjudicating at last instance, which it is for the referring court to determine in respect of the main proceedings. If that is the case, a decision by that national court adjudicating at last instance may constitute a sufficiently serious breach of EU law, capable of giving rise to that liability, only where, by that decision, that court manifestly infringed the applicable law or where that infringement takes place despite the existence of well-established Court case-law on the matter. It cannot be concluded that a national court which, prior to the judgment of 4 June 2009 in Pannon GSM (C-243/08, EU:C:2009:350), failed, in the context of proceedings for enforcement of an arbitral award upholding a claim for payment of debts under a contractual term which must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, to assess of its own motion whether that term is unfair, although it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that purpose, manifestly disregarded the Court’s case-law on the matter and, therefore, committed a sufficiently serious breach of EU law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/22

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen v Finanzamt Ettlingen

(Case C-478/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Equal treatment - Income tax - Exemption of income derived from part-time employment as a teacher with a legal person governed by public law established in a Member State of the European Union or in a State to which the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 applies - Legislation of a Member State excluding from that exemption income derived from such employment with a legal person governed by public law established in Switzerland))

(2016/C 419/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen

Defendant: Finanzamt Ettlingen

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, concerning the equal treatment of employees must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which a resident national with unlimited liability to income tax who has exercised the right to freedom of movement in order to work as an employee on a part-time basis in the teaching profession for a legal person governed by public law established in Switzerland is denied a tax exemption in respect of the income from that employment whereas such an exemption would be granted if that person had been so employed by a legal person governed by public law established in that Member State, in another Member State of the European Union or in another State to which the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 applies.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/19

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd

(Case C-223/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - European Union trade mark - Unitary character - Finding of a likelihood of confusion in respect of only part of the European Union - Territorial scope of the prohibition referred to in Article 102 of that regulation))

(2016/C 419/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: combit Software GmbH

Defendant: Commit Business Solutions Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2), Article 9(1)(b) and Article 102(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, where an EU trade mark court finds that the use of a sign creates a likelihood of confusion with an EU trade mark in one part of the European Union whilst not creating such a likelihood in another part thereof, that court must conclude that there is an infringement of the exclusive right conferred by that trade mark and issue an order prohibiting the use in question for the entire area of the European Union with the exception of the part in respect of which there has been found to be no likelihood of confusion.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 475/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof — BENELUX) — Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV

(Case C-169/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Industrial and commercial property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 93/98/EEC - Article 10(2) - Term of protection - No revival of protection due to Berne Convention))

(2016/C 475/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Benelux Gerechtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Montis Design BV

Defendant: Goossens Meubelen BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(2) of Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, read together with Article 13(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of protection laid down by that directive do not apply to copyright which was initially protected by national legislation but which was extinguished prior to 1 July 1995.

Directive 93/98 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, initially, had granted, as in the main proceedings, copyright protection to a work, but which, subsequently, caused that copyright to be definitively extinguished, before 1 July 1995, by reason of non-compliance with a formal requirement.

(1) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku v Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

(Case C-231/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 4(1) - Right of appeal against a decision taken by a national regulatory authority - Effective appeal mechanism - Decision of a national regulatory authority to continue to apply pending the outcome of the appeal - Temporal effects of a decision of a national court annulling a decision of a national regulatory authority - Possibility of annulling a decision of the national regulatory authority with retroactive effect - Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations))

(2016/C 462/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku

Respondent: Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1), first subparagraph, first and third sentences, and second subparagraph, of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is to be interpreted as meaning that a national court hearing an appeal against a decision of the national regulatory authority must be able to annul that decision with retroactive effect if it finds that to be necessary in order to provide effective protection for the rights of the undertaking which has brought the appeal.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/10

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Gerard Dowling and Others v Minister for Finance

(Case C-41/15) (1)

((Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 - European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism - Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU - European Union financial assistance to Ireland - Recapitalisation of national banks - Company law - Second Directive 77/91/EEC - Articles 8, 25 and 29 - Recapitalisation of a bank by means of judicial direction order - Increase in share capital without general meeting decision and without the shares issued being offered on a pre-emptive basis to existing shareholders - Issue of new shares at a price lower than their nominal value))

(2017/C 006/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, Piotr Skoczylas, Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited

Defendant: Minister for Finance

Intervening parties: Permanent TSB Group Holdings plc, formerly Irish Life and Permanent Group Holdings plc, Permanent TSB plc, formerly Irish Life and Permanent plc

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) and Articles 25 and 29 of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of [the second paragraph of Article 54 TFEU], in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, must be interpreted as not precluding a measure, such as the Direction Order at issue in the main proceedings, adopted in a situation where there is a serious disturbance of the economy and the financial system of a Member State threatening the financial stability of the European Union, the effect of that measure being to increase the share capital of a public limited liability company, without the agreement of the general meeting of that company, new shares being issued at a price lower than their nominal value and the existing shareholders being denied any pre-emptive subscription right.

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/15

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureş — Romania) — ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP)

(Case C-212/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 4 - Effects provided for by legislation of a Member State on claims which were not pursued by means of insolvency proceedings - Forfeiture - Fiscal nature of the claim - No effect - Article 15 - Concept of ‘lawsuits pending’ - Enforcement proceedings - Excluded))

(2017/C 006/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Mureş

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that provisions of domestic law of the Member State on the territory of which insolvency proceedings are opened which provide, in relation to a creditor who has not taken part in those proceedings, for the forfeiture of its right to pursue its claim or for the suspension of the enforcement of such a claim in another Member State come within its scope of application.

2. The fiscal nature of the claim pursued by means of enforcement in a Member State other than that on the territory of which the insolvency proceedings are opened, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, has no bearing on the answer to be given to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015, p. 4.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2016 — Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Seven Towns Ltd

(Case C-30/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Union trade mark - Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity))

(2017/C 014/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Ruhl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents), Seven Towns Ltd (represented by: K. Szamosi and M. Borbás, ügyvédek)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 November 2014, Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure) (T-450/09, EU:T:2014:983);

2. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 September 2009 (Case R 1526/2008-2) relating to cancellation proceedings between Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG and Seven Towns Ltd;

3. Orders Seven Towns Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG relating both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-450/09 and to the appeal.

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2016 — SV Capital OÜ v European Banking Authority (EBA), European Commission

(Case C-577/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Application to initiate an investigation into the Estonian and Finnish supervisory authorities - Decision of the European Banking Authority (EBA) - Board of Appeal decision of the European Supervisory Authorities - Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 - Articles 17 and 60 - Board of Appeal - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Excusable error))

(2017/C 046/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SV Capital OÜ (represented by: M. Greinoman, vandeadvokaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Banking Authority (EBA) (represented by: J. Overett Somnier and Z. Giotaki, acting as Agents, and F. Tuytschaever, advocaat), European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders SV Capital OÜ to bear its own costs and, in addition, to pay the costs incurred by the European Banking Authority (EBA);

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Stock ‘94 Szolgáltató Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-208/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Integrated cooperation - Grant of financing and supplies of current assets necessary for agricultural production - Single, complex supply - Distinct and independent supplies - Ancillary supply and principal supply))

(2017/C 038/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stock ‘94 Szolgáltató Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that:

— an integrated agricultural cooperation providing that an economic operator delivers goods to a farmer and grants him a loan intended for purchasing those goods constitutes a single transaction for the purposes of that directive, in which the supply of the goods is the principal supply. The taxable amount of that single transaction is made up of both the price of those goods and the interest paid on the loans granted to the farmers;

— the fact that an integrator may provide the farmers with additional services or buy their agricultural production has no bearing on the categorisation of the transaction at issue as a single transaction, for the purposes of Directive 2006/112.

(1) OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.