ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 May 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-146/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Implementing enhanced cooperation - Creation of unitary patent protection - Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 - First paragraph of Article 118 TFEU - Legal basis - Article 291 TFEU - Delegation of powers to bodies outside the European Union - Principles of autonomy and uniform application of EU law))

(2015/C 213/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Chamizo Llatas and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: M. Gómez-Leal, M. Dean and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Middleton, F. Florindo Gijón, M. Balta and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, J.-C. Halleux and T. Materne, acting as Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning and M. Wolff, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, M. Möller and J. Kemper, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, F.-X. Bréchot, D. Colas and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz and U. Persson, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt, acting as Agent, and by J. Stratford QC and T. Mitcheson, Barrister) and European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, T. van Rijn, B. Smulders and F. Bulst, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

3) Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
2.

The concept of ‘deterioration of the status’ of a body of surface water in Article 4(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as meaning that there is deterioration as soon as the status of at least one of the quality elements, within the meaning of Annex V to the directive, falls by one class, even if that fall does not result in a fall in classification of the body of surface water as a whole. However, if the quality element concerned, within the meaning of that annex, is already in the lowest class, any deterioration of that element constitutes a ‘deterioration of the status’ of a body of surface water, within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a)(i).
1.

Article 7(2) of Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, and point 12 of Annex I to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may exclude from the guarantee provided for by that directive certificates of deposit issued by a credit institution if those certificates are negotiable, a matter which it falls to the referring court to determine, there being no need for it to satisfy itself that those certificates have all the characteristics of a financial instrument within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-433/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 7 - Article 21 - Sickness benefit - Care allowance, assistance allowance and compensatory allowance for extra costs - Residence requirement))

(2015/C 371/03)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár, D. Martin and F. Schatz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — ClientEarth v European Commission

(Case C-612/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Environmental information - Aarhus Convention - Article 4(1) and (4) - Exception to right of access - Protection of the purpose of investigations - Studies carried out by an undertaking, at the request of the European Commission, concerning the transposition of directives on the environment - Partial refusal of access))

(2015/C 311/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, P. Costa de Oliveira and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by J. Rodrigues and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by M. Moore, M. Simm and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in ClientEarth v Commission (T-111/11, EU:T:2013:482) in so far as the General Court of the European Union thereby accepted that the European Commission could, by its decision of 30 May 2011, refuse to ClientEarth, on the basis of a general presumption, full access to those of the studies relating to the compatibility of the legislation of various Member States with European Union environmental law which, on the date when that decision was adopted, had not led the European Commission to send a letter of formal notice to the Member State concerned, under the first paragraph of Article 258 TFEU, and had not therefore been placed in a file pertaining to the pre-litigation stage of infringement proceedings;

2) Dismisses the appeal for the remainder;

3) Annuls the decision of the Commission of 30 May 2011 in so far as the European Commission thereby refused to give to ClientEarth full access to the studies referred to in point 1 of the operative part of this judgment;

4) Orders ClientEarth and the European Commission to bear their own costs relating to the appeal and to the procedure at first instance;

5) Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs relating to the appeal.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 February 2016 — Council of the European Union v Bank Mellat, European Commission

(Case C-176/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Combating nuclear proliferation - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds of an Iranian bank - Obligation to state reasons - Procedure for the adoption of the act - Manifest error of assessment))

(2016/C 145/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Mellat (represented by: M. Brindle QC, R. Blakeley and V. Zaiwalla, Barristers, and by Z. Burbeza, P. Reddy, S. Zaiwalla and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie and S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Bank Mellat in both sets of proceedings;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs in both sets of proceedings.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Bilbao — Spain) — Grupo Hospitalario Quirón SA v Departamento de Sanidad del Gobierno Vasco, Instituto de Religiosas Siervas de Jesús de la Caridad

(Case C-552/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 23(2) - Management of public health services - Provision of health services under the remit of public hospitals in private establishments - Requirement that the services be provided in a particular municipality))

(2015/C 414/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Bilbao

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grupo Hospitalario Quirón SA

Defendants: Departamento de Sanidad del Gobierno Vasco, Instituto de Religiosas Siervas de Jesús de la Caridad

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(2) of 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 precludes a requirement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, expressed as a technical specification in public procurement notices relating to the provision of health services, whereby the medical services that are the subject of the calls for tenders must be provided by private hospital establishments situated exclusively within a given municipality, which is not necessarily that in which the patients concerned by those services reside, where that requirement involves the automatic exclusion of tenderers who cannot provide those services in such an establishment situated within that municipality but who satisfy all the other conditions of those calls for tenders.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch AG v European Commission

(Case C-625/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement - Proof - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Reasonable time - Proportionality))

(2017/C 104/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch AG (represented by: M. Klusmann and T. Kreifels, Rechtsanwälte, assisted by S. Thomas, Professor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Villeroy & Boch AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 July 2016 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

(Case C-660/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - The European Union’s external relations - Access by the Swiss Confederation to the internal market - The Swiss Confederation’s financial contribution to economic and social cohesion in an enlarged Union - Memorandum of Understanding on a financial contribution by the Swiss Confederation to the Member States which acceded to the Union as a result of the 2004 enlargement - Enlargement of the Union to include the Republic of Croatia - Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning a financial contribution by the Swiss Confederation for the Republic of Croatia - Addendum signed by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union without the prior approval of the Council of the European Union - Powers - Article 13(2), Article 16(1) and (6) and Article 17(1) TEU - Principles of allocation of powers, institutional balance and sincere cooperation))

(2016/C 350/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, P. Mahnič and E. Finnegan, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, E. Ruffer and M. Hedvábná, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze and B. Beutler, Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Chala and M. Tassopoulou, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize and N. Rouam, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and J. Nasutavičienėè, Agents), Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Szima, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M. Gijzen and M.Noort, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling, C. Brodie, S. Behzadi-Spencer and E. Jenkinson, Agents, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission, (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and T. Scharf, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013 on the signature of the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Swiss financial contribution;

2. Maintains the effects of Commission Decision C(2013) 6355 final until the entry into force, within a reasonable period of time, of a new decision to replace it;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

4. Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
1)

Declares that by requiring candidates for posts in the local services established in the French-speaking or German-speaking regions, whose diplomas or certificates do not show that they were educated in the language concerned, to provide evidence of their linguistic knowledge by means of one particular type of certificate, issued only by one particular Belgian body following an examination conducted by that body in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland)) — Minister Finansów v Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie

(Case C-42/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Letting of immovable property - Supply of electricity, heating, water and refuge collection - Agreements between the landlord and the suppliers of those goods and services - Supplies provided to the tenant considered to be provided by the landlord - Service charges - Determination of the taxable amount - Possibility of including service charges in the taxable amount of rental services - Transaction composed of a single supply or several independent supplies))

(2015/C 198/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 14(1), 15(1) and 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the letting of immovable property, the provision of electricity, heating and water and refuse collection, provided by third-party suppliers for the tenant directly using those goods and services must be regarded as being supplied by the landlord where he has concluded agreements for the provision of those supplies and simply passes on the costs thereof to the tenant.

2. That directive must be interpreted as meaning that the letting of immovable property and the provision of water, electricity and heating as well as refuse collection accompanying that letting must, in principle, be regarded as constituting several distinct and independent supplies which need to be assessed separately for VAT purposes, unless the elements of the transaction, including those indicating the economic reason for concluding the contract, are so closely linked that they form, objectively, a single, indivisible economic supply which it would be artificial to split.

3. It is for the national court to make the necessary assessments taking into account all the circumstances of the letting and the accompanying supplies and, in particular, the content of the agreement itself.

(1) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/20

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali v Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari Soc. coop. arl — Federconsorzi, admitted to a collective insolvency procedure known as ‘concordato preventivo’, Liquidazione giudiziale dei beni ceduti ai creditori della Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari Soc. coop. arl — Federconsorzi

(Case C-104/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU - Combating late payments in commercial transactions - Directive 2000/35/EC - Articles 2, 3 and 6 - Directive 2011/7/EU - Articles 2, 7 and 12 - Legislation of a Member State capable of modifying, to the detriment of a creditor of the State, the interest on a debt predating those directives))

(2015/C 138/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali

Respondents: Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari Soc. coop. arl — Federconsorzi, admitted to a collective insolvency procedure known as ‘concordato preventivo’, Liquidazione giudiziale dei beni ceduti ai creditori della Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari Soc. coop. arl — Federconsorzi

Operative part of the judgment

The third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 3(3) and 6 of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions and Articles 7 and 12 of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State which has made use of the option under Article 6(3)(b) of Directive 2000/35 from adopting, during the period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2011/7, legislative provisions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are capable of modifying, to the detriment of a creditor of the State, the interest on a debt arising out of the performance of a contract concluded before 8 August 2002.

(1) OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/18

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects d’Auvergne v Brasserie Bouquet SA

(Case C-285/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 92/83/EEC - Excise duty - Beer - Article 4 - Small independent breweries - Reduced rate of excise duty - Conditions - No operation under licence - Production in accordance with a process of a third party and authorised by it - Authorisation to use the trade marks of that third party))

(2015/C 236/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects d’Auvergne

Defendant: Brasserie Bouquet SA

Operative part of the judgment

For the purpose of applying the reduced rate of excise duty on beer the condition laid down in Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages according to which a brewery must not operate under licence, is not met if the brewery concerned makes its beer in accordance with an agreement pursuant to which it is authorised to use the trade marks and production process of a third party.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
—

declares that, by having failed to designate as vulnerable zones the zones characterised by the presence of bodies of surface water or groundwater which are affected by concentrations of nitrates above 50 milligrammes per litre and/or by the phenomenon of eutrophification, and by not having established the action programmes related to those zones within one year after that designation, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(4) and 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/ΕEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/17

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — Vadzim Ipatau v Council of the European Union

(Case C-535/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Republic of Belarus - Admissibility - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Legal aid - Suspensory effect - Effective judicial protection - Rights of the defence - Principle of proportionality))

(2015/C 279/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Vadzim Ipatau (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Vadzim Ipatau to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.