ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Office national de l’emploi v Marie-Rose Melchior

(Case C-647/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Conditions governing eligibility for unemployment benefit in a Member State - Taking into account periods of work completed as a member of the contract staff of an institution of the European Union which is established in that Member State - Treatment of days of unemployment for which an allowance is paid under the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities as working days - Principle of sincere cooperation))

(2015/C 107/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Office national de l’emploi

Respondent: Marie-Rose Melchior

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 EC, in conjunction with the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities established by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is interpreted as meaning that, in relation to eligibility for unemployment benefit, periods of work completed as a member of the contract staff in an institution of the European Union established in that Member State are not taken into account and days of unemployment which have given rise to payment of an unemployment allowance pursuant to the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities are not treated as working days although days of unemployment for which benefit has been paid under the legislation of that Member State are so treated.

(1) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/4

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA

(Case C-143/13) (1)

((Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer - Article 4(2) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and remuneration as long as they are in plain intelligible language - Terms including a ‘risk charge’ charged by the lender and authorising it, under certain conditions, unilaterally to alter the interest rate))

(2015/C 138/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei

Defendant: SC Volksbank România SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, ‘main subject-matter of the contract’ and ‘adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplies in exchange, on the other’ do not, in principle, cover the types of terms in the credit agreements concluded between a professional and consumers such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which, on one hand, allow, under certain conditions, the lender unilaterally to alter the interest rate and, on the other hand, provide for a ‘risk charge’ applied by the lender. However, it is for the referring court to verify that classification of those contractual terms having regard to the nature, general scheme and stipulations of the agreements concerned and the legal and factual context of which they form part.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/17

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa — Portugal) — Estado português v Banco Privado Português SA, in liquidation, Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA

(Case C-667/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - State guarantee underwriting a loan - Decision 2011/346/EU - Questions concerning validity - Admissibility - Article 107(1) TFEU - Statement of reasons - Effect on trade between Member States - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State))

(2015/C 138/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Estado português

Defendants: Banco Privado Português SA, in liquidation, Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa (Portugal) has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Commission Decision 2011/346/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid C 33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to BPP.

(1) OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Gérard Fenoll v Centre d'aide par le travail ‘La Jouvene’, Association de parents et d'amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d'Avignon

(Case C-316/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31(2) - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Notion of ‘worker’ - Handicapped person - Right to paid annual leave - National rules contrary to EU law - Role of the national court))

(2015/C 171/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gérard Fenoll

Defendants: Centre d'aide par le travail ‘La Jouvene’, Association de parents et d'amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d'Avignon

Operative part of the judgment

The notion of ‘worker’, within the meaning of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it may cover a person admitted to an employment rehabilitation centre such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Jean-Bernard Lafonta v Autorité des marchés financiers

(Case C-628/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2003/6/EC - Article 1, point (1) - Directive 2003/124/EC - Article 1(1) - Inside information - Concept of ‘information of a precise nature’ - Potential effect in a particular direction on the prices of financial instruments))

(2015/C 146/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Jean-Bernard Lafonta

Respondent: Autorité des marchés financiers

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of point (1) of Article 1 of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) and Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition and public disclosure of inside information and the definition of market manipulation, in order for information to be regarded as being of a precise nature for the purposes of those provisions, it need not be possible to infer from that information, with a sufficient degree of probability, that, once it is made public, its potential effect on the prices of the financial instruments concerned will be in a particular direction.

(1) OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v Stadt Kempten

(Case C-424/13) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Protection of animals during transport - Long journey between Member States and third countries - Article 14(1) - Check to be carried out related to the journey log by the competent authority at the place of departure prior to long journeys - Applicability of that provision in regards to the stages of the journey taking place outside the territory of the European Union - Applicability of the standards fixed by that regulation to that part of the journey))

(2015/C 205/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH

Defendant: Stadt Kempten

intervening party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for transport involving a long journey for animals concerned which commences on the territory of the European Union and continues outside that territory to be authorised by the competent authority of the place of departure, the organiser of the journey must submit a journey log which, in the light of the arrangements for the journey as planned, is realistic and indicates that the provisions of that regulation will be complied with, including for the stages of the journey which are to take place in the territory of third countries, that authority being empowered, should that not be the case, to require changes to those arrangements to ensure compliance with those provisions throughout the journey.

(1) OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hermann Lutz v Elke Bäuerle, acting as liquidator of ECZ Autohandel GmbH

(Case C-557/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Articles 4 and 13 - Insolvency proceedings - Payment made after the date on which insolvency proceedings were opened on the basis of attachment carried out before that date - Action to set aside an act detrimental to the interests of the creditors - Limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set transactions aside - Procedural requirements for the action - Applicable law))

(2015/C 198/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hermann Lutz

Defendant: Elke Bäuerle, acting as liquidator of ECZ Autohandel GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which a payment, challenged by an insolvency administrator, of a sum of money attached before the opening of the insolvency proceedings was made only after the opening of those proceedings.

2) Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the defence which it establishes also applies to limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set aside transactions under the law governing the act challenged by the liquidator.

3) The relevant procedural requirements for the exercise of an action to set a transaction aside are to be determined, for the purposes of the application of Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000, according to the law governing the act challenged by the liquidator.

(1) OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Dimensione Direct Sales Srl, Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA

(Case C-516/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4(1) - Distribution right - Concept of ‘distribution to the public’ - Offer for sale and advertising by a trader of a Member State on its website, by direct mail and in the press in another Member State - Reproductions of protected furniture for sale without the consent of the holder of the exclusive distribution right - Offer or advertising not leading to the purchase of the original or copies of a protected work))

(2015/C 236/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dimensione Direct Sales Srl, Michele Labianca

Defendant: Knoll International SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that it allows a holder of an exclusive right to distribute a protected work to prevent an offer for sale or a targeted advertisement of the original or a copy of that work, even if it is not established that that advertisement gave rise to the purchase of the protected work by an EU buyer, in so far as that advertisement invites consumers of the Member State in which that work is protected by copyright to purchase it.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
2)

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an action for damages brought against defendants domiciled in various Member States as a result of a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, which has been established by the European Commission, in which the defendants participated in several Member States, at different times and in different places, the harmful event occurred in relation to each alleged victim on an individual basis and each of the victims can, by virtue of Article 5(3), choose to bring an action before the courts of the place in which the cartel was definitively concluded or, as the case may be, the place in which one agreement in particular was concluded which is identifiable as the sole causal event giving rise to the loss allegedly suffered, or before the courts of the place where its own registered office is located;
2.

Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer who was informed prior to 1 January 2010 that payment entitlements were allocated to him or her unduly may not rely on that article for the purpose of having those entitlements regularised. Article 73(4) of Commission Regulation No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2184/2005 of 23 December 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer ought reasonably to have detected as ineligible for aid areas in respect of whose use he or she has no discretion for the purpose of carrying out his or her agricultural activity and/or on which he or she is unable to carry out agricultural activity due to restrictions arising from the pursuance of a non-agricultural activity on those same areas. The relevant moment for assessing whether the error committed could reasonably be detected by that farmer is the time of the payment. The assessment under Article 73(4) of Regulation No 796/2004 must be conducted separately in respect of each of the years concerned. Article 73(5) of Regulation No 796/2004, as amended by Regulation No 2184/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, a farmer must be regarded as having been in good faith if he or she sincerely believed that the areas concerned were eligible for aid. The assessment of that farmer’s good faith for the purposes of Article 73(5) of Regulation No 796/2004 must be conducted separately in respect of each of the years concerned and that good faith must continue until the end of the fourth year following the date of the payment of the aid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Rina Services SpA, Rina SpA, SOA Rina Organismo di Attestazione SpA

(Case C-593/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU, 51 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 14 - Bodies responsible for verifying and certifying that undertakings carrying out public works comply with the conditions laid down by law - National legislation providing that the registered office of such bodies must be situated in Italy))

(2015/C 279/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Consiglio di Stato, Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture, Conferenza Unificata Stato Regioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero per le Politiche europee, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero degli Affari esteri

Defendants: Rina Services SpA, Rina SpA, SOA Rina Organismo di Attestazione SpA

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first paragraph of Article 51 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the exception to the right of establishment laid down in that provision does not apply to the certification activities carried out by companies classified as certification bodies.

2. Article 14 of Directive 2006/123 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that companies classified as certification bodies must have their registered office in national territory.

(1) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing v European Commission

(Case C-634/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Competition - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Duration of participation in an unlawful cartel - Cessation of the participation - Interruption of the participation - Absence of collusive contact established during a certain period of time - Continuation of the infringement - Burden of proof - Public distancing - Perception of the other participants in the cartel of the company’s intention to distance itself - Obligation to state reasons - Principles of the presumption of innocence, equal treatment, effective judicial protection and that penalties must be specific))

(2015/C 371/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, C. Lemaire and S. Naudin, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and A. Biolan, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Total Marketing Services SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 — Inuit Tapiriit and Others v European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-398/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 737/2010 - Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 - Trade in seal products - Restrictions on the import and marketing of those products - Validity - Legal basis - Article 95 EC - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 17 - United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Article 19))

(2015/C 354/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Jaypootie Moesesie, Allen Kooneeliusie, Toomasie Newkingnak, David Kuptana, Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council, Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK), William E. Scott & Son, Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diş Ticaret Ltd Şirketi, Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society Ltd (represented by: H. Viaene, J. Bouckaert and D. Gillet, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and C. Hermes, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and M. Moore, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organisation, Mr Jaypootie Moesesie, Mr Allen Kooneeliusie, Mr Toomasie Newkingnak, Mr David Kuptana, Mrs Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC-Greenland), Mr Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK), William E. Scott & Son, Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diş Ticaret Ltd Şirketi and Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3) Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.