ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Robeco Hollands Bezit NV and Others v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)

(Case C-658/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/39/EC - Markets in financial instruments - Article 4(1)(14) - Definition of ‘regulated market’ - Scope - System in which the participants are brokers representing investors and ‘open end’ investment fund agents required to execute orders relating to their funds))

(2018/C 022/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Robeco Hollands Bezit NV, Robeco Duurzaam Aandelen NV, Robeco Safe Mix NV, Robeco Solid Mix NV, Robeco Balanced Mix NV, Robeco Growth Mix NV, Robeco Life Cycle Funds NV, Robeco Afrika Fonds NV, Robeco Global Stars Equities, Robeco All Strategy Euro Bonds, Robeco High Yield Bonds, Robeco Property Equities

Defendant: Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘regulated market’ within the meaning of that provision covers a trading system in which multiple fund agents and brokers represent, respectively, ‘open end’ investment funds and investors, the sole purpose of which is to facilitate those investment funds in their obligation to execute the purchase and selling orders for shares placed by those investors.

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2017 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-389/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations on a revised Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications - Article 3(1) TFEU - Exclusive competence of the European Union - Common commercial policy - Article 207(1) TFEU - Commercial aspects of intellectual property))

(2017/C 437/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, J. Guillem Carrau, B. Hartmann, A. Lewis and M. Kocjan, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Etienne, A. Neergaard and R. Passos, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Hedvábná, K. Najmanová, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Techert, Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Tassopoulou, Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize, B. Fodda and D. Segoin, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato), Hungary (represented by: M. Bóra, M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M. Gijzen and B. Koopman, Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent), Portuguese Republic (represented by: M. Figueiredo, L. Inez Fernandes and M.L. Duarte, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: M. Kianička, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Brodie and D. Robertson, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 8512/15 of 7 May 2015 authorising the opening of negotiations on a revised Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications as regards matters falling within the competence of the European Union;

2. Maintains the effects of Decision 8512/15 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period which cannot exceed six months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a decision of the Council of the European Union based on Articles 207 and 218 TFEU;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

4. Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 83/2

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Wind 1014 GmbH, Kurt Daell v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-249/15) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Motor vehicle leased by a resident of one Member State from a leasing company established in another Member State - Registration tax calculated proportionately to the duration of use of the vehicle - Requirement of approval from the national tax authorities before use - Justification - Prevention of circumvention of tax rules and fraud or abuse - Safeguarding States’ powers of taxation - Proportionality))

(2018/C 083/02)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wind 1014 GmbH, Kurt Daell

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s legislation and administrative practice, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which:

— use by a resident in that Member State of a vehicle leased from a leasing company established in another Member State for the purpose of temporary use of that vehicle in the first Member State, in return for payment of a proportionate registration tax calculated proportionately to the duration of that use, is subject to prior approval of that payment by that Member State’s tax authorities, without which the vehicle may not, in principle, be used in its territory, and

— the possibility of making immediate use of such a vehicle in that first Member State whilst the taxpayer’s application to pay a proportionate registration tax on that vehicle based on the duration of use in that first Member State is being processed, is subject to advance payment of the full amount of registration tax, with provision made for repayment of the surplus paid, plus interest, if and when the taxpayer is eventually authorised by the tax authorities to pay the registration tax calculated proportionately.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
2.

2.Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that a summons, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was not served directly on the person concerned but was handed over, at the latter’s address, to an adult belonging to that household who undertook to pass it on to him, when it cannot be ascertained from the European arrest warrant whether and, if so, when that adult actually passed that summons on to the person concerned, does not in itself satisfy the conditions set out in that provision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/21

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal — Portugal) — Município de Palmela v Autoridade de Segurança Alimentar e Económica (ASAE) — Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações

(Case C-144/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procedures for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Directives 83/189/EEC and 98/34/EC - Draft technical regulation - Notifying the European Commission - Obligations of Member States - Infringement - Consequences))

(2017/C 104/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Município de Palmela

Defendant: Autoridade de Segurança Alimentar e Económica (ASAE) — Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Directive 83/189/EEC of the Council of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, and 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the penalty of unenforceability of a technical regulation which has not been notified, such as Article 16(1) and (2) of the Regulamento que estabelece as condições de segurança a observar na localização, implantação, conceção e organização funcional dos espaços de jogo e recreio, respetivamente, equipamento e superfícies de impacto (Regulation on the mandatory safety requirements regarding the localisation, implementation, design and functional organisation of play and recreation areas and their equipment and impact surfaces), annexed to Decreto-Lei No 379/97 (Decree-Law No 379/97), of 27 December 1997, as amended by Decreto-Lei No 119/2009 (Decree-Law No 119/2009), of 19 May 2009, applies only to that technical regulation and not to the entire legislative text in which it is contained.

(1) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — JZ v Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź — Śródmieście

(Case C-294/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 26(1) - European arrest warrant - Effects of the surrender - Deduction of the period of detention served in the executing Member State - Concept of ‘detention’ - Measures involving a restriction of liberty other than imprisonment - Curfew in conjunction with the wearing of an electronic tag - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 49))

(2016/C 402/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JZ

Defendant: Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź — Śródmieście

Operative part of the judgment

Article 26(1) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that measures such as a nine-hour night-time curfew, in conjunction with the monitoring of the person concerned by means of an electronic tag, an obligation to report to a police station at fixed times on a daily basis or several times a week, and a ban on applying for foreign travel documents, are not, in principle, having regard to the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of all those measures, so restrictive as to give rise to a deprivation of liberty comparable to that arising from imprisonment and thus to be classified as ‘detention’ within the meaning of that provision, which it is nevertheless for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/15

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München, Landgericht München I — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Ianos Tranca (C-124/16), Tanja Reiter (C-213/16) and Ionel Opria (C-188/16)

(Joined Cases C-124/16, C-188/16 and C-213/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Right to be informed about the charge - Service of a penalty order - Procedures - Mandatory appointment of person authorised to accept service - Non-resident accused person with no fixed place of residence - Period for lodging an objection running from service on the person authorised to accept service))

(2017/C 168/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München, Landgericht München I

Parties in the main proceedings

Ianos Tranca (C-124/16), Tanja Reiter (C-213/16) and Ionel Opria (C-188/16)

intervening party: Staatsanwaltschaft München I

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2, Article 3(1)(c), and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted to the effect that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in criminal proceedings, provides that the accused person who neither resides in that Member State nor has a fixed place of residence in that State or in his Member State of origin is required to appoint an agent for the purposes of service of a penalty order concerning him and that the period for lodging an objection to that order, before it becomes enforceable, runs from service of that order on that agent.

Article 6 of Directive 2012/13, however, requires that when the penalty order is enforced, as soon as the person concerned has actually become aware of the order, he should be placed in the same situation as if that order had been served on him personally and, in particular, that he have the whole of the prescribed period for lodging an objection, where necessary, benefiting from having his position restored to the status quo ante.

It is for the referring court to ensure that the national procedure for the accused person’s position being restored to the status quo ante and the conditions to which the exercise of that procedure is subject are applied in a manner consistent with those requirements and that that procedure thus permits the effective exercise of the rights provided for in Article 6.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/13

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers — Belgium) — X and X v État belge

(Case C-638/16 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Article 25(1)(a) - Visa with limited territorial validity - Issuing of a visa on humanitarian grounds or because of international obligations - Concept of ‘international obligations’ - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Geneva Convention - Issuing of a visa where a risk of infringement of Article 4 and/or Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is established - No obligation))

(2017/C 144/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X and X

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that an application for a visa with limited territorial validity made on humanitarian grounds by a third-country national, on the basis of Article 25 of the code, to the representation of the Member State of destination that is within the territory of a third country, with a view to lodging, immediately upon his or her arrival in that Member State, an application for international protection and, thereafter, to staying in that Member State for more than 90 days in a 180-day period, does not fall within the scope of that code but, as EU law currently stands, solely within that of national law.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/18

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission

(Case C-339/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - European Commission implementing decision - Notification to the addressee - Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 239/23)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and M. França, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stralsund — Germany) — HanseYachts AG v Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Compagnie Generali IARD SA

(Case C-29/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 27 - Lis pendens - Court first seised - Point 1 of Article 30 - Concept of ‘document instituting the proceedings’ or ‘equivalent document’ - Application for proceedings to preserve or establish, prior to any legal proceedings, evidence of facts on which a subsequent action could be based))

(2017/C 213/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stralsund

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HanseYachts AG

Defendants: Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Compagnie Generali IARD SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) and point 1 of Article 30 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, in cases of lis pendens, that the date on which a procedure for a measure of inquiry prior to any legal proceedings was commenced cannot constitute the date on which, within the meaning of point 1 of Article 30 of that regulation, a court called upon to rule on a substantive application which was brought in the same Member State following the result of that measure was ‘deemed to be seised’.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/19

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Genova — Italy) — Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Comune di Genova

(Case C-449/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 3 - Family benefits - Directive 2011/98/EU - Article 12 - Right to equal treatment - Third-country nationals holding single permits))

(2017/C 277/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva

Defendants: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Comune di Genova

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a third-country national holding a single permit within the meaning of Article 2(c) of that directive cannot receive a benefit such as the benefit for households having at least three minor children established by Legge n. 448 — Misure di finanza pubblica per la stabilizzazione e lo sviluppo (Law No 448 on public finance measures for stabilisation and development) of 23 December 1998.

(1) OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/19

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Immo Chiaradia SPRL (C-444/16), Docteur De Bruyne SPRL (C-445/16) v État belge

(Joined Cases C-444/16 and C-445/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 78/660/EEC - Annual accounts of certain types of companies - Principle that a true and fair view must be given - Principle that valuation must be made on a prudent basis - Issuing company of a share option recognising the grant date price of the option in the course of the accounting year in which the option is exercised or at the end of its period of validity))

(2017/C 277/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Immo Chiaradia SPRL (C-444/16), Docteur De Bruyne SPRL (C-445/16)

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

The principles that a true and fair view must be given and that valuation must be made on a prudent basis set out in Articles 2(3) and 31(1)(c) respectively of Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [50(2)(g) TFEU] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003, must be interpreted as not precluding an accounting method according to which a company issuing a share option may recognise as income the grant date price of that option in the course of the accounting year in which that option is exercised or at the end of its period of validity.

(1) OJ C 410, 7.6.2016.
1)

Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 11 December 2014 in Commission v Spain (C-576/13, not published, EU:C:2014:2430) by the expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice sent by the European Commission, namely 20 September 2015, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.
2.

Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a sign such as ‘la Milla de Oro’, referring to the characteristic of a product or service which is that such a product or service can be found in abundance in a single place with a high degree of value, is unlikely to have characteristics the use of which as a trade mark would constitute a ground for invalidity within the meaning of that provision.