ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/25

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-529/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Customs Code - Article 29 - Determination of the customs value - Cross-border transactions between related companies - Advance transfer pricing arrangement - Agreed transfer price composed of an amount initially invoiced and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period))

(2018/C 072/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 28 to 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not permit an agreed transaction value, composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, without it being possible to know at the end of the accounting period whether that adjustment would be made up or down.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal SA (Retegal) v European Commission, SES Astra SA

(Case C-70/16 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 072/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, SA (Retegal) (represented by: F. J. García Martínez and B. Pérez Conde, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents), SES Astra (represented by F. González Díaz and V. Romero Algarra, abogados, and by F. Salerno, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 November 2015, Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Retegal v Commission (T-463/13 and T-464/13, not published, EU:T:2015:901);

2. Annuls Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/2010, ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha);

3. Orders the European Commission to bear the costs incurred by the Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Autonomous Community of Galicia, Spain) and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal SA (Retegal) in the present appeal and at first instance;

4. Orders SES Astra SA to bears its own costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 83/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o. v Ministerstvo financí ČR

(Case C-676/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Directive 2005/60/EC - Scope - Article 2(1), point 3(c) and Article 3, point 7(a) - Business activity of an undertaking consisting in the sale of companies already entered in the Register of Companies and formed solely for the purposes of sale - Sale by means of the transfer of the undertaking’s holding in the ready-made company))

(2018/C 083/06)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o.

Defendant: Ministerstvo financí ČR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1), point 3(c) of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, read in conjunction with Article 3, point 7(a) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a person, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whose commercial activity consists in selling companies which it formed itself, without any prior request on the part of its potential clients, for the purposes of sale to those clients, by means of a transfer of its shares in the capital of the company being sold, falls within the scope of those provisions.

(1) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
2.

Article 8(4) and Article 13(3) of Directive 2002/19, read in combination with Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a national regulatory authority may require an operator, designated as having significant market power on a specific market and under an obligation in regard to cost orientation of prices, to set its prices annually on the basis of the most up-to-date data and to submit those prices to it for verification together with justification before they become applicable, provided that such obligations are based on the nature of the problem identified, are proportionate and are justified in the light of the objectives laid down in Article 8 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), which is for the referring court to verify.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV (C-398/16), X NV (C-399/16) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Joined Cases C-398/16 and C-399/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 54 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Advantages linked to the formation of a single tax entity - Exclusion of cross-border groups))

(2018/C 134/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X BV (C-398/16), X NV (C-399/16)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which a parent company established in a Member State is not allowed to deduct interest in respect of a loan taken out with a related company in order to finance a capital contribution to a subsidiary established in another Member State, whereas if the subsidiary were established in the same Member State, the parent company could avail itself of that deduction by forming a tax-integrated entity with it.

2. Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which a parent company established in a Member State is not allowed to deduct from its profits capital losses derived from fluctuations in the exchange rate, in connection with the value of its shares in a subsidiary established in another Member State, where the same legislation does not provide, symmetrically, for tax to be levied on capital gains derived from those fluctuations.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
1.

Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the application of that article, a national competition authority may include in the relevant market, in addition to the medicinal products authorised for the treatment of the diseases concerned, another medicinal product whose marketing authorisation does not cover that treatment but which is used for that purpose and is thus actually substitutable with the former. In order to determine whether such a relationship of substitutability exists, the competition authority must, in so far as conformity of the product at issue with the applicable provisions governing the manufacture or the marketing of that product has been examined by the competent authorities or courts, take account of the outcome of that examination by assessing any effects it may have on the structure of supply and demand.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas

(Case C-64/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 19(1) TEU - Legal remedies - Effective judicial protection - Judicial independence - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Reduction of remuneration in the national public administration - Budgetary austerity measures))

(2018/C 142/02)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses

Defendant: Tribunal de Contas

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of judicial independence does not preclude general salary-reduction measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, linked to requirements to eliminate an excessive budget deficit and to an EU financial assistance programme, from being applied to the members of the Tribunal de Contas (Court of Auditors, Portugal).

(1) OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-577/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scope - Article 2(1) - Annex I - Activities subject to the trading scheme - Production of polymers - Use of heat supplied by a third-party installation - Application for free allocation of emission allowances - Period 2013-2020))

(2018/C 142/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that an installation for the production of polymers, in particular the polymer polycarbonate, such as the installation at issue in the main proceedings, which obtains the heat needed for that production from a third-party installation, does not fall within the scope of the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme established by that directive, since it does not generate direct CO2 emissions.

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Astellas Pharma GmbH v Helm AG, Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus (Fimea)

(Case C-557/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/83/EC - Medicinal products for human use - Articles 28 and 29 - Decentralised procedure for marketing authorisation for a medicinal product - Article 10 - Generic medicinal product - Data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product - Power of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned to determine the point in time from which the exclusivity period starts to run - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States concerned to review the determination of the point in time from which the exclusivity period starts to run - Effective judicial protection - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47))

(2018/C 166/16)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Astellas Pharma GmbH

Defendants: Helm AG, Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus (Fimea)

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 28 and Article 29(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a decentralised marketing-authorisation procedure for a generic medicinal product, the competent authority of a Member State concerned by that procedure cannot itself determine the point in time from which the data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product starts to run when adopting, under Article 28(5) of that directive, its decision on the placing on the market of that generic medicinal product in that Member State.

2) Article 10 of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2012/26, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State involved in a decentralised procedure for marketing authorisations, hearing an action brought by the holder of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product against the marketing-authorisation decision for a generic medicinal product in that Member State taken by its competent authority, has jurisdiction to review the determination of the point in time from which the data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product starts to run. By contrast, that court does not have jurisdiction to review whether the initial marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product granted in another Member State was granted in accordance with that directive.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/10

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 — European Commission v FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S

(Case C-579/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Definition of ‘aid’ - Definition of ‘economic advantage’ - Market economy operator principle - Conditions governing applicability and application - Financial crisis - Successive bank bail outs - Whether account to be taken, in the assessment of the second bail out, of the risks arising from commitments entered into by a Member State in the first bail out))

(2018/C 161/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, L. Flynn and K. Blanck-Putz, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, FIH Holding and FIH Erhvervsbank v Commission (T-386/14, EU:T:2016:474);

2. Dismisses the first plea in the action before the General Court;

3. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the second plea in law;

4. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Case C-525/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão — Portugal) — MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA v Autoridade da Concorrência (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Article 102, second paragraph, point (c), TFEU — Concept of ‘competitive disadvantage’ — Discriminatory prices on a downstream market — Cooperative for the management of rights relating to copyright — Royalty payable by domestic entities which provide a paid television signal transmission service and television content)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão — Portugal) — MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA v Autoridade da Concorrência

(Case C-525/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Article 102, second paragraph, point (c), TFEU — Concept of ‘competitive disadvantage’ — Discriminatory prices on a downstream market — Cooperative for the management of rights relating to copyright — Royalty payable by domestic entities which provide a paid television signal transmission service and television content)’

Referring court

Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA

Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência

Other party to the proceedings: GDA — Cooperativa de Gestão dos Direitos dos Artistas Intérpretes ou Executantes, CRL

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘competitive disadvantage’, for the purposes of subparagraph (c) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU, must be interpreted to the effect that, where a dominant undertaking applies discriminatory prices to trade partners on the downstream market, it covers a situation in which that behaviour is capable of distorting competition between those trade partners. A finding of such a ‘competitive disadvantage’ does not require proof of actual quantifiable deterioration in the competitive situation, but must be based on an analysis of all the relevant circumstances of the case leading to the conclusion that that behaviour has an effect on the costs, profits or any other relevant interest of one or more of those partners, so that that conduct is such as to affect that situation.

( 1 ) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Case C-633/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten — Denmark) — Ernst & Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Control of concentrations of undertakings — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Article 7(1) — Implementation of a concentration prior to notification to the European Commission and declaration of compatibility with the common market — Prohibition — Scope — Concept of ‘concentration’ — Termination of a cooperation agreement with a third party by one of the merging undertakings)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten — Denmark) — Ernst & Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet

(Case C-633/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Control of concentrations of undertakings — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Article 7(1) — Implementation of a concentration prior to notification to the European Commission and declaration of compatibility with the common market — Prohibition — Scope — Concept of ‘concentration’ — Termination of a cooperation agreement with a third party by one of the merging undertakings)’

Referring court

Sø- og Handelsretten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ernst & Young P/S

Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the EC Merger Regulation’) must be interpreted as meaning that a concentration is implemented only by a transaction which, in whole or in part, in fact or in law, contributes to the change in control of the target undertaking. The termination of a cooperation agreement, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, which it is for the referring court to determine, may not be regarded as bringing about the implementation of a concentration, irrespective of whether that termination has produced market effects.

( 1 ) OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.
Case C-147/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the vredegerecht te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW v Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer — Examination by the national court of its own motion of the question of whether the contract is within the scope of that directive — Article 2(c) — Notion of ‘seller or supplier’ — Higher educational establishment financed mainly by public funds — Contract for an interest-free repayment plan for registration fees and share of costs of a study trip)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the vredegerecht te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW v Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers

(Case C-147/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer — Examination by the national court of its own motion of the question of whether the contract is within the scope of that directive — Article 2(c) — Notion of ‘seller or supplier’ — Higher educational establishment financed mainly by public funds — Contract for an interest-free repayment plan for registration fees and share of costs of a study trip)’

Referring court

Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW

Defendant: Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers

Operative part of the judgment

1. Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a national court giving judgment in default and which has the power, under national procedural rules, to examine of its own motion whether the term upon which the claim is based is contrary to national public policy laws is required to examine of its own motion whether the contract containing that term falls within the scope of that directive and, if so, whether that term is unfair.

2. Subject to verifications to be carried out by the referring court, Article 2(c) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a free educational establishment, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, by contract, has agreed with one of its students to provide repayment facilities for sums due by the latter in respect of registration fees and costs connected with a study trip, must be regarded, in the context of that contract, as a ‘seller or supplier’, within the meaning of Article 2(c) of Directive 93/13, with the result that that contract falls within the scope of application of that directive.

( 1 ) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.