ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni

(Case C-398/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Personal data - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 6(1)(e) - Data subject to disclosure in the companies register - First Directive 68/151/EEC - Article 3 - Winding-up of the company concerned - Restriction of access to that data by third parties))

(2017/C 144/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce

Defendant: Salvatore Manni

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(e), Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, read in conjunction with Article 3 of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community, as amended by Directive 2003/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, as EU law currently stands, it is for the Member States to determine whether the natural persons referred to in Article 2(1)(d) and (j) of that directive may apply to the authority responsible for keeping, respectively, the central register, commercial register or companies register to determine, on the basis of a case-by-case assessment, if it is exceptionally justified, on compelling legitimate grounds relating to their particular situation, to limit, on the expiry of a sufficiently long period after the dissolution of the company concerned, access to personal data relating to them, entered in that register, to third parties who can demonstrate a specific interest in consulting that data.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/10

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA

(Case C-573/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(2) - Annex III, points 3 and 4 - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Medical treatment using oxygen - Reduced VAT rate - Oxygen cylinders - Standard rate of VAT - Oxygen concentrators))

(2017/C 144/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge

Defendant: Oxycure Belgium SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Annex III, points 3 and 4, thereto, read in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the standard rate of value added tax is applicable to the supply or rental of oxygen concentrators, while that legislation provides for the application of the reduced value added tax rate on the supply of oxygen cylinders

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
1.

Declares that: — by exceeding the daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations systematically and continuously from 2007 until 2014 inclusive in the zones and agglomerations BG0001 AG Sofia, BG0002 AG Plovdiv, BG0004 North Bulgaria, BG0005 South-West Bulgaria and BG0006 South-East Bulgaria; — by exceeding the daily limit value for PM10 concentrations systematically and continuously from 2007 until 2014 inclusive in the zone BG0003 AG Varna and the annual limit value in 2007, 2008 and from 2010 until 2014 inclusive in zone BG0003 AG Varna, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, and — in view of the fact that the daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations in all of the abovementioned zones and agglomerations continued to be exceeded, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive and in particular the obligation to keep the exceedance period as short as possible, as regards the period from 11 June 2010 to the year 2014 inclusive;
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 January 2015, Evonik Degussa v Commission (T-341/12, EU:T:2015:51) in so far as by that judgment the General Court held that the hearing officer was correct to decline competence to answer the objections, raised by Evonik Degussa GmbH on the basis of the observance of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, to the proposed publication of a detailed, non-confidential version of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding AB, Eka Chemicals AB, Degussa AG, Edison SpA, FMC Corporation, FMC Foret SA, Kemira OYJ, L’Air Liquide SA, Chemoxal SA, Snia SpA, Caffaro Srl, Solvay SA/NV, Solvay Solexis SpA, Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA and Arkema SA (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and Perborate);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — RFA International, LP v European Commission

(Case C-239/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Imports of ferrosilicon originating in Russia - Rejection of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid))

(2017/C 213/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: RFA International, LP (represented by: B. Evtimov, advokat, E. Borovikov, avocat, and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, P. Němečková and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders RFA International, LP to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Costin Popescu v Guvernul României and Others

(Case C-632/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Road transport - Driving licences - Directive 2006/126/EC - Article 13(2) - Concept of ‘entitlement to drive granted before 19 January 2013’ - National legislation transposing the directive - Obligation to obtain a driving licence imposed on persons who were allowed to ride a moped without a licence before the entry into force of that legislation))

(2017/C 195/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Costin Popescu

Defendants: Guvernul României, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Direcția Regim Permise de Conducere si Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor, Direcția Rutieră, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, in particular Article 13(2), must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, adopted in order to transpose that directive into national law, which terminates the authorisation to ride mopeds without holding a driving licence, the issue of which is subject to passing tests or examinations similar to those required for driving other motor vehicles.

(1) OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil — Slovenia) — Medisanus d.o.o. v Splošna Bolnišnica Murska Sobota

(Case C-296/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 2 and Article 23(2) and (8) - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Public contract for supplying a hospital - National legislation requiring that hospitals are to be supplied as a matter of priority with medicinal products obtained from national plasma - Principle of equal treatment))

(2017/C 249/03)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Medisanus d.o.o.

Defendant: Splošna Bolnišnica Murska Sobota

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 and Article 23(2) and (8) 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, and Article 34 TFEU read in conjunction with Article 36 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding a clause in the tender specifications for a public contract which, in accordance with the law of the Member State to which the contracting authority belongs, requires medicinal products derived from plasma, which are the subject matter of the public procurement at issue, to be obtained from plasma collected in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc.

(Case C-437/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element ‘deluxe’ - Refusal of registration by the examiner))

(2017/C 239/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc. (represented by: L. Gellman, advocate, and M. Esteve Sanz, abogada)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 June 2015, Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (deluxe) (T-222/14, not published, EU:T:2015:364);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-517/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Articles 101 and 102 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 30 - Decision of the European Commission finding an unlawful cartel on the European market for automotive glass - Publication of a non-confidential version of that decision - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of certain information - Terms of reference of the hearing officer - Decision 2011/695/EU - Article 8 - Confidentiality - Information from a leniency application - Partial rejection of the request for confidential treatment - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 309/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH (represented by: L. Garzaniti, F. Hoseinian and A. Burckett St Laurent, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen, P. Van Nuffel and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA, AGC France SAS, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd and AGC Glass Germany GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
1.

Article 4 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted as not precluding national evidentiary rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings under which, when a court ruling on the merits of an action involving the liability of the producer of a vaccine due to an alleged defect in that vaccine, in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction to appraise the facts, may consider that, notwithstanding the finding that medical research neither establishes nor rules out the existence of a link between the administering of the vaccine and the occurrence of the victim’s disease, certain factual evidence relied on by the applicant constitutes serious, specific and consistent evidence enabling it to conclude that there is a defect in the vaccine and that there is a causal link between that defect and that disease. National courts must, however, ensure that their specific application of those evidentiary rules does not result in the burden of proof introduced by Article 4 being disregarded or the effectiveness of the system of liability introduced by that directive being undermined.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/2

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 — Feralpi Holding SpA v European Commission

(Case C-85/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian producers of reinforcing bars - Fixing of prices and limiting and controlling output and sales - Infringement of Article 65 CS - Annulment of the initial decision by the General Court of the European Union - Decision re-adopted on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Failure to issue a new statement of objections - Lack of a hearing following the annulment of the initial decision - Time taken in the proceedings before the General Court))

(2017/C 392/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Feralpi Holding SpA (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Moretto, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 December 2014, Feralpi v Commission (T-70/10, not published, EU:T:2014:1031);

2. Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in so far as it concerns Feralpi Holding SpA;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Feralpi Holding SpA both at first instance and in the present appeal.

(1) OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/10

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2017 — Alexios Anagnostakis v European Commission

(Case C-589/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Institutional law - Citizens’ initiative inviting the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal relating to the writing off of public debt for Member States in a state of necessity - Application for registration - Refusal by the Commission - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Article 4(2)(b) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 122 TFEU - Article 136 TFEU - Infringement))

(2017/C 382/10)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Alexios Anagnostakis (represented by: A. Anagnostakis, dikigoros, and F. Moyse, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Alexios Anagnostakis to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/5

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

(Case C-657/15 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 005/06)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: M. Honoré and S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg, advokater)

Other parties to the proceedings: TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat), European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, T. Maxian Rusche and L. Grønfeldt, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, Agent, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2015, TV2/Danmark v Commission (T-674/11, EU:T:2015:684), to the extent that it annulled Commission Decision 2011/839/EU of 20 April 2011 on the measures implemented by Denmark (C 2/03) for TV2/Danmark in that the European Commission held that the advertising revenue for the years 1995 and 1996 paid to TV2/Danmark through the TV2 Fund constituted State aid;

2. Dismisses the appeal for the remainder;

3. Dismisses the action brought by TV2/Danmark A/S seeking the annulment of Decision 2011/839;

4. Orders TV2/Danmark A/S to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd in relation to this appeal as well as all the costs incurred by the latter at first instance;

5. Orders Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd to bear one half of its own costs in relation to this appeal;

6. Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Denmark to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Case C-501/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 October 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Cactus SA, Isabel Del Rio Rodríguez (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ’ — Opposition by the proprietor of word and figurative EU trade marks containing the word element ‘Cactus’ — Nice Classification — Article 28 — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the mark in an abbreviated form)

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 October 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Cactus SA, Isabel Del Rio Rodríguez

(Case C-501/15 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ’ — Opposition by the proprietor of word and figurative EU trade marks containing the word element ‘Cactus’ — Nice Classification — Article 28 — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the mark in an abbreviated form)’

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Cactus SA (represented by: K. Manhaeve, avocate), Isabel Del Rio Rodríguez

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
2.

Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding the disclosure of detailed information on the charges to the defence after the lodging before the court of the indictment that initiates the trial stage of proceedings, but before the court begins to examine the merits of the charges and before the commencement of any hearing of argument by the court, and after the commencement of that hearing but before the stage of deliberation, where the information thus disclosed is the subject of subsequent amendments, provided that all necessary measures are taken by the court in order to ensure respect for the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings. Article 7(3) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court to be satisfied that the defence has been granted a genuine opportunity to have access to the case materials, such access being possible, in some cases, after the lodging before the court of the indictment that initiates the trial stage of the proceedings, but before that court begins to examine the merits of the charges and before the commencement of any hearing of argument by that court, and after the commencement of that hearing but before the stage of deliberation where new evidence is placed in the file in the course of proceedings, provided that all necessary measures are taken by the court in order to ensure respect for the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 October 2015, European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM (T-299/11, EU:T:2015:757), in so far as: — in paragraph 2 of the operative part, it orders the European Union to pay compensation for the harm suffered by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA as a result of the loss of an opportunity to be awarded the framework contract as the contractor ranked first in the cascade, and — in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the operative part, it orders the parties to inform the General Court of the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement or, in the absence of an agreement, to transmit to the General Court a statement of their views with supporting figures.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission (T-233/11 and T-262/11, EU:T:2015:948) in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court failed to respond to Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou’s argument based on the purpose for which the expert report on the appraisal of the mines in Cassandra (Greece) had been drawn up during 2004;