ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national law or practice that does not take into account, in the calculation provided for by that provision of the number of workers employed, a member of the board of directors of a capital company, such as the director in question in the main proceedings, who performs his duties under the direction and subject to the supervision of another body of that company, receives remuneration in return for the performance of his duties and does not himself own any shares in the company.
2)

Point (i) of the first paragraph of Annex IIB(2) to Directive 1999/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a time extension for the implementation of a scheme to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds requires an authorisation from the competent authorities, which presupposes a prior application from the operator concerned. When determining whether a time extension must be given to an operator for the implementation of a plan to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds and fixing the duration of the time extension which may be given, it is for those competent authorities, within the discretion available to them, to verify in particular that substitutes which may be used in the installations concerned and which may reduce the emissions of volatile organic compounds are actually under development, that the work in progress, in the light of the evidence provided, is capable of perfecting such substitutes and that there is no alternative measure which may result in similar or even greater emission reductions, at a lower cost, and, in particular, that other substitutes are not already available. Furthermore, account should be taken of the relationship between, on the one hand, the emission reductions which can be achieved by means of the substitutes under development and the cost of those substitutes and, on the other hand, the additional emissions engendered by the time extension and the cost of any alternative measures. The duration of the time extension must not go beyond what is necessary for substitutes to be developed. That must be assessed in the light of all the relevant factors and, in particular, the magnitude of the additional emissions engendered by the time extension and the cost of any alternative measures as compared with the magnitude of the emission reductions that will be achieved by the substitutes under development and the cost of those substitutes.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Rusal Armenal ZAO, Council of the European Union

(Case C-21/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and China - Accession of the Republic of Armenia to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Article 2(7) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Whether compatible with the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT)))

(2015/C 311/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Rusal Armenal ZAO (represented by B. Evtimov, lawyer), Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and J. P. Hix, Agents, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat)

Intervener in support of the appellant: European Parliament (represented by D. Warin and A. Auersperger Matić, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Rusal Armenal v Council (T-512/09, EU:T:2013:571);

2) Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the pleas in law on which it did not adjudicate;

3) Reserves the costs.

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

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.B.G.T. Miljoen (C-10/14), X (C-14/14), Société Générale SA (C-17/14) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Joined Cases C-10/14, C-14/14 and C-17/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Taxation of dividends from portfolios of shares - Withholding tax - Restriction - Final tax burden - Factors for comparing the tax burdens of resident and non-resident taxpayers - Comparability - Taking into account income tax or corporation tax - Conventions for the avoidance of double taxation - Neutralisation of the restriction by means of a convention))

(2015/C 371/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: J.B.G.T. Miljoen (C-10/14), X (C-14/14), Société Générale SA (C-17/14)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which imposes a withholding tax on dividends distributed by a resident company both to resident taxpayers and non-resident taxpayers and provides a mechanism for deducting or reimbursing the tax withheld only for resident taxpayers, while for non-resident taxpayers, both natural persons and companies, the tax withheld is a final tax, in so far as the final tax burden relating to those dividends, borne in that Member State by non-resident taxpayers, is greater than that borne by resident taxpayers, which it is for the referring court to determine in the main proceedings. For the purposes of determining those tax burdens, the referring court must take account, in Cases C-10/14 and C-14/14, of the taxation of residents in relation to all shares held in Netherlands companies in the calendar year, of capital which is exempt from tax under national legislation, and in Case C-17/14, of expenses which are directly linked to the actual payment of the dividends.

If the existence of a restriction on the movement of capital is established, it may be justified by the effects of a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded by the Member State of residence and the Member State in which the dividends are paid, provided that the difference in treatment, relating to the taxation of dividends, between taxpayers residing in the latter Member State and those residing in other Member States ceases to exist. In circumstances such as those at issue in Cases C-14/14 and C-17/14, and without prejudice to the determinations to be made by the referring court, the restriction on the free movement of capital, if established, cannot be regarded as justified.

(1) OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
1)

The provisions of Chapter II, Section 5 (Articles 18 to 21) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which a company sues a person, who performed the duties of director and manager of that company in order to establish misconduct on the part of that person in the performance of his duties and to obtain redress from him, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of Article 5(1) and (3) of that regulation, provided that that person, in his capacity as director and manager, for a certain period of time performed services for and under the direction of that company in return for which he received remuneration, that being a matter for the referring court to determine.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Dragoș Constantin Târșia v Statul roman and Serviciul public comunitar regim permise de conducere și înmatriculare a autovehiculelor

(Case C-69/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Res judicata - Recovery of undue payments - Recovery of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law - Final decision of a court or tribunal imposing payment of a tax which is incompatible with EU law - Application for revision of such a decision - National legislation allowing the revision, in the light of later preliminary rulings given by the Court, of final decisions of a court or tribunal made exclusively in administrative proceedings))

(2015/C 389/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dragoș Constantin Târșia

Defendants: Statul roman and Serviciul public comunitar regim permise de conducere și înmatriculare a autovehiculelor

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those in the dispute in the main proceedings, a situation where there is no possibility for a national court to revise a final decision of a court or tribunal made in the course of civil proceedings when that decision is found to be incompatible with an interpretation of EU law upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union after the date on which that decision became final, even though such a possibility does exist as regards final decisions of a court or tribunal incompatible with EU law made in the course of administrative proceedings.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt v Attila Sugár

(Case C-32/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer - Mortgage loan agreement - Article 7(1) - Stopping the use of unfair terms - Adequate and effective means - Acknowledgement of the debt - Notarised instrument - Affixation of the enforcement clause by a notary - Enforceable order - Notary’s obligations - Examination by the national court of its own motion of unfair terms - Judicial review - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness))

(2015/C 381/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt

Defendant: Attila Sugár

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a notary who drew up, in due form, an authentic instrument concerning a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, to affix the enforcement clause to that instrument or to refuse to cancel it when no review of the unfairness of the contractual terms has been performed at any stage.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — BGW Beratungs-Gesellschaft Wirtschaft mbH, formerly BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz

(Case C-20/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Further grounds for refusal or invalidity - Word mark - Same letter sequence as an earlier trade mark - Addition of a descriptive word combination - Existence of a likelihood of confusion))

(2015/C 414/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BGW Beratungs-Gesellschaft Wirtschaft mbH, formerly BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH

Defendant: Bodo Scholz

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of identical or similar goods and services, there may be a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public between an earlier mark consisting of a letter sequence, which is distinctive and is the dominant element in that mark of average distinctiveness, and a later mark which reproduces that letter sequence and to which is added a descriptive combination of words, the initial letters of which correspond to the letters of that sequence, with the result that that sequence is perceived by that public as the acronym of that combination of words.

(1) OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
1.

Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, in criminal proceedings, does not permit the individual against whom a penalty order has been made to lodge an objection in writing against that order in a language other than that of the proceedings, even though that individual does not have a command of the language of the proceedings, provided that the competent authorities do not consider, in accordance with Article 3(3) of that directive, that, in the light of the proceedings concerned and the circumstances of the case, such an objection constitutes an essential document.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-121/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility - Projects of common interest which relate to the territory of a Member State - Approval of that State - Extension of a rail freight corridor - Legal basis - Article 171 TFEU and second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU))

(2016/C 016/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt and L. Christie, acting as Agents, and by D.J. Rhee, Barrister)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and M. Sammut, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: Z. Kupčová and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/6

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

(Case C-583/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 18 TFEU - Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Road use - Drivers resident in the Member State concerned - Requirement to provide on the spot proof of lawful use of vehicles registered in another Member State at a police check))

(2015/C 429/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Benjámin Dávid Nagy

Defendant: Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63(1) TFUE precludes national legislation under which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates issued by the Member State in question may be used on the road network in that Member State and under which, if a resident of that Member State seeks to rely on a derogation from that rule, on the grounds that he uses a vehicle made available to him by the keeper of that vehicle established in another Member State, he must be able to prove on the spot, during a police check, that he fulfils the conditions for such a derogation, as laid down by the national legislation in question, on pain of the immediate imposition of a fine equivalent to that applicable in the event of infringement of the registration requirement, without any possibility of an exemption from that fine.

(1) OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Simona Kornhaas v Thomas Dithmar, acting as liquidator of the assets of Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd

(Case C-594/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 4(1) - Determination of the applicable law - Legislation of a Member State laying down the obligation for a managing director of a company to reimburse that company for the payments made after it had become insolvent - Application of that legislation to a company established in another Member State - Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU - Restriction on the freedom of establishment - None))

(2016/C 048/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Simona Kornhaas

Defendant: Thomas Dithmar, acting as liquidator of the assets of Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that Article 4 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that an action directed against the managing director of a company established under the law of England and Wales, forming the subject of insolvency proceedings opened in Germany, brought before a German court by the liquidator of that company and seeking, on the basis of a national provision such as the first sentence of Paragraph 64(2) of the Law on limited liability companies, reimbursement of payments made by that managing director before the opening of the insolvency proceedings but after the date on which the insolvency of that company was established, falls within its scope.

2. Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU do not preclude the application of a national provision, such as the first sentence of Paragraph 64(2) of the Law on limited liability companies to a managing director of a company established under the law of England and Wales which is the subject of insolvency proceedings opened in Germany.

(1) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
2.

Article 50(1) of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 669/2008, according to which the penalties applied by the Member States for infringement of the provisions of that regulation must be proportionate, must be interpreted as meaning that the imposition of a fine penalising the illegal shipment of waste, such as that referred to in Annex IV to that regulation, in the country of transit at a border crossing point which differs from that provided in the notification document which had been consented to by the competent authorities, of which the basic amount is the same as the fine imposed for a breach of the requirement to obtain consent and to give prior notification in writing, is to be considered to be proportionate only if the circumstances of the infringement make it possible to find that they involve equally serious infringements. It is for the national court to determine, by taking into account all the factual and legal circumstances of the case before it, and, in particular, the risks which may be created by that infringement in the field of the protection of the environment and human health, whether the amount of the penalty does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of ensuring a high level of protection of the environment and human health.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court — Germany)) — Vodafone GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-395/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 7(3) - Procedure for consolidating the internal market for electronic communications - Directive 2002/19/EC - Articles 8 and 13 - Operator designated as having significant market power on a market - Obligations imposed by national regulatory authorities - Price control and cost accounting obligations - Authorisation of mobile call termination fees))

(2016/C 098/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that, when an national regulatory authority has required an operator which has been designated as having significant market power to provide mobile call termination services and has made the fees charged for this subject to authorisation following the procedure laid down in that provision, that national regulatory authority is required to carry out the procedure again before each authorisation of those fees to that operator, where that authorisation is likely to affect trade between the Member States within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.