ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-569/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Application of social security schemes - Migrant workers - Determination of the applicable legislation - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(b)(i) - Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States - Person employed in one Member State and engaged in paid employment on the territory of another Member State during a period of unpaid leave lasting three months))

(2017/C 382/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a person residing and employed in the territory of one Member State who, for a period of three months, takes unpaid leave and is employed in the territory of another Member State, is to be regarded as normally employed in the territory of two Member States within the meaning of that provision, provided that, during that period of leave, he is considered as normally employed under the social security legislation of the first Member State and that the activity carried out on the territory of the second Member State is habitual and significant in nature, which it is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

(Case C-649/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Public broadcasting service - Measures implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish broadcaster TV2/Danmark - Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ - Judgment in Altmark))

(2018/C 005/04)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, B. Stromsky and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat), Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, advokater)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders TV2/Danmark A/S to bear its own costs and to pay all the costs incurred by the European Commission and Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd both at first instance and in relation to this appeal;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
2.

On a proper construction of Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it is for the worker in question to provide evidence capable of suggesting that the risk assessment of her work had not been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Article 4(1) of Directive 92/85 and from which it can therefore be presumed that there was direct discrimination on grounds of sex within the meaning of Directive 2006/54, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. It would then be for the defendant to prove that that risk assessment had been conducted in accordance with the requirements of that provision and that there had, therefore, been no breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
Case C-557/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Malta (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Live-capturing and keeping — Species belonging to the finch family — Prohibition — National derogation regime — Member States’ power of derogation — Conditions)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-557/15) ( 1 )

‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Live-capturing and keeping — Species belonging to the finch family — Prohibition — National derogation regime — Member States’ power of derogation — Conditions)’

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar, acting as Agent, and by J. Bouckaert, advocaat, and L. Cassar Pullicino, avukat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting a derogation regime allowing the live-capturing of seven species of wild finches (Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, Linnet Carduelis cannabina, Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis, Greenfinch Carduelis chloris, Hawfinch Coccothraustes coccothraustes, Serin Serinus serinus and Siskin Carduelis spinus), the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(a) and (e) and Article 8(1) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, read in conjunction with Article 9(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/13

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Poland v European Commission

(Case C-105/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Rural Development - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Article 33b - Support for semi-subsistence farms undergoing restructuring - Obligation to spend at least 50 % of the support on restructuring operations))

(2017/C 144/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców Utworów Muzycznych i Słowno-Muzycznych SAWP (SAWP)

(Case C-37/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Taxable transactions - Concept of ‘supply of services for consideration’ - Payment of fees, in respect of fair compensation, to organisations collectively managing copyright and related rights - Not included))

(2017/C 070/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Minister Finansów

Respondent: Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców Utworów Muzycznych i Słowno-Muzycznych SAWP (SAWP)

Intervening parties: Prokuratura Generalna, Stowarzyszenie Zbiorowego Zarządzania Prawami Autorskimi Twórców Dzieł Naukowych i Technicznych Kopipol, Stowarzyszenie Autorów i Wydawców Copyright Polska

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that holders of reproduction rights do not make a supply of services, within the meaning of that directive, to producers and importers of blank media and of recording and reproduction devices on whom organisations collectively managing copyright and related rights levy on behalf of those rightholders, but in their own name, fees in respect of the sale of those devices and media.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force legislation which provides for a preferential rate of inheritance tax for bequests made in favour of not-for-profit bodies which are established in other Member States of the European Union or the European Economic Area on a reciprocal basis, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici — Croatia) — VG Čistoća d.o.o. v Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika

(Case C-335/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 2008/98/EC - Recovery of waste management costs - Polluter-pays principle - Concept of ‘waste holders’ - Price charged for waste management - Special levy intended to finance capital investments))

(2017/C 161/06)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VG Čistoća d.o.o.

Defendants: Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 and Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives must, as EU law currently stands, be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of financing an urban waste management and disposal service, provides for a price calculated on the basis of an estimate of the volume of waste generated by users of that service, and not on the basis of the quantity of waste which they have actually produced and presented for collection, as well as for the payment by users, in their capacity as waste holders, of an additional levy intended to finance capital investments necessary for the processing of waste, including the recycling thereof. It is, however, incumbent on the referring court to verify, on the basis of the matters of fact and law placed before it, whether this results in the imposition on certain ‘holders’ of costs which are manifestly disproportionate to the volumes or nature of the waste that they are liable to produce. Accordingly, the national court may take into account, inter alia, criteria relating to the type of property that the users occupy, its surface area and use, the productive capacity of the ‘holders’, the volume of the containers provided to the users, and the frequency of collection, in so far as those parameters are liable to have a direct impact on the amount of the costs of waste management.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/10

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 — Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-296/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health - Dismissal of the application to include certain claims despite the positive advice of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)))

(2017/C 249/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S Grünheid and K. Herbout-Borczak, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
2.

Article 204(1)(a) of Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005 must be interpreted as meaning that where the total volume of goods placed under the external Community transit procedure has not been produced at the customs office of destination laid down in that procedure owing to the total destruction or irretrievable loss of some of the goods, proven to a satisfactory standard, that situation, which constitutes the non-fulfilment of one of the obligations under that procedure, namely to produce goods intact at the customs office of destination, gives rise, in principle, to a customs debt on importation for the part of the goods which was not produced at that customs office. It is for the national court to determine whether a circumstance such as damage to an unloading device meets, in the present case, the criteria of ‘force majeure’ or an ‘unforeseeable circumstance’, within the meaning of Article 206(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, namely, whether it is an abnormal circumstance for a trader in the business of the transportation of liquid substances and extraneous to that trader, and whether the consequences could not have been avoided even if all due care had been exercised. In the context of that determination, that court must, in particular, take into account compliance, by operators such as the principal and the carrier, with the rules and obligations in force regarding the technical condition of tanks and the safety of transportation of liquid substances such as a solvent.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/11

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos — Greece) — Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias v Malcon Navigation Co. ltd., Brave Bulk Transport ltd

(Case C-436/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Jurisdiction clause - Jurisdiction clause in a contract between two companies - Action for damages - Joint and several liability of representatives of one of those companies for tortious acts - Ability of the representatives to rely upon that clause))

(2017/C 283/15)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Areios Pagos

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias

Defendants: Malcon Navigation Co. ltd., Brave Bulk Transport ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause in a contract between two companies cannot be relied upon by the representatives of one of them to dispute the jurisdiction of a court over an action for damages which aims to render them jointly and severally liable for supposedly tortious acts carried out in the performance of their duties.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/12

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Wolfram Bechtel, Marie-Laure Bechtel v Finanzamt Offenburg

(Case C-20/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement of workers - Income received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence - Method of exemption with maintenance of progressivity in the Member State of residence - Pension and health insurance contributions levied on income received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence - Deduction of those contributions - Condition relating to the absence of a direct link with exempted tax revenues))

(2017/C 277/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Wolfram Bechtel, Marie-Laure Bechtel

Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted to the effect that it precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a taxpayer residing in that Member State and working for the public administration of another Member State may not deduct from the income tax basis of assessment in her Member State of residence the pension and health insurance contributions deducted from her wages in the Member State of employment, in contrast to comparable contributions paid to the social security fund of her Member State of residence, where, under the Convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the two Member States, the wages must not be taxed in the worker’s Member State of residence and merely increase the tax rate to be applied to other income.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
2.

Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the elements which, according to the European Union trade marks court hearing an infringement action, are relevant for assessing whether the proprietor of an EU trade mark is entitled to prohibit the use of a sign in part of the European Union not covered by that action, may be taken into account by that court to assess whether that proprietor is entitled to prohibit the use of that sign in the part of the European Union which is the subject of the infringement action, provided that the market conditions and the sociocultural circumstances are not significantly different in one of those parts of the European Union and in the other.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/10

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited

(Case C-368/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - National legislation providing, on certain conditions, for an injured person’s right to bring legal proceedings directly against the insurer of the person responsible for an accident - Agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and the party which caused the damage))

(2017/C 293/13)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Assens Havn

Defendant: Navigators Management (UK) Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Point 5 of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, considered in conjunction with Article 14, point 2(a), thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a victim entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer of the party which caused the harm which he has suffered is not bound by an agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and that party.

(1) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
1.

Clause 5(1) and (2) of the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave set out in the Annex to Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC must be interpreted as precluding rules of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which subject definitive promotion to a managerial post in the civil service to the condition that the candidate selected successfully carries out a prior two-year probationary period in that post, and by virtue of which, in a situation where such a candidate was on parental leave for most of that period and still is, that probationary period ends by operation of law after two years with no possibility of extending it and the person concerned is consequently, on return from parental leave, reinstated in the post, at a lower level both in status and in terms of remuneration, occupied before that probationary period. The infringements of that clause cannot be justified by the objective pursued by the probationary period, which is to enable the assessment of suitability for the managerial post to be assigned permanently.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/14

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Meissen Keramik GmbH

(Case C-471/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘meissen’ - Rejection of the opposition - Evidence presented for the first time - Distortion - Genuine use of the earlier trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) - Article 8(5) - Link between the trade marks to be compared))

(2017/C 309/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent), Meissen Keramik GmbH (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and K. Gennen, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 454, 5.12. 2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Trayan Beshkov v Sofiyska rayonna prokuratura

(Case C-171/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA - Scope - Taking into account, in the course of new criminal proceedings, a previous conviction handed down in another Member State, in order to impose an overall sentence - National procedure for prior recognition of that conviction - Altering the arrangements for enforcing the sentence imposed in the other Member State))

(2017/C 392/12)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski Rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trayan Beshkov

Defendant: Sofiyska rayonna prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

1. Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable to a national procedure that is concerned with the imposition, for the purposes of execution, of an overall custodial sentence that takes into account the sentence imposed on that person by a national court and also that imposed following a previous conviction handed down by a court of another Member State against the same person for different facts.

2. Framework Decision 2008/675 must be interpreted as precluding the possibility that it should be a prerequisite of account being taken, in a Member State, of a previous conviction handed down by a court of another Member State that a national procedure for prior recognition of that conviction by the courts with jurisdiction in the former Member State, such as that laid down in Articles 463 to 466 of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure), be implemented.

3. Article 3(3) of Framework Decision 2008/675 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that a national court, seised of an application for the imposition, for the purposes of execution, of an overall custodial sentence that takes into account, inter alia, the sentence imposed following a previous conviction handed down by a court of another Member State, may alter for that purpose the arrangements for execution of that latter sentence.

(1) OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.