ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — Horațiu Ovidiu Costea v SC Volksbank România SA

(Case C-110/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 2(b) - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Credit agreement concluded by a natural person who practises as a lawyer - Repayment of a loan secured on a building owned by the borrower’s law firm - Borrower who has the necessary knowledge to assess the unfairness of a term before signing the agreement))

(2015/C 354/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Horațiu Ovidiu Costea

Defendant: SC Volksbank România SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who practises as a lawyer and concludes a credit agreement with a bank, in which the purpose of the credit is not specified, may be regarded as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision, where that agreement is not linked to that lawyer’s profession. The fact that the debt arising out of the same contract is secured by a mortgage taken out by that person in his capacity as representative of his law firm and involving goods intended for the exercise of that person’s profession, such as a building belonging to that firm, is not relevant in that regard.

(1) OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.
(1)

Declares that the Republic of Slovenia, — by authorising the deposit of excavated earth on plot No 115/1 in the municipal land register of Teharje (Bukovžlak), without ensuring that other waste had not previously or at the same time been deposited at that site, and since no other measure has been adopted to remove from that site the waste not covered by the permit issued, that site must be considered as constituting an illegal landfill which does not comply with the conditions and requirements laid down, first, by Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, and secondly, by Articles 5(3)(e), 6, read in conjunction with Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC, 7 to 9, 11 and 12 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, and by Annexes I to III to that directive, and — by failing, since April 2009, to adopt sufficient measures to prevent, and then to remove the deposit of excavated earth classifiable as waste under item number 17 05 06 (dredging spoil other than those mentioned in 17 05 05) and item number 17 05 05 (dredging spoil containing dangerous substances) at the site of construction work on the municipal infrastructure for the commercial area at Gaberje-jug, so that that site must also be considered to be an illegal landfill which does not comply with the abovementioned provisions of Directives 1999/31 and 2008/98 or with Articles 12, 15 and 17 of Directive 2008/98, has failed to fulfil its obligations under all of those provisions;
1.

Directives: — 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, in particular Article 8 thereof; — 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive); — 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009; — 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); and — 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 must be interpreted as not precluding national rules on the application of a charge such as the charge paid for a government licence under which the use of terminal equipment for terrestrial mobile radio communication under a subscription contract is subject to a general authorisation or a licence and to the payment of such a charge, provided that the subscription contract itself is equivalent to a licence or general authorisation and, accordingly, no intervention is required in that regard by the public administrative authorities.
1.

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 of 14 April 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of application of that provision, it is for the producer to determine whether a substance of very high concern identified in accordance with Article 59(1) of that regulation, as amended, is present in a concentration above 0,1 % weight by weight of any article it produces and, for the importer of a product made up of more than one article, to determine for each article whether such a substance is present in a concentration above 0,1 % weight by weight of that article.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Family Division — United Kingdom) — A v B

(Case C-489/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Lis pendens - Articles 16 and 19(1) and (3) - Judicial separation proceedings in a first Member State and divorce proceedings in a second Member State - Jurisdiction of the court first seised - Concept of ‘established’ jurisdiction - Lapse of the first proceedings and commencement of fresh divorce proceedings in the first Member State - Consequences - Time difference between the Member States - Effects on the procedure for seising the courts))

(2015/C 389/12)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Family Division

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: B

Operative part of the judgment

In the case of judicial separation and divorce proceedings brought between the same parties before the courts of two Member States, Article 19(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which the proceedings before the court first seised in the first Member State expired after the second court in the second Member State was seised, the criteria for lis pendens are no longer fulfilled and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the court first seised must be regarded as not being established.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
3)

Article 10(2)(c) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as not precluding a measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the grant of authorisation for the exercise of an activity, such as that at issue in Case C-341/14, consisting in the operation of window prostitution businesses by renting rooms out in shifts is subject to the condition that the service provider is able to communicate with the recipients of those services, in this case prostitutes, where that condition is such as to ensure that the legitimate objective of general interest pursued — namely the prevention of criminal offences related to prostitution — is secured, and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective, which is for the referring court to determine.
1.

Articles 4(1) and 5 of Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from laying down in its national law quality requirements that are additional to the ones contained in that directive for the marketing of diesel fuels, such as that relating to the flash point at issue in the main proceedings, since it does not constitute a technical specification of diesel fuels relating to the protection of health and the environment for the purposes of that directive.
1.

Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings where the infringement of a provision of EU law was discovered only after the occurrence of the prejudice, the limitation period begins to run from the time when both the economic operator’s act or omission that infringed EU law and the prejudice caused to the budget of the European Union or budgets managed by it have occurred.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — B&S Global Transit Center BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-319/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Articles 203 and 204 - External Community transit procedure - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Articles 365, 366 and 859 - Incurrence of a customs debt - Whether or not goods are unlawfully removed from customs supervision - Non-fulfilment of an obligation - Failure to end the transit procedure - Removal of the goods from the customs territory of the European Union))

(2015/C 429/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B&S Global Transit Center BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 203 and 204 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a failure to comply with the obligation to present goods placed under the external Community transit procedure at the customs office of destination leads to a customs debt being incurred on the basis not of Article 204 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, but of Article 203 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, where the goods concerned have left the customs territory of the European Union and the holder under that procedure is unable to produce documents that comply with Article 365(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, in the version following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001, or Article 366(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2454/93, in the version following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1192/2008 of 17 November 2008.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH

(Case C-245/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Late statement of opposition - Article 20(2) - Application for review of the European order for payment - Objection to the jurisdiction of the court of origin - European order for payment wrongly issued having regard to the requirements laid down in the regulation - Not ‘clearly’ wrongly issued - No ‘exceptional’ circumstances))

(2015/C 414/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thomas Cook Belgium NV

Defendant: Thurner Hotel GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 936/2012 of 4 October 2012, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a defendant on whom a European order for payment has been served in accordance with that regulation from being entitled to apply for a review of that order by claiming that the court of origin incorrectly held that it had jurisdiction on the basis of allegedly false information provided by the claimant in the application form.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trieste — Italy) — Florin Lazar v Allianz SpA

(Case C-350/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation No 864/2007 - Article 4(1) - Concepts of ‘country in which the damage occurs’, ‘damage’ and ‘indirect consequences of the tort or delict’ - Damage sustained personally by a family member of a person who died as a result of a road traffic accident - Applicable law))

(2016/C 048/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Trieste

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Florin Lazar

Defendant: Allianz SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) 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, in order to determine the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising from a road traffic accident, as meaning that the damage related to the death of a person in such an accident which took place in the Member State of the court seised and sustained by the close relatives of that person who reside in another Member State, must be classified as ‘indirect consequences’ of that accident, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
1.

Article 26 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 of 30 November 2011, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a regional entity of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires tenderers and their subcontractors to undertake, by means of a written declaration to be enclosed with their tender, to pay staff who are called upon to perform the services covered by the public contract in question a minimum wage laid down in that legislation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/14

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH v Finanzamt Sankt Augustin

(Case C-388/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Freedom of establishment - Non-resident permanent establishment - Avoidance of double taxation by exemption of the income of the non-resident permanent establishment - Taking account of losses incurred by that permanent establishment - Reincorporation of the losses deducted previously in the event that the non-resident establishment is transferred - Definitive losses))

(2016/C 068/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Sankt Augustin

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State’s tax regime, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the event of transfer by a resident company to a non-resident company within the same group of a permanent establishment situated in another Member State, the losses previously deducted in respect of the establishment transferred are reincorporated into the taxable profit of the transferring company where, under a double taxation convention, the income of such a permanent establishment is exempt from tax in the Member State in which the company to which that establishment belonged has its seat.

2. Article 49 TFEU is to be interpreted as not precluding a Member State’s tax regime, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the event of transfer by a resident company to a non-resident company within the same group of a permanent establishment situated in another Member State, excludes the possibility, for the resident company, of taking into account in its tax base the losses of the establishment transferred where, under a double taxation convention, the exclusive power to tax the profits of that establishment lies with the Member State in which the establishment is situated.

(1) OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Rüdiger Hobohm v Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co. KG, Benedikt Aloysius Kampik, Mar Mediterraneo Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft für Immobilien SL

(Case C-297/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in respect of consumer contracts - Articles 15(1)(c) and 16(1) - Meaning of a commercial or professional activity ‘directed to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile - Transaction-management contract designed to achieve the economic objective pursued by means of a brokerage contract concluded beforehand in the course of a commercial or professional activity ‘directed to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile - Close link))

(2016/C 068/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rüdiger Hobohm

Defendants: Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co. KG, Benedikt Aloysius Kampik, Mar Mediterraneo Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft für Immobilien SL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1)(c) 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, read in conjunction with Article 16(1) of that regulation, must, in so far as it relates to the contract concluded in the context of a commercial or professional activity ‘directed’ by the professional ‘to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied to a contract concluded between a consumer and a professional which on its own does not come within the scope of the commercial or professional activity ‘directed’ by that professional ‘to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, but which is closely linked to a contract concluded beforehand by those same parties in the context of such an activity. It is for the national court to determine whether the constituent elements of that link are present, in particular whether the parties to both of those contracts are identical in law or in fact, whether the economic objective of those contracts concerning the same specific subject-matter is identical and whether the second contract complements the first contract in that it seeks to make it possible for the economic objective of that first contract to be achieved.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
1.

Declares that, by not ensuring that discharges from urban waste water treatment plants were subject to an adequate level of treatment, meeting the relevant requirements of Annex I.B to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, in the agglomerations of Alvalade, Odemira, Pereira do Campo, Vila Verde (PTAGL 420), Mação, Pontével, Castro Daire, Arraiolos, Ferreira do Alentejo, Vidigueira, Alcácer do Sal, Amareleja, Monchique, Montemor-o-Novo, Grândola, Estremoz, Maceira, Portel, Viana do Alentejo, Cinfães, Ponte de Reguengo, Canas de Senhorim, Repeses, Vila Viçosa, Santa Comba Dão, Tolosa, Loriga, Cercal, Vale de Santarém, Castro Verde, Almodôvar, Amares/Ferreiras, Mogadouro, Melides, Vila Verde (PTAGL 421), Serpa, Vendas Novas, Vila de Prado, Nelas, Vila Nova de São Bento, Santiago do Cacém, Alter do Chão, Tábua and Mangualde, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/14

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy

(Case C-521/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 6(2) - Jurisdiction - Action on a warranty or guarantee or other third party proceedings brought by a third party against a party to judicial proceedings before the court seised of the original proceedings))

(2016/C 098/17)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft

Defendant: If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2) 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 to the effect that its scope includes an action brought by a third party, in accordance with national law, against the defendant in the original proceedings, and closely linked to those original proceedings, seeking reimbursement of compensation paid by that third party to the applicant in those original proceedings, provided that the action was not instituted solely with the object of removing that defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.