ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Union des syndicats de l’immobilier (UNIS) v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social, Syndicat national des résidences de tourisme (SNRT) and Others (C-25/14), Beaudout Père et Fils SARL v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social, Confédération nationale de la boulangerie et boulangerie-pâtisserie française, Fédération générale agro-alimentaire — CFDT and Others (C-26/14)

(Joined Cases C-25/14 and C-26/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Principles of equality and of non-discrimination - Obligation of transparency - Scope of that obligation - National collective agreements - Social protection scheme supplemental to the general scheme - Appointment by the social partners of an insurer responsible for managing that scheme - Extension of that scheme by ministerial order to all employees and employers of the sector concerned - Limitation of the temporal effects of a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice))

(2016/C 068/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Union des syndicats de l’immobilier (UNIS) (C-25/14), Beaudout Père et Fils SARL (C-26/14)

Defendants: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social, Syndicat national des résidences de tourisme (SNRT) and Others (C-25/14), Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social, Confédération nationale de la boulangerie et boulangerie-pâtisserie française, Fédération générale agro-alimentaire — CFDT and Others (C-26/14)

Operative part of the judgment

The obligation of transparency, which flows from Article 56 TFEU, precludes the extension by a Member State, to all employers and employees within a sector, of a collective agreement concluded by the employers’ and employees’ respective representatives for a sector, under which a single economic operator, chosen by the social partners, is entrusted with the management of a compulsory social insurance scheme established for employees, where the national rules do not provide for publicity sufficient to enable the competent public authority to take full account of information which has been submitted concerning the existence of a more favourable offer.

The effects of the present judgment do not concern the collective agreements under which a single body was appointed to manage a supplementary social insurance scheme and which a public authority has, before the date of delivery of the present judgment, made binding on all employers and employees within a sector, without prejudice to legal proceedings brought before that date.

(1) OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — CM Eurologistik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-283/14), Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-284/14)

(Joined Cases C-283/14 and C-284/14) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 - Validity - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China - Effect to be given to a judgment having found a preceding regulation to be invalid - Reopening of the initial investigation to determine the normal value - Reimposition of the anti-dumping duty on the basis of the same data - Investigation period to be taken into account))

(2016/C 106/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CM Eurologistik GmbH (C-283/14), Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) (C-284/14)

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-283/14), Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-284/14)

Operative part of the judgment

The consideration of the questions referred has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
1.

Declares that by not exempting the EU institutions from the contributions laid down by Article 26 of the Order concerning the organisation of the electricity market in the Brussels-Capital Region and by Article 20 of the Order concerning the organisation of the gas market in the Brussels-Capital Region, as amended, and by objecting to the refund of the contributions thereby collected by the Brussels-Capital Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, originally annexed to the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities, and subsequently under the Treaty of Lisbon, as Protocol No 7, annexed to the TEU, the TFEU and the Euratom Treaty;
3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Buzzi Unicem SpA with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-297/11 and the appeal.
1.

Articles 47(2) and 48(3) 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, read together with Article 44(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that: — they recognise the right of all economic operators, as regards a specific contract, to rely on the capacities of other entities, whatever the nature of the links existing between it and those entities, provided that it is proved to the contracting authority that the candidate or tenderer will have at its disposal the resources of those entities necessary for the performance of that contract, and — it is conceivable that the exercise of that right may be limited, in specific circumstances, having regard to the subject matter of the contract concerned and its objectives. Such is the case, in particular, where the capacities that a third party entity has, which are necessary for the performance of that contract, cannot be transferred to the candidate or the tenderer, so that the latter may rely on those capacities only if that third party entity directly and personally participates in the performance of that contract.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — KA Finanz AG v Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group

(Case C-483/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rome Convention - Applicable law - Cross-border merger - Directive 78/855/EEC - Directive 2005/56/EC - Merger by acquisition - Protection of creditors - Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company))

(2016/C 211/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KA Finanz AG

Defendant: Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group

Operative part of the judgment

1. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that: — the law applicable following a cross-border merger by acquisition to the interpretation of a loan contract taken out by the acquired company, such as the contracts at issue in the main proceedings, to the performance of the obligations under the contract and to how those obligations are extinguished is the law which was applicable to the contract before the merger; — the provisions governing the protection of the creditors of the acquired company, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, are those of national law which were applicable to that company.

2. Article 15 of Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2009/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as granting rights to holders of securities, other than shares, to which special rights are attached, but not to the issuer of such securities.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany — Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v DAK-Gesundheit

(Case C-410/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(2)(a) - Concept of ‘public contract’ - Scheme for acquiring goods consisting of the authorisation as a supplier of any economic operator who meets the predetermined criteria - Supply of medicinal products that are refundable under a general social security scheme - Contracts concluded between a statutory health insurance fund and all the suppliers of medicinal products based on a given active ingredient who consent to a rebate on the sale price at a predetermined rate - Legislation providing, in principle, for the substitution of a refundable medicinal product marketed by an operator not having concluded such a contract by a medicinal product of the same type marketed by an operator having concluded such a contract))

(2016/C 287/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH

Defendant: DAK-Gesundheit

Intervener: Kohlpharma GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(2)(a) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a contract scheme, such as that in the main proceedings, through which a public entity intends to acquire goods on the market by contracting throughout the period of validity of that scheme with any economic operator who undertakes to provide the goods concerned in accordance with predetermined conditions, without choosing between the interested operators and, allows them to accede to that scheme throughout its validity, does not constitute a public contract within the meaning of that directive.

2. In so far as the subject matter of an authorisation procedure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is of certain cross-border interest, that procedure must be conceived and organised in accordance with the fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty, in particular, the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment between economic operators and the consequent obligation of transparency.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Bookit Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-607/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption - Article 135(1)(d) - Transactions concerning payments and transfers - Meaning - Purchase of cinema tickets by telephone or via the Internet - Payment by debit card or credit card - ‘Card handling’ services))

(2016/C 260/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bookit Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for therein for transactions concerning payments and transfers is not applicable to a ‘card handling’ service, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, supplied by a taxable person, the provider of that service, where an individual purchases, via that service provider, a cinema ticket which the service provider sells for and on behalf of another entity, and which the individual pays for by debit card or by credit card.

(1) OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Piotr Kossowski

(Case C-486/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement - Articles 54 and 55(1)(a) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Whether an accused may be prosecuted in a Member State after criminal proceedings brought against him in another Member State have been terminated by the public prosecutor’s office without a detailed investigation - No examination of the merits of the case))

(2016/C 335/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Party in the main proceedings

Piotr Kossowski

Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamburg

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of ne bis in idem laid down in Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, which was signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, read in the light of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision of the public prosecutor terminating criminal proceedings and finally closing the investigation procedure against a person, albeit with the possibility of its being reopened or annulled, without any penalties having been imposed, cannot be characterised as a final decision for the purposes of those articles when it is clear from the statement of reasons for that decision that the procedure was closed without a detailed investigation having been carried out; in that regard, the fact that neither the victim nor a potential witness was interviewed is an indication that no such investigation took place.

(1) OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2016 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-263/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Decision 2014/198/CFSP - Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania - Choice of legal basis - Obligation to inform the European Parliament immediately and fully at all stages of the procedure of negotiation and conclusion of international agreements - Maintenance of the effects of the decision in the event of annulment))

(2016/C 305/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Caiola and M. Allik, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, R. Troosters and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert, G. Étienne, M. Bishop and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer, J. Vláčil, J. Škeřik and M. Hedvábná, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, M. Rhodin, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling and V. Kaye, acting as Agents, and by G. Facenna, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signature and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania;

2. Orders that the effects of Decision 2014/198 be maintained in force;

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

4. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the European Commission, each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-516/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 178(a) - Right of deduction - Conditions of exercise - Article 226(6) and (7) - Details required in invoices - Extent and nature of the services rendered - Date on which the supply of services is made))

(2016/C 419/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that invoices mentioning only ‘legal services rendered from [a date] until the present date’, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, do not a priori comply with the requirements of point 6 of that article and that invoices mentioning only ‘legal services rendered until the present date’ do not a priori comply either with the requirements of point 6 or with those of point 7 of that article, which is, however, for the referring tribunal to ascertain.

Article 178(a) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding the national tax authorities from refusing the right to deduct value added tax solely because the taxable person holds an invoice which does not satisfy the conditions required by Article 226(6) and (7) of that directive, even though those authorities have available all the necessary information for ascertaining whether the substantive conditions for the exercise of that right are satisfied.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ v Konkurences padome, and Konkurences padome v SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’

(Case C-542/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Purely internal situation - Application of analogous national rules - Jurisdiction of the Court - Concerted practice - Liability of an undertaking for the acts of a service provider - Conditions))

(2016/C 343/05)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā Tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, Konkurences padome

Respondents: Konkurences padome, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking may, in principle, be held liable for a concerted practice on account of the acts of an independent service provider supplying it with services only if one of the following conditions is met:

— the service provider was in fact acting under the direction or control of the undertaking concerned, or

— that undertaking was aware of the anti-competitive objectives pursued by its competitors and the service provider and intended to contribute to them by its own conduct, or

— that undertaking could reasonably have foreseen the anti-competitive acts of its competitors and the service provider and was prepared to accept the risk which they entailed.

(1) OJ C 56, 16.12.2015.
1.

Declares that the Hellenic Republic — by tolerating the construction of houses in Agiannaki (Greece) in 2010, the use, without a sufficient regulatory framework, of other houses in Agiannaki which were built in 2006 and the commencement of building works relating to around 50 dwellings located between Agiannaki and Elaia (Greece), and by authorising in 2012 the construction of three holiday houses in Vounaki (Greece); — by tolerating the development of access routes to the beach in the Dunes of Kyparissia area (Greece), namely the opening up of five new roads to Agiannaki beach and the asphalting of certain existing roads and thoroughfares; — by failing to take adequate measures to enforce the prohibition on wild camping close to the beaches at Kalo Nero (Greece) and Elaia; — by failing to take the measures necessary to restrict the operation of bars between Elaia and Kalo Nero, on the breeding beaches of the Caretta caretta sea turtle, and by failing to ensure that the various forms of pollution caused by those bars do not disturb that species; — by failing to take the measures necessary to reduce, within the Kyparissia area, the furniture and various structures found on the breeding beaches of the Caretta caretta sea turtle and by authorising the construction of a platform near the Messina Mare Hotel; — by failing to take the measures necessary so as to ensure that the light pollution affecting the breeding beaches of the Caretta caretta sea turtle in the Kyparissia area is adequately curtailed; and — by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that fishing in the waters off the breeding beaches of the Caretta caretta sea turtle in the Kyparissia area is adequately curtailed, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006;