ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/12

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert v Belgische Staat

(Case C-499/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Interpretation - General Rules - Rule 3(b) - Definition of ‘goods put up in sets for retail sale’ - Separate packages))

(2016/C 156/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that goods, such as those in the main proceedings, which are presented for customs clearance in separate packages and are packed together only after that transaction may nevertheless be held to be ‘goods put up in sets for retail sale’, within the meaning of that rule and may, therefore, come under a single tariff heading, where it is established, having regard to other objective factors, which it is for the national court to assess, that the goods belong together as a unit and are intended to be presented as such in the retail trade.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/9

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 February 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

(Case C-446/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Services for the removal of animal carcasses and waste from abattoirs - Maintenance of reserve capacity in the event of an outbreak - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Service of general economic interest - Manifest error of assessment - Compensation for the public service obligation - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 145/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents, T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and C. Egerer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine — Italy) — proceedings by Degano Trasporti Sas di Ferruccio Degano & C., in liquidation

(Case C-546/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - VAT - Article 4(3) TEU - Directive 2006/112/EC - Insolvency - Procedure for an arrangement with creditors - Partial payment of VAT debts))

(2016/C 211/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Udine

Party to the main proceedings

Degano Trasporti Sas di Ferruccio Degano & C., in liquidation

Intervening party: Pubblico Ministero presso il Tribunale di Udine

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2, 250(1) and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, interpreted as meaning that an insolvent trader may apply to a court to open a procedure for an arrangement with creditors for the purpose of settling its debts by liquidating its assets, in which that trader offers only partial payment of a value added tax debt and establishes by an independent expert’s report that that debt would not be repaid more fully in the event of that trader’s bankruptcy.

(1) OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
4.

The provisions of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether the amount of compensation required to be paid by a consumer who does not fulfil his obligations is disproportionately high, within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, it is necessary to evaluate the cumulative effect of all the penalty clauses in the contract in question, regardless of whether the creditor actually insists that they all be satisfied in full and that, if necessary, the national courts must, by virtue of Article 6(1) of that directive, establish all the consequences of the finding that certain terms are unfair, exclude all terms found to be unfair in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by them.
2.

Article 236(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, read in conjunction with the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, since value added tax on goods which have been re-exported as non-Community goods is not due where those goods have not been removed from the customs arrangement provided for in Article 61 of that directive, and that is the case even where a customs debt is incurred exclusively on the basis of Article 204 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, nobody is liable for payment of the value added tax. Article 236 of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as not being applicable in situations relating to the repayment of value added tax.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Pillbox 38 (UK) Ltd v The Secretary of State for Health

(Case C-477/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2014/40/EU - Article 20 - Electronic cigarettes and refill containers - Validity - Principle of equal treatment - Principles of proportionality and legal certainty - Principle of subsidiarity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 16 and 17))

(2016/C 243/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pillbox 38 (UK) Ltd

Defendant: The Secretary of State for Health

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 20 of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC.

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 — Evonik Degussa GmbH, AlzChem AG, formerly AlzChem Trostberg GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-155/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Article 81 EC - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Markets for calcium carbide powder, calcium carbide granulates and magnesium granulates in a substantial part of the European Economic Area - Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information - Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its subsidiary - Rebuttable presumption in the case of a 100 % shareholding - Condition for the rebuttal of that presumption - Disregard of an express instruction))

(2016/C 305/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Evonik Degussa GmbH, AlzChem AG, formerly AlzChem Trostberg GmbH (represented by: C. Steinle and I. Bodenstein, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Evonik Degussa GmbH and AlzChem AG to bear their own costs and pay those of the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.
1.

Article 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a building is used in order to carry out certain output transactions in respect of which value added tax is deductible and others in respect of which it is not, the Member States are not required to prescribe that the input goods and services used for the construction, acquisition, use, conservation or maintenance of that building must, in a first stage, be assigned to those various transactions when such assignation is difficult to carry out, in order that, in a second stage, only the deduction entitlement due in respect of those of the goods and services which are used both for certain transactions in respect of which value added tax is deductible and for others in respect of which it is not is determined by applying a turnover-based allocation key or, provided that this method guarantees a more precise determination of the deductible proportion, on the basis of floor area.
2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 30 000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 10 September 2009 in Commission v Greece (C-286/08, not published, EU:C:2009:543), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until full compliance with the judgment of 10 September 2009 in Commission v Greece (C-286/08, not published, EU:C:2009:543). That amount is divided into three parts, corresponding to the three heads of claim invoked by the European Commission and is equivalent, with respect to the first head of claim, to 10 % of the total amount of the penalty payment, namely EUR 3 000, with respect to the second head of claim, to 45 % of that amount, namely EUR 13 500, as well as with respect to the third head of claim, which, as regards the proper management of so-called ‘historical’ waste, will be subject to a six-monthly reduction as a pro rata of the volume of that waste the management of which was in compliance. That reduction is limited to 50 % of the amount of the penalty payment corresponding to that head of claim, that is to say, EUR 6 750;
2.

Article 98 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, read in conjunction with Article 2(7) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a contracting authority imposed a requirement, in the context of a public works contract relating to a project receiving EU financial aid, that the future contractor perform by means of its own resources at least 25 % of those works, in infringement of Directive 2004/18, constitutes an ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of Article 2(7) of that regulation, justifying the need to apply a financial correction under Article 98 thereof, in so far as it cannot be excluded that that infringement had an impact on the budget of the Fund at issue. The amount of that correction must be calculated by taking into account all of the specific circumstances which are relevant in the light of the criteria referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of that regulation, namely the nature and gravity of the irregularity and the resulting financial loss to the Fund concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Davitas GmbH v Stadt Aschaffenburg

(Case C-448/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Novel foods and novel food ingredients - Regulation (EC) No 258/97 - Article 1(2)(c) - Concept of foods and food ingredients with a new primary molecular structure))

(2017/C 006/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Davitas GmbH

Defendant: Stadt Aschaffenburg

Intervener: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘new primary molecular structure’ relates to foods or food ingredients which were not used for human consumption in the territory of the European Union before 15 May 1997.

(1) OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.
1.

Article 107 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU, read together with Article 4(2) of Commission Decision 2009/287/EC of 25 September 2007 on State aid awarded by Poland as part of Power Purchase Agreements and the State aid which Poland is planning to award concerning compensation for the voluntary termination of Power Purchase Agreements must be interpreted as precluding, where the European Commission has assessed a State aid scheme in the light of the Commission Communication of 26 July 2001 relating to the methodology for analysing State aid linked to stranded costs and classified it as being compatible with the internal market before its implementation, the national authorities and courts from reviewing in turn, at the time the State aid in question is implemented, whether it is consistent with the principles set out in that methodology;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Gilbert Szajner, Forge de Laguiole

(Case C-598/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) - Article 65(1) and (2) - Word mark LAGUIOLE - Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law - Application of national law by EUIPO - Role of the EU Courts))

(2017/C 168/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings: Gilbert Szajner (represented by: A. Sam-Simenot, avocate), Forge de Laguiole SARL (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

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

3. Orders Forge de Laguiole SARL to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland (Ireland)) — Minister for Justice and Equality v Francis Lanigan

(Case C-237/15 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 6 - Right to liberty and security - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Obligation to execute the European arrest warrant - Article 12 - Keeping the requested person in detention - Article 15 - Surrender decision - Article 17 - Time-limits and detailed procedure for the decision on execution - Consequences of a failure to observe the time-limits))

(2015/C 302/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Defendant: Francis Lanigan

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 15(1) and 17 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority remains required to adopt the decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant after expiry of the time-limits stipulated in Article 17.

Article 12 of that Framework Decision, read in conjunction with Article 17 thereof and in the light of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding, in such a situation, the holding of the requested person in custody, in accordance with the law of the executing Member State, even if the total duration for which that person has been held in custody exceeds those time-limits, provided that that duration is not excessive in the light of the characteristics of the procedure followed in the case in the main proceedings, which is a matter to be ascertained by the national court. If the executing judicial authority decides to bring the requested person’s custody to an end, that authority is required to attach to the provisional release of that person any measures it deems necessary so as to prevent him from absconding and to ensure that the material conditions necessary for his effective surrender remain fulfilled for as long as no final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant has been taken.

(1) OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
1.

Articles 23(5) and 24 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, in a dispute concerning the non-performance of a contractual obligation, in which the applicant has brought proceedings before the courts of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, the jurisdiction of those courts may stem from Article 24 of that regulation, where the defendant does not dispute their jurisdiction, even though the contract between the two parties contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/8

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

(Case C-61/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil aviation - Application for approval of flight conditions presented - Decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency - Rejection of an application - Compulsory preliminary administrative procedure - Possibility of an action before the court of the Union European - Role of the court - Adoption of measures of organisation of procedure - Obligation - Complex technical assessments))

(2016/C 106/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: T. Kittner, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by: T. Masing, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/9

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH v Zollamt Eisenstadt Flughafen Wien

(Case C-262/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Classification of goods - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 8710 and Subheading 9305 91 00 - Note 3 to Section XVII and point (c) of note 1 to Chapter 93 - Tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles - Military weapons - Classification of a turret system))

(2016/C 260/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH

Respondent: Zollamt Eisenstadt Flughafen Wien

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that a turret system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was imported for the production of armoured fighting vehicles and was indeed used subsequently for that purpose, comes under heading 8710 of the Common Nomenclature if it is ‘principally’ intended for use on an armoured fighting vehicle, this being a matter for the referring court to determine on the basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the turret system, without the end use to which it is put in the case at hand being determinant for the purpose of its classification. If that is not the case, that turret system must be classified, as a part or accessory of a ‘military weapon’, under subheading 9305 91 00 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/12

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-26/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Common organisation of agricultural markets - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 - Fifth indent of Part D of Section VI of Part B 2 of Annex I - Fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors - Citrus fruits - Conditions for marketing - Provisions concerning marking - Indications of preserving agents or other chemical substances used in post-harvest processing))

(2016/C 156/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, I. Galindo Martín and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
1.

Article 2(35)(g)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2013 of 20 March 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that shipments of waste, such as those referred to in Annex III to that regulation, intended for recovery, must be considered illegal within the meaning of that provision when the document referred to in Annex VII to that same regulation relating to a shipment contains incorrect or inconsistent information, such as that contained in the accompanying documents at issue in the main proceedings, regarding the importer/consignee, the recovery facility and the countries/States concerned, irrespective of whether that information is given correctly in other documents made available to the competent authorities, the intention to mislead the authorities and the implementation of the procedures provided for in Article 24 of that same regulation by the authorities.