ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — W.P. Willems v Burgemeester van Nuth, (C-446/12), H.J. Kooistra v Burgemeester van Skarsterlân (C-447/12), M. Roest v Burgemeester van Amsterdam(C-448/12), L.J.A. van Luijk v Burgemeester van Den Haag (C-449/12)

(Joined Cases C-446/12 to C-449/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Biometric passport - Biometric data - Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 - Article 1(3) - Article 4(3) - Use of data collected for purposes other than the issue of passports and travel documents - Establishment and use of databases containing biometric data - Legal guarantees - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7 and 8 - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 6 and 7 - Right to privacy - Right to the protection of personal data - Application to identity cards))

(2015/C 198/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: W.P. Willems (C-446/12), H.J. Kooistra (C-447/12), M. Roest (C-448/12), L.J.A. van Luijk (C-449/12)

Defendants: Burgemeester van Nuth (C-446/12), Burgemeester van Skarsterlân (C-447/12), Burgemeester van Amsterdam (C-448/12), Burgemeester van Den Haag (C-449/12)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation is not applicable to identity cards issued by a Member States to its nationals, such as Netherlands identity cards, regardless of the period of validity and the possibility of using them for the purposes of travel outside that State;

2. Article 4(3) of Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the Member States to guarantee, in their legislation, that biometric data collected and stored in accordance with that regulation will not be collected, processed and used for purposes other than the issue of the passport or travel document, since that is not a matter which falls within the scope of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 439/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Rita van Caster, Patrick van Caster v Finanzamt Essen-Süd

(Case C-326/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Taxation of income from investment funds - Investment fund’s obligations to communicate and publish certain information - Flat-rate taxation of income from investment funds which do not comply with communication and publication obligations))

(2014/C 439/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rita van Caster, Patrick van Caster

Defendant: Finanzamt Essen-Süd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides that the failure by a non-resident investment fund to comply with the obligations to communicate and publish certain information required by that legislation, which are applicable without distinction to resident and non-resident investment funds alike, resulting in the flat-rate taxation of the income which the taxpayer earns from that investment fund, since that legislation does not allow the taxpayer to provide evidence or information that could prove the actual size of that income.

(1) OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/17

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — Hungary v European Commission, Slovak Republic

(Case C-31/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Protected geographical indications - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications for wine - E-Bacchus database - Tokaj)

2014/C 93/26

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, B. Schima and B. Eggers, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by B. Ricziová, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 November 2012 in Case T-194/10 Hungary v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible an application for cancellation of the entry of the protected designation of origin ‘Vinohradnícka oblast’ Tokaj’, with Slovakia indicated as country of origin, in the electronic register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications for wine (E-Bacchus database) — Legal effects of an entry in the E-Bacchus database — Obligation to state reasons — Principles of sound administration, sincere cooperation and legal certainty.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Hungary to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 March 2014 — Rousse Industry v European Commission

(Case C-271/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Aid granted by the Republic of Bulgaria in the form of debt write-off - Commission decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of ‘new aid’ - Duty to state reasons))

2014/C 142/09

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Rousse Industry (represented by: A Angelov and S Panov, advokati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and D. Stefanov, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of 20 March 2013 in Case T-489/11 Rousse Industry v Commission, by which the General Court (Fourth Chamber) dismissed the action brought by Rousse Industry for the annulment in part of Commission Decision 2012/706/EU of 13 July 2011 on the State aid SA.28903 (C 12/2010) (ex N 389/2009) implemented by Bulgaria in favour of Rousse Industry (OJ 2012 L 320, p. 27) — State aid in the form of debt write-off — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Infringement of procedural rules adversely affecting the rights of the applicant — Infringement of EU law by the General Court.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Rousse Industry AD to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
1.

Article 13(5) of Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers must be interpreted as meaning, where a Member State has opted to grant the material reception conditions in the form of financial allowances or vouchers, that those allowances must be provided from the time the application for asylum is made, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13(1) of that directive, and must meet the minimum standards set out in Article 13(2) thereof. That Member State must ensure that the total amount of the financial allowances covering the material reception conditions is sufficient to ensure a dignified standard of living and adequate for the health of applicants and capable of ensuring their subsistence, enabling them in particular to find housing, having regard, if necessary, to the preservation of the interests of persons having specific needs, pursuant to Article 17 of that directive. The material reception conditions laid down in Article 14(1), (3), (5) and (8) of Directive 2003/9 do not apply to the Member States where they have opted to grant those conditions in the form of financial allowances only. Nevertheless, the amount of those allowances must be sufficient to enable minor children to be housed with their parents, so that the family unity of the asylum seekers may be maintained.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/16

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-377/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Tribunal Arbitral Tributário - Directive 69/335/EEC - Articles 4 and 7 - Increase of the share capital of a capital company - Stamp duty in force on 1 July 1984 - That stamp duty subsequently abolished, and then re-introduced))

2014/C 282/21

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4(1)(c) and 7(1) and (2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as precluding the reintroduction by a Member State of capital duty on increases of share capital of a company falling under the first of those provisions, which were subject to such duty on 1 July 1984, but which were later exempted from that duty.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others

(Case C-360/13) (1)

((Copyright - Information Society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(1) and (5) - Reproduction - Exceptions and limitations - Creation of copies of an internet site on-screen and in the cache of the hard disk in the course of browsing the internet - Temporary act of reproduction - Transient or incidental act - Integral and essential part of a technological process - Lawful use - Independent economic significance))

2014/C 253/16

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd

Respondents: The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Concept of temporary, transient or incidental acts of reproduction which constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process — Reproduction of a webpage which is automatically stored in the memory cache and on the screen of a computer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the copies on the user’s computer screen and the copies in the internet ‘cache’ of that computer’s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/20

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany)) — Netto Marken-Discount AG & Co. KG v Deutsches Patent- und Marken

(Case C-420/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Identification of goods or services for which the protection of a trade mark is sought - Requirements of clarity and precision - Nice Classification - Retail trade - Bringing together of services))

2014/C 315/29

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Netto Marken-Discount AG & Co. KG

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Marken

Operative part of the judgment

1. Services rendered by an economic operator which consist in bringing together services so that the consumer can conveniently compare and purchase them may come within the concept of ‘services’ referred to in Article 2 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.

2. Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as imposing a requirement that an application for registration of a trade mark with respect to a service which consists in bringing together services must be formulated with sufficient clarity and precision so as to allow the competent authorities and other economic operators to know which services the applicant intends to bring together.

(1) OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Nexans SA, Nexans France v European Commission

(Case C-37/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Administrative procedure - Inspection - Decision ordering an inspection - Obligation to state reasons - Reasonable grounds - Geographic market))

2014/C 292/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Nexans SA, Nexans France (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, J.-P. Tran-Thiet, avocat, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Rogers, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, J. Bourke and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal.

2) Orders Nexans SA and Nexans France SAS to pay the costs of the present appeal.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
1)

declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which only a low tax-free allowance is granted when inheritance and gift tax are applied to immoveable property situated in Germany where the deceased, at the time of death, the donor, at the time of the gift, or the beneficiary, at the time of the taxable event, resided on the territory of another Member State, whereas a considerably higher tax-free allowance is granted where at least one of the two parties concerned resided in Germany at the relevant time, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU;
1.

The date finally chosen by the national authorities for the entry into force of a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, laying down the requirement that hens for egg production are to be kept in housing systems which meet the hens’ need for nests, perches and sand-baths and that the housing system is to be such that the mortality rate and behaviour disorders in the hens are kept to a low level, is subject to the obligation of communication to the European Commission, as laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, where a change to the timetable for the implementation of that national measure was, in effect, made, and was significant in nature, which it is for the national court to ascertain;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Philippe Gruslin v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA

(Case C-88/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) - Directive 85/611/EEC - Article 45 - Concept of ‘payments to unit-holders’ - Delivery to unit-holders of certificates for registered units))

2014/C 409/11

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Philippe Gruslin

Defendant: Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA

Operative part of the judgment

The obligation laid down in Article 45 of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EC of 29 June 1995, under which an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities which markets its units within the territory of a Member State other than that in which it is situated is required to make payments to unit-holders in the Member State of marketing, must be interpreted as not including the delivery to unit-holders of certificates providing evidence of title to units which are registered in their name in the register of unit-holders kept by the issuer.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — Sofia Zoo v Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség

(Case C-532/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of species of wild fauna and flora - Regulation (EC) No 338/97 - Article 11 - Invalidity of an import permit restricted to the specimens of animals actually affected by the ground of invalidity))

(2014/C 395/25)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sofia Zoo

Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(2)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein must be interpreted as meaning that an import permit which does not comply with the conditions laid down in that regulation must be considered void only in respect of the specimens actually affected by the ground of invalidity of that import permit, those specimens then being the only ones which may be seized and possibly confiscated by the competent authority of the Member State where they are situated.

(1) OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.
2.

The limitation period referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 is applicable not only to proceedings brought in respect of irregularities leading to the imposition of administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5 of that regulation, but also to proceedings leading to the adoption of administrative measures within the meaning of Article 4 of that regulation. Although Article 3(3) of that regulation permits Member States to apply longer limitation periods than those of four or three years provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) thereof, arising from general provisions of law pre-dating the adoption of that regulation, the application of a limitation period of 20 years goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of protecting the European Union’s financial interests.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/11

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG

(Case C-117/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/29/EC - Copyright and related rights - Exceptions and limitations - Article 5(3)(n) - Use for the purpose of research or private study of works and other subject-matter - Book made available to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals in publicly accessible libraries - Meaning of work not subject to ‘purchase or licensing terms’ - Right of the library to digitise a work contained in its collection in order to make it available to users by dedicated terminals - Making the work available by dedicated terminals which permit it to be printed out on paper or to be stored on a USB stick))

2014/C 409/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Technische Universität Darmstadt

Defendant: Eugen Ulmer KG

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘purchase or licensing terms’ provided for in Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be understood as requiring that the rightholder and an establishment, such as a publicly accessible library, referred to in that provision must have concluded a licensing agreement in respect of the work in question that sets out the conditions in which that establishment may use that work.

2. Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29, read in conjunction with Article 5(2)(c) of that directive, must be interpreted to mean that it does not preclude Member States from granting to publicly accessible libraries covered by those provisions the right to digitise the works contained in their collections, if such act of reproduction is necessary for the purpose of making those works available to users, by means of dedicated terminals, within those establishments.

3. Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted to mean that it does not extend to acts such as the printing out of works on paper or their storage on a USB stick, carried out by users from dedicated terminals installed in publicly accessible libraries covered by that provision. However, such acts may, if appropriate, be authorised under national legislation transposing the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(2)(a) or (b) of that directive provided that, in each individual case, the conditions laid down by those provisions are met.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 439/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Teleklagenævnet — Denmark) — TDC A/S v Erhvervsstyrelsen

(Case C-222/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 32 - Additional mandatory services - Compensation mechanism for the cost associated with providing those services - Meaning of ‘court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2014/C 439/05)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Teleklagenævnet

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TDC A/S

Defendant: Erhvervsstyrelsen

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Teleklagenævnet (Denmark) in its decision of 22 April 2013.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.