ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/25

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora — Portugal) — Luís Isidro Delgado Mendes v Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais SA

(Case C-503/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2009/103/EC - Theft of a vehicle - Motor vehicle accident - Personal injuries and property damage sustained by the insured owner of the vehicle, as a pedestrian - Civil liability - Compensation - Compulsory insurance cover - Exclusion clauses - National legislation excluding the insured owner of the vehicle from compensation from the insurers - Compatibility with those directives - Concept of ‘third parties who have been victims’))

(2017/C 382/29)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Évora

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Luís Isidro Delgado Mendes

Defendant: Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais SA

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 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, Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, and Article 1a of the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicle, as amended by Directive 2005/14, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excluded from coverage under compulsory insurance against civil liability with respect to the use of motor vehicles and, therefore, compensation by means of that insurance the personal injuries and property damage sustained by a pedestrian victim of a motor vehicle accident, on the sole ground that that pedestrian was the insurance policy-holder and the owner of the vehicle that caused those injuries and that damage.

(1) OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.
3.

Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the condition laid down in that provision as to the existence of the ‘same cause of action’ is no longer satisfied where, following a partial withdrawal by an applicant, provided that it was properly declared, of an action for infringement on the basis of an EU trade mark seeking initially to prohibit the use of that trade mark in the territory of the European Union, such a withdrawal concerning the Member State referred to in the action brought before the court first seised, on the basis of a national trade mark seeking to prohibit the use of that trade mark within the territory of that Member State, the actions in question no longer relate to an alleged infringement of a national trade mark and an identical EU trade mark in the territory of the same Member States;
Case C-262/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Shields & Sons Partnership v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 296(2) — Article 299 — Common flat-rate scheme for farmers — Exclusion from the common scheme — Conditions — Concept of ‘category of farmers’)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Shields & Sons Partnership v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-262/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 296(2) — Article 299 — Common flat-rate scheme for farmers — Exclusion from the common scheme — Conditions — Concept of ‘category of farmers’)’

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Shields & Sons Partnership

Respondent: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 296(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as laying down exhaustively all the cases in which a Member State may exclude a farmer from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers.

2. Article 296(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that farmers who are found to be recovering substantially more as members of the common flat-rate scheme for farmers than they would if they were subject to the normal value added tax arrangements or the simplified value added tax arrangements cannot constitute a category of farmers within the meaning of that provision.

( 1 ) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
2.

Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126 and Articles 21, 45, 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing a penalty on a person who, despite having satisfied the conditions for the issuing of a driving licence as provided for in that directive, drives a motor vehicle in that Member State without a driving licence conforming to the model driving licence provided for in that directive and who, pending the issuing of such a driving licence by another Member State, can prove only that he has been granted the right to drive in another Member State by means of a temporary certificate issued by that Member State, provided that that penalty is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the facts at issue. It is thus for the referring court to take into account, in its assessment of the seriousness of the offence committed by the person in question and of the severity of the penalty to be imposed on him, as a potentially mitigating circumstance, the fact that that person had been granted the right to drive in another Member State, evidenced by a certificate issued by that other Member State which will, in principle, be exchanged before its expiry, at that person’s request, for a driving licence conforming to the requirements of the model driving licence provided for in Directive 2006/126. That court must also consider, in the context of its assessment, what actual risk that person posed for road safety in its territory.
1.

Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be interpreted as meaning that, where a contracting entity has terminated the contract concluded with one undertaking for the provision of security guard services at its facilities, then concluded a new contract for the supply of those services with another undertaking, which refuses to take on the employees of the first undertaking, that situation falls within the concept of a ‘transfer of an undertaking [or] business’ within the meaning of that provision, when the equipment essential to the performance of those services has been taken over by the second undertaking;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/13

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna v Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo

(Case C-381/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - EU trade mark - Article 16 - Trade mark as an object of property - Dealing with EU trade marks as national trade marks - Article 18 - Transfer of a trade mark registered in the name of the agent or representative of the trade mark’s proprietor - National provision allowing the possibility of bringing an action for recovery of ownership of a national trade mark registered in fraud of the owner’s rights or in breach of a legal or contractual obligation - Whether compatible with Regulation No 207/2009))

(2018/C 022/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna

Defendant: Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 16 and 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark must be interpreted as not precluding the application to an EU trade mark of a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a person harmed, by the trade mark registration which was applied for in fraud of his rights or in breach of a legal or contractual obligation, is entitled to claim ownership of that trade mark, provided that the situation concerned does not fall within those covered by Article 18 of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — HX v Council of the European Union

(Case C-423/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Restrictive measures against a person listed in an annex to a decision - Extension of the validity of that decision during proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Request to modify the application in the course of the hearing and not by a separate document - Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Bulgarian language version - Annulment by the General Court of the original decision placing the person concerned on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures - Expiry of the extension decision - Continuation of the interest in bringing legal proceedings in relation to the modification of the application))

(2018/C 005/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: HX (represented by: S. Koev, аdvokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Gurov and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Operative part:

The Court (First Chamber) hereby:

1) Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 June 2016, HX v Council (T-723/14, EU:T:2016:332);

2) Declares that there is no longer a need to adjudicate on the request to modify the application submitted by HX before the General Court of the European Union;

3) Orders the Council of the European Union to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by HX both at first instance and in the present appeal.

(1) OJ C 350, 26.09.2016
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Soufiane El Hassani v Minister Spraw Zagranicznych

(Case C-403/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Article 32(3) - Community Visa Code - Decision to refuse a visa - Right of the applicant to bring an appeal against that decision - Obligation of a Member State to guarantee the right to a judicial appeal))

(2018/C 052/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soufiane El Hassani

Defendant: Minister Spraw Zagranicznych

Operative part of the judgment

Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it requires Member States to provide for an appeal procedure against decisions refusing visas, the procedural rules for which are a matter for the legal order of each Member State in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. Those proceedings must, at a certain stage of the proceedings, guarantee a judicial appeal.

(1) OJ C 383,17.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (Snitem), Philips France v Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

(Case C-329/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medical devices - Directive 93/42/EEC - Scope - ‘Medical device’ - CE marking - National legislation making drug prescription assistance software subject to a certification procedure laid down by a national authority))

(2018/C 052/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (Snitem), Philips France

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and Article 1(2)(a) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that software, of which at least one of the functions makes it possible to use patient-specific data for the purposes, inter alia, of detecting contraindications, drug interactions and excessive doses, is, in respect of that function, a medical device within the meaning of those provisions, even if that software does not act directly in or on the human body.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-81/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Definition - Discretion of the Member States))

(2018/C 072/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and A. Rubio González, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

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

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E. Mantovani SpA, Guerrato SpA v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Agenzia per i procedimenti e la vigilanza in materia di contratti pubblici di lavori servizi e forniture (ACP), Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

(Case C-178/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 45(2) and (3) - Conditions for exclusion from participation in public procurement - Declaration regarding the absence of convictions of former directors of the tendering company - Criminal conduct of a former director - Criminal conviction - Actual and complete dissociation between the tendering company and that director - Evidence - Assessment by the contracting entity of the requirements relating to that obligation))

(2018/C 072/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E. Mantovani SpA, Guerrato SpA

Defendants: Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Agenzia per i procedimenti e la vigilanza in materia di contratti pubblici di lavori servizi e forniture (ACP), Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

Intervening parties: Società Italiana per Condotte d’Acqua SpA, Inso Sistemi per le Infrastrutture Sociali SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in particular Article 45(2)(c), (d) and (g) of that directive, and the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows the contracting authority:

— to take into consideration, in accordance with the conditions it has laid down, a criminal conviction of the director of a tendering company, even if the conviction is not yet final, for an offence concerning the professional conduct of that company where the director ceased to perform his duties in the year preceding the publication of the tender notice, and

— to exclude that company from taking part in the tendering procedure at issue, on the ground that, by failing to declare the conviction which was not yet final, it had not fully and effectively dissociated itself from that director’s activities.

(1) OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of Gibraltar) — The Queen on the application of Albert Buhagiar and Others v Minister for Justice

(Case C-267/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Territorial scope of EU law - Article 355(3) TFEU - Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Adjustments to the Treaties - Article 29 - Point 4 of Section I of Annex I - Exclusion of Gibraltar from the customs territory of the European Union - Implications - Directive 91/477/EEC - Article 1(4) - Article 12(2) - Annex II - European firearms pass - Hunting and target shooting activities - Applicability to the territory of Gibraltar - Obligation to transpose - No such obligation - Validity))

(2018/C 104/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of Gibraltar

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: The Queen on the application of Albert Buhagiar, Wayne Piri, Stephanie Piri, Arthur Taylor, Henry Bonifacio, Colin Tomlinson, Darren Sheriff

Defendant: Minister for Justice

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 29 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Adjustments to the Treaties, read in conjunction with point 4 of Section I of Annex I thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that Article 12(2) of Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, as amended by Directive 2008/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008, read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof and Annex II thereto, does not apply on the territory of Gibraltar.

2. Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 91/477, as amended by Directive 2008/51.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
1.

Article 18 du Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, read in the light of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, must be interpreted as meaning that the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market, as stated in an application for a supplementary protection certificate, on the basis of which the national authority competent for granting such a certificate calculated the duration of the certificate, is incorrect in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the date led to a method for calculating the duration of the certificate which does not comply with the requirements of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 469/2009, as interpreted by a subsequent judgment of the Court.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/8

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Kubota (UK) Limited, EP Barrus Limited v Commissioners for her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

(Case C-545/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Motor vehicles for the transport of goods - Subheadings 8704 10 10 and 8704 21 91 - Regulation (EU) 2015/221 - Validity))

(2018/C 134/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kubota (UK) Limited, EP Barrus Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/221 of 10 February 2015 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
1.

Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 35(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC, must be interpreted as meaning that a three party payment card scheme that has entered into a co-branding agreement with a co-branding partner does not lose the benefit of the exception provided for by that provision and, therefore, is not subject to the obligation laid down in Article 35(1) of that directive in a situation where that co-branding partner is not a payment service provider and does not provide payment services within that scheme with respect to the co-branded products. However, a three party payment card scheme that makes use of an agent for the purposes of supplying payment services loses the benefit of that exception and, therefore, is subject to the obligation laid down in Article 35(1).
3)

The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 and the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a connecting flight, the ‘place of performance’ of that flight, for the purposes of those provisions, is the place of arrival of the second leg, where the carriage on both flights was operated by two different air carriers and the action for compensation for the long delay of that connecting flight under Regulation No 261/2004 is based on an irregularity which took place on the first of those flights, operated by the air carrier with which the passengers concerned do not have contractual relations.