ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/11

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — I v Health Service Executive

(Case C-255/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 19(1) and 20(1) and (2) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 11 - National of a Member State insured in his State of residence - Sudden serious illness occurring while on holiday in another Member State - Person compelled to remain in that second Member State for 11 years as a result of his illness and the fact that specialist medical care is available close to the place where he lives - Provision of benefits in kind in the second Member State - Definition of ‘residence’ and ‘stay’))

2014/C 253/14

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: I

Defendant: Health Service Executive

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Articles 19(1) and 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1) — Concept of ‘staying’ in a Member State other than the competent Member State — Citizen of a Member State suffering for 11 years from a serious medical condition which first manifested itself during a holiday in a second Member State — Citizen compelled to remain in the second Member State as a result of his medical condition

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(j) and (k) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of Article 19(1) or Article 20(1) and (2) of that regulation, where a European Union national who was resident in one Member State suffers a sudden serious illness while on holiday in a second Member State and is compelled to remain in the latter State for 11 years as a result of that illness and the fact that specialist medical care is available close to the place where he lives, such a person must be regarded as ‘staying’ in the second Member State if the habitual centre of his interests is in the first Member State. It is for the national court to determine the habitual centre of such a person’s interests by carrying out an assessment of all the relevant facts and taking into account that person’s intention, as may be discerned from those facts, the mere fact that that person has remained in the second Member State for a long time not being sufficient in itself alone for him to be regarded as residing in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
1.

Articles 4(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, as amended by Directive 2011/51/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that family members, as defined in Article 2(e) of that directive, of a person who has already acquired long-term resident status may not be exempted from the condition laid down in Article 4(1) of that directive, under which, in order to obtain that status, a third-country national must have resided legally and continuously in the Member State concerned for five years immediately prior to the submission of the relevant application.
3)

The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 10 000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Portugal (C-154/09, EU:C:2010:591), from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the date of full compliance with that judgment.
1)

declares that, by failing to ensure that from 1 January 2012 laying hens are no longer reared in unenriched cage systems, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/18

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Peek & Cloppenburg KG

(Joined Cases C-325/13 P and C-326/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Community trade mark - Word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Opposition by another proprietor of the business name ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ - Refusal of registration))

2014/C 315/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (represented by: P. Langue, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), Peek & Cloppenburg KG (represented by: A. Renck, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Iraklis Haralambidis v Calogero Casilli

(Case C-270/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45(1) and (4) TFEU - Concept of worker - Employment in the public service - Post of President of a Port Authority - Participation in the exercise of powers of a public authority - Nationality requirement))

2014/C 409/18

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Iraklis Haralambidis

Defendant: Calogero Casilli

Intervening parties: Autorità Portuale di Brindisi, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Regione Puglia, Provincia di Brindisi, Comune di Brindisi, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato ed Agricoltura di Brindisi

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Article 45(4) TFEU must be interpreted as not authorising a Member State to reserve to its nationals the exercise of the duties of President of a Port Authority.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
2)

Article 29(b) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted to the effect that the question as to which person or authority is empowered to seek the opening of secondary proceedings must be determined on the basis of the national law of the Member State within the territory of which the opening of such proceedings is sought. The right to seek the opening of secondary proceedings cannot, however, be restricted to creditors who have their domicile or registered office within the Member State in whose territory the relevant establishment is situated, or to creditors whose claims arise from the operation of that establishment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Société Fonderie 2A v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-446/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 8(1)(a) - Determination of the place of supply of goods - Supplier established in a Member State other than the Member State in which the person to whom the goods are supplied is established - Processing of the goods in the Member State where the person to whom the goods are supplied is established))

2014/C 421/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Fonderie 2A

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the place of supply of goods sold by a company established in a Member State to a person established in another Member State, and on which the vendor, to make them fit to be supplied, has had finishing work carried out by a service provider established in that other Member State, before having them dispatched by the service provider to the person to whom they are being supplied, must be deemed to be in the Member State where the latter is established.

(1) OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Essent Energie Productie BV v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

(Case C-91/13) (1)

((EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 - Scope - Introduction of new restrictions on the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the conditions for access to employment - Prohibition - Freedom to provide services - Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU - Posting of workers - Nationals of non-Member States - Requirement for a work permit for the deployment of labour))

2014/C 409/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Essent Energie Productie BV

Respondent: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where workers who are nationals of non-member countries are made available by an undertaking established in another Member State to a user undertaking established in the first Member State, which uses them to carry out work on behalf of another undertaking established in the same Member State, such making available is subject to the condition that those workers have been issued with work permits.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
2.

In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and when the customs authorities cannot disclose further information in respect of the examination carried out, whether the customs authorities must grant the request of the party concerned that it conducts, at its own expense, an examination in the country declared as the country of origin and whether it matters that portions of the samples of the goods, to which the party concerned could have obtained access with a view to having an examination carried out by another laboratory, were still available for a limited period and, if so, whether the customs authorities must inform the party concerned that portions of the samples of the goods are still available and that it may request those samples for purposes of such an examination must be assessed on the basis of national procedural law.
3)

Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that neither the detailed rules for determining the amount of the sums which are the subject of the provisional and protective measures granted by a judgment in respect of which recognition and enforcement are requested, in the case where it is possible to follow the line of reasoning which led to the determination of the amount of those sums, and even where legal remedies were available which were used to challenge such methods of calculation, nor the mere invocation of serious economic consequences constitute grounds establishing the infringement of public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought which would permit the refusal of recognition and enforcement in that Member State of such a judgment given in another Member State.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse v Susanne Fassbender-Firman

(Case C-4/13) (1)

((Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Family benefits - Rules governing cases of overlapping entitlements to family benefits))

(2015/C 007/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse

Respondant: Susanne Fassbender-Firman

Operative part of the judgment

Article 76(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as authorising the Member State of employment to provide in its legislation for suspension by the competent institution of entitlement to family benefits when no application has been made for family benefits in the Member State of residence. In such circumstances, if the Member State of employment provides for such suspension of entitlement to family benefits in its national legislation, the competent institution is bound to apply that suspension in accordance with Article 76(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, provided that the conditions for the application of that legislation are met, and has no discretion in that regard.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
1.

The provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products and Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 of 21 April 2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector must be interpreted as precluding, as a rule, the payment of an export refund and the release of the security lodged in that connection when the exporter concerned did not have a valid export licence at the date the export declaration was accepted, even though the actual export of the goods concerned took place during the period of validity of the export licence issued to it.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 November 2014 — Intra-Presse v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Golden Balls Ltd

(Joined Cases C-581/13 P and C 582/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Article 8(5) - Word mark GOLDEN BALLS - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark BALLON D’OR - Relevant public - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion))

(2015/C 026/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Intra-Presse (represented by: P. Péters, advocaat, and T. de Haan, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent), Golden Balls Ltd (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union in Golden Balls v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS) (T-448/11, EU:T:2013:456) and in Golden Balls v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS) (T-437/11, EU:T:2013:441) to the extent that they dismissed the two applications for annulment submitted by Intra-Presse SAS;

2. Dismisses the appeals as to the remainder;

3. Annuls point 2 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 June 2011 (Case R 1432/2010-1) and point 2 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 May 2011 (Case R 1310/2010-1);

4. Orders Intra-Presse SAS, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Golden Balls Ltd to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
2.

Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the essential characteristics of parody, are, first, to evoke an existing work, while being noticeably different from it, and secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery. The concept of ‘parody’, within the meaning of that provision, is not subject to the conditions that the parody should display an original character of its own, other than that of displaying noticeable differences with respect to the original parodied work; that it could reasonably be attributed to a person other than the author of the original work itself; that it should relate to the original work itself or mention the source of the parodied work. However, the application, in a particular case, of the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29, must strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interests and rights of persons referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of that directive, and, on the other, the freedom of expression of the user of a protected work who is relying on the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k). It is for the national court to determine, in the light of all the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, whether the application of the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29, on the assumption that the drawing at issue fulfils the essential requirements of parody, preserves that fair balance.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/13

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 — Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) v European Commission

(Case C-467/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - World market in aluminium fluoride - Rights of the defence - Content of the statement of objections - Calculation of the amount of the fine - 2006 guidelines for the calculation of fines - Point 18 - Total value of sales of goods or services in relation to the infringement - Obligation to state reasons - Reasonable time period - Reduction of the amount of the fine))

(2015/C 046/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) (represented by: P. Wytinck and D. Gillet, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.
2)

Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding a company’s assets have been opened have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, brought by the liquidator in the insolvency proceedings against the managing director of that company for reimbursement of payments made after the company became insolvent or after it had been established that the company’s liabilities exceeded its assets, where the managing director is domiciled not in another Member State but, as is the situation in the main proceedings, in a contracting party to the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, which was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/13

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve v Moussa Abdida

(Case C-562/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 19(2) and 47 - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Person eligible for subsidiary protection - Article 15(b) - Torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of an applicant in the country of origin - Article 3 - More favourable standards - Applicant suffering from a serious illness - No appropriate treatment available in the country of origin - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 13 - Judicial remedy with suspensive effect - Article 14 - Safeguards pending return - Basic needs))

(2015/C 065/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve

Defendant: Moussa Abdida

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5 and 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, taken in conjunction with Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 14(1)(b) of that directive, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which:

— does not endow with suspensive effect an appeal against a decision ordering a third country national suffering from a serious illness to leave the territory of a Member State, where the enforcement of that decision may expose that third country national to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in his state of health, and

— does not make provision, in so far as possible, for the basic needs of such a third country national to be met, in order to ensure that emergency health care and essential treatment of illness are in fact made available during the period in which that Member State is required to postpone removal of the third country national following the lodging of the appeal.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Kolding, Civilretten) — FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft v Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), acting on behalf of Billund Kommune

(Case C-354/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Dismissal - Ground - Obesity of the worker - General principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of obesity - Lack - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of all discrimination on the basis of a disability - Existence of a ‘disability’)

(2015/C 065/09)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Retten i Kolding, Civilretten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft

Defendant: Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), acting on behalf of Billund Kommune

Operative part of the judgment

1) EU law must be interpreted as not laying down a general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of obesity as such as regards employment and occupation;

2) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the obesity of a worker can constitute a ‘disability’ within the meaning of that directive where it entails a limitation resulting in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. It is for the national court to determine whether, in the main proceedings, those conditions are met.

(1) OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.