ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/14

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — George Karim v Migrationsverket

(Case C-155/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 18 - Taking back an asylum seeker whose application is being examined - Article 19 - Cessation of responsibility - Absence from the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months - New procedure for determining the Member State responsible - Article 27 - Remedy - Extent of judicial review))

(2016/C 296/18)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: George Karim

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 19(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted to the effect that that provision, in particular its second subparagraph, is applicable to a third-country national who, after having made a first asylum application in a Member State, provides evidence that he left the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months before making a new asylum application in another Member State.

2. Article 27(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, read in the light of recital 19 thereof, must be interpreted to the effect that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, an asylum applicant may, in an action challenging a transfer decision made in respect of him, invoke an infringement of the rule set out in the second subparagraph of Article 19(2) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/17

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Alicja Sobczyszyn v Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie

(Case C-178/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Teachers - Convalescence leave - Annual leave coinciding with convalescence leave - Right to take the annual leave in another period))

(2016/C 335/22)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alicja Sobczyszyn

Defendant: Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national practice, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a worker who is on convalescence leave, granted in accordance with national law, during the period of annual leave scheduled in the leave roster of the establishment where he is employed may be refused, at the end of his convalescence leave, the right to take his paid annual leave in a subsequent period, provided that the purpose of the right to convalescence leave is different from that of the right to annual leave, a matter which is for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/7

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG v Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH

(Case C-419/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 32 and 33 - Licence - Register of Community designs - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the register - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement in order to obtain damages for its own loss))

(2016/C 314/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first sentence of Article 33(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee may bring proceedings alleging infringement of a registered Community design which is the subject of the licence although that licence has not been entered in the register of Community designs.

2. Article 32(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee can claim damages for its own loss in proceedings for infringement of a Community design brought by it in accordance with that provision.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Carolus C. BVBA

(Case C-226/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark English pink - Opposition by the proprietor of the word mark PINK LADY and the figurative marks including the word elements ‘Pink Lady’ - Opposition dismissed - Decision of an EU trade mark court - Alteration - Res judicata))

(2016/C 343/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion (represented by: T. de Haan, avocat, and P. Péters, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent), Carolus C. BVBA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
1.

Article 5(3) 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 an action for damages founded on an abrupt termination of a long-standing business relationship, such as the termination at issue in the main proceedings, is not a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of that regulation if a tacit contractual relationship existed between the parties, a matter which is for the referring court to ascertain. Demonstration of the existence of a tacit contractual relationship of that kind must be based on a body of consistent evidence, which may include in particular the existence of a long-standing business relationship, the good faith between the parties, the regularity of the transactions and their development over time expressed in terms of quantity and value, any agreements as to prices charged and/or discounts granted, and the correspondence exchanged.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/9

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — proceedings relating to the extradition of Aleksei Petruhhin

(Case C-182/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Extradition to a third State of a national of a Member State who has exercised his right to freedom of movement - Scope of EU law - Protection of a Member State’s nationals against extradition - No protection for nationals of the other Member States - Restriction of freedom of movement - Justification based on the prevention of impunity - Proportionality - Verification of the guarantees provided for in Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))

(2016/C 402/10)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Aleksei Petruhhin

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 18 TFEU and Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, when a Member State to which a Union citizen, a national of another Member State, has moved receives an extradition request from a third State with which the first Member State has concluded an extradition agreement, it must inform the Member State of which the citizen in question is a national and, should that Member State so request, surrender that citizen to it, in accordance with the provisions 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, provided that that Member State has jurisdiction, pursuant to its national law, to prosecute that person for offences committed outside its national territory.

2. Where a Member State receives a request from a third State seeking the extradition of a national of another Member State, that first Member State must verify that the extradition will not prejudice the rights referred to in Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
1.

Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) and Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that, without prejudice to Article 1(3) of each of those regulations, the law applicable to an action for an injunction within the meaning of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests directed against the use of allegedly unfair contractual terms by an undertaking established in a Member State which concludes contracts in the course of electronic commerce with consumers resident in other Member States, in particular in the State of the court seised, must be determined in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation No 864/2007, whereas the law applicable to the assessment of a particular contractual term must always be determined pursuant to Regulation No 593/2008, whether that assessment is made in an individual action or in a collective action.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/17

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-140/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cohesion Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Procedure of adoption of the decision by the European Commission - Existence of a time limit - Non-compliance with the time limit laid down - Consequences))

(2016/C 419/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/16

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG v Landeshauptstadt München

(Case C-113/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Article 1(3)(b) - Concept of ‘pre-packaged foodstuff’ - Article 2 - Consumer information and protection - Article 3(1)(8) - Place of origin or provenance of a foodstuff - Article 13(1) - Labelling of a prepackaged foodstuff - Article 13(4) - Packaging or containers the largest surface of which has an area of less than 10 cm2 - Directive 2001/110/EC - Article 2(4) - Indication of the country or countries of origin of honey - Individual portions of honey packaged in cartons supplied to mass caterers - Individual portions sold separately or supplied to ultimate consumers as part of meals for an all-inclusive price - Indication of the country or countries of origin of that honey))

(2016/C 419/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Landeshauptstadt München

Intervening party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that each of the individual portions of honey presented in the form of portion-cups closed by an aluminium seal and packed in cartons supplied to mass caterers constitutes a ‘pre-packaged foodstuff’ where the mass caterers sell those portions separately or offer them for sale to the ultimate consumer as part of pre-prepared meals for an all-inclusive price.

(1) OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 475/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Josef Plöckl v Finanzamt Schrobenhausen

(Case C-24/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Sixth Directive - Article 28c(A)(a) and (d) - Transfer of goods within the European Union - Right to an exemption - Failure to comply with an obligation to provide a VAT identification number issued by the Member State of destination - No specific evidence of tax evasion - Refusal to grant the exemption - Whether permissible))

(2016/C 475/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Josef Plöckl

Defendant: Finanzamt Schrobenhausen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(8) 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 2005/92/EC of 12 December 2005, in the version resulting from Article 28h of that Sixth Directive, and the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) and Article 28c(A)(d) of that directive must be interpreted as precluding a tax authority of the Member State of origin from refusing to exempt an intra-Community transfer from VAT on the ground that the taxable person has not provided a VAT identification number issued by the Member State of destination, where there is no specific evidence of tax evasion, the goods have been moved to another Member State and the other conditions of exemption from tax are also met.

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing GmbH

(Case C-185/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 6(3) - Definition of ‘counterclaim’ - Claim based on unjust enrichment - Payment of a sum due under a decision that has been set aside - Temporal application))

(2016/C 462/05)

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marjan Kostanjevec

Defendant: F&S Leasing GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(3) 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 the court designated by that provision as regards counterclaims has jurisdiction to hear a counterclaim seeking the reimbursement on the ground of unjust enrichment of a sum corresponding to the amount agreed in an extrajudicial settlement, where that claim is brought in fresh legal proceedings between the same parties, following the setting aside of the judgment delivered in the original proceedings between them, the enforcement of which gave rise to the extrajudicial settlement.

(1) OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
3.

Article 15(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the court having jurisdiction in a Member State must not take into account, when applying that provision in a given case relating to parental responsibility, either the effect of a possible transfer of that case to a court of another Member State on the right of freedom of movement of persons concerned other than the child in question, or the reason why the mother of that child exercised that right, prior to that court being seised, unless those considerations are such that there may be adverse repercussions on the situation of that child.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/13

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Sabrina Wathelet v Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL

(Case C-149/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/44/EC - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Scope - Concept of ‘seller’ - Intermediary - Exceptional circumstances))

(2017/C 006/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sabrina Wathelet

Defendant: Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘seller’, for the purposes of Article 1(2)(c) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, must be interpreted as covering also a trader acting as intermediary on behalf of a private individual who has not duly informed the consumer of the fact that the owner of the goods sold is a private individual, which it is for the referring court to determine, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The above interpretation does not depend on whether the intermediary is remunerated for acting as intermediary

(1) OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.
3.

The concept of ‘construction’ for the purposes of point 7(b) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as referring to the carrying-out of works not previously existing or to the physical alteration of existing installations. In order to determine whether such an alteration may be regarded as equivalent, because of its scale and the manner in which it is carried out, to such construction, the referring court must take account of all the characteristics of the work concerned and not only of its length or of the fact that its initial route is retained.
2.

Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted to the effect that a taxable person, who breeds and trains his own race horses and those of other owners, has the right to deduct input value added tax on the transactions relating to the preparation for horse races of his own horses and the participation of his own horses in races, on the ground that the costs pertaining to those transactions are part of the general costs linked to his economic activity, provided that the costs incurred in each of those transactions have a direct and immediate link with that overall activity. That may be the case if the costs thus incurred pertain to race horses actually intended for sale or if the participation of those horses in races is, from an objective point of view, a means of promoting the economic activity, this being a matter for the referring court to determine. In a situation where such a right to deduct exists, any prize won by the taxable person on account of the placing of one of his horses in a race is not to be included in the taxable amount for value added tax purposes.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/7

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Alberto José Vieira Azevedo and Others v CED Portugal Unipessoal Lda, Instituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

(Case C-558/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability - Directive 2000/26/EC - Article 4(5) - Insurance undertaking - Claims representative - Sufficient powers of representation - Notifications of proceedings before the courts))

(2017/C 046/08)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alberto José Vieira Azevedo, Maria da Conceição Ferreira da Silva, Carlos Manuel Ferreira Alves, Rui Dinis Ferreira Alves, Vítor José Ferreira Alves

Defendants: CED Portugal Unipessoal Lda, Instituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

Intervening parties: Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Acidentes de Trabalho

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive), as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to provide that the claims representative appointed pursuant to that article may itself be sued, instead of the insurance undertaking which it represents, in the national court before which an action for damages was brought by an injured party falling within the scope of Article 1 of Directive 2000/26, as amended by Directive 2005/14.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
1.

Article 2(2)(j) and 3(f) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a credit rescheduling agreement, which is concluded, following the consumer’s default, between that consumer and the lender through a debt collection agency, is not agreed to ‘free of charge’, within the meaning of that article, where, by that agreement, the consumer undertakes to repay the total amount of that credit and to pay interest and costs that were not provided for by the initial contract under which that credit was granted;