ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/33

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — F. van der Helder, D. Farrington v College voor zorgverzekeringen

(Case C-321/12) (1)

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 28(2)(b) - Sickness insurance benefits - Entitlement to an old-age pension in several Member States - Residence in another Member State - Provision of benefits in kind in the State of residence - Burden of the cost of benefits - Member State ‘legislation’ to which the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time - Concept)

2013/C 344/57

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: F. van der Helder, D. Farrington

Defendant: College voor zorgverzekeringen

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 28(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Sickness insurance — Benefits for pensioners resident in a Member State other than that of the competent institution — Benefits to be paid by the institution of the Member State in which the person concerned has been covered for the longest period — Concept of ‘legislation [to which] the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that ‘legislation’ to which the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time, for the purpose of that provision, refers to legislation concerning pensions.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/22

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, Mannocchi Luigino DI v Provincia di Fermo

(Case C-94/12) (1)

(Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Economic and financial standing - Technical and/or professional ability - Articles 47(2) and 48(3) - Right of an economic operator to rely on the capacities of other entities - Article 52 - Certification system - Public works contracts - National legislation requiring possession of a qualification certificate corresponding to the category and the value of the works covered by the contract - Prohibition on reliance on the certificates of more than one entity for works within the same category)

2013/C 344/36

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, Mannocchi Luigino DI

Defendant: Provincia di Fermo

Intervening party: Torelli Dottori SpA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Interpretation of Article 47(2) 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 (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Economic and financial standing of the economic operator — Right to rely on the capacities of other entities — National legislation limiting that right to one other entity for each qualification category required by the certification body

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in conjunction with Article 44(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits, as a general rule, economic operators participating in a tendering procedure for a public works contract from relying on the capacities of more than one undertaking for the same qualification category.

(1) OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/32

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Spedition Welter GmbH v Avanssur SA

(Case C-306/12) (1)

(Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 21(5) - Claims representative - Authority to accept service of judicial documents - National rule making the validity of that service conditional on the express grant of an authority to accept it - Interpretation in conformity with Union law)

2013/C 344/55

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Spedition Welter GmbH

Respondent: Avanssur SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Saarbrücken — Interpretation of Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11) — Claims representative — Service on the claims representative of proceedings brought by the injured party against the insurance undertaking — National rule making the validity of that service conditional on the express grant of an authority to accept service — Direct effect of the abovementioned provision of the directive

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as meaning that the claims representative’s sufficient powers must include authority validly to accept service of judicial documents necessary for proceedings for settlement of a claim to be brought before the court having jurisdiction.

2. In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, where national legislation has reproduced word for word the provisions of Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103, the referring court is required, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, to interpret national law in a way that is compatible with the interpretation given to the directive by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/18

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH

(Case C-391/12) (1)

(Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Scope ratione personae - Misleading omissions in advertorials - Legislation of a Member State prohibiting any publication for remuneration not identified by the term ‘advertisement’ (‘Anzeige’) - Complete harmonisation - Stricter measures - Freedom of the press)

2013/C 367/31

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22), and in particular Articles 3(5), 4 and 7(2) thereof and point 11 of Annex I thereto — Misleading omissions in editorial-style advertising — Legislation of a Member State prohibiting a publication for remuneration which does not mention that it is an ‘advertisement’ (‘Anzeige’)

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) may not be relied on as against newspaper publishers, with the result that, in those circumstances, that directive must be interpreted as not precluding the application of a national provision under which those publishers are required to identify specifically, in this case through the use of the term ‘advertisement’ (‘Anzeige’), any publication in their periodicals for which they receive remuneration, unless it is already evident from the arrangement and layout of the publication that it is an advertisement.

(1) OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/14

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Tevfik Isbir v DB Services GmbH

(Case C-522/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Directive 96/71/EC - Minimum rates of pay - Lump sums and employer contribution to a multiannual savings plan for the benefit of its employees)

2014/C 9/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tevfik Isbir

Defendant: DB Services GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) — Calculation of the minimum rate of pay — Inclusion of the employer contribution to a multiannual savings plan for the benefit of its employees — Situation in which the employees cannot have access to those assets for several years

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the inclusion in the minimum wage of elements of remuneration which do not alter the relationship between the service provided by the worker, on the one hand, and the consideration which he receives by way of remuneration for that service, on the other. It is for the national court to verify whether that is the case as regards the elements of remuneration at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses v Region Hannover

(Case C-220/12) (1)

(Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Right of free movement and residence - National of a Member State - Studies pursued in another Member State - Education or training grant - Permanent residence requirement - Place of education or training located in the applicant’s State of residence or in a neighbouring State - Limited exception - Applicant’s specific circumstances)

2013/C 367/24

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses

Defendant: Region Hannover

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Interpretation of Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Education or training grant (‘BAföG’) — Member State’s legislation making its award subject to the condition that its nationals who are resident abroad show ‘special circumstances’ and restricting the place of education or training to the Member State of residence or a neighbouring State

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, as a rule, makes the award of an education or training grant for studies pursued in another Member State subject to the sole condition of having established a permanent residence, within the meaning of that legislation, on national territory and which, in a case where the applicant is a national of that State with no permanent residence within that State, provides for a grant for education or training abroad only in the applicant’s State of residence or in a neighbouring State thereof and only where specific circumstances justify such a grant.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Dixons Retail plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-494/12) (1)

(Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax - Supply of goods - Concept - Fraudulent use of a bank card)

2014/C 39/11

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dixons Retail plc

Respondents: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Articles 14(1) and 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of ‘supply of goods’ — Supply following a purchase made by means of the unauthorised and fraudulent use of a credit card

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1), 5(1) and 11A(1)(a) 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 and Articles 2(1)(a), 14(1) and 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the physical transfer of goods to a purchaser who fraudulently uses a bank card as a means of payment constitutes a ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 77/388 and Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 and that, in the context of such a transfer, the payment made by a third party, under an agreement concluded between it and the supplier of those goods by which the third party has undertaken to pay the supplier for the goods sold by the latter to purchasers using such a card as a means of payment, constitutes ‘consideration’ within the meaning of Article 11A(1)(a) of Directive 77/388 and Article 73 of Directive 2006/112.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/15

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Autorità per la vigilanza sui contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture v SOA Nazionale Costruttori — Organismo di Attestazione SpA

(Case C-327/12) (1)

(Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU - Public undertakings and undertakings to which special or exclusive rights have been granted - Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest - Definition - Bodies tasked with checking and certifying compliance by undertakings carrying out public works with the conditions required by the law - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Restriction - Justification - Protection of recipients of services - Status of certification services)

2014/C 52/24

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Autorità per la vigilanza sui contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

Defendant: SOA Nazionale Costruttori — Organismo di Attestazione SpA

Intervening parties: Associazione nazionale Società Organismi di Attestazione (Unionsoa), SOA CQOP SpA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU — Concepts of ‘public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights’ and ‘Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest’ — Bodies responsible for verifying and attesting to the fact that potential subcontractors for public works comply with the conditions laid down by law — National legislation imposing minimum tariffs on those bodies.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on companies classified as attestation organisations (Società Organismi di Attestazione) a scheme of minimum tariffs for certification services offered to undertakings seeking to participate in procedures for the award of public works contracts

Such national legislation constitutes a restriction of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU, but is suitable for attaining the objective of protecting the recipients of the services in question. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of, inter alia, the method of calculating the minimum tariffs, particularly in the light of the number of categories of work for which the certificate is drawn up, that national legislation goes beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

(1) OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León v Anuntis Segundamano España SL

(Case C-413/12) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Action seeking an injunction brought by a regional consumer protection association - Jurisdiction of local courts - No remedy against a decision declining jurisdiction delivered at first instance - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

2014/C 45/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León

Defendant: Anuntis Segundamano España SL

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain — Interpretation of Articles 4, 12, 114 and 169 TFEU, Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1) and of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Adequate and effective means to prevent the continued use of unfair terms — Preventive action brought in the collective interest by a consumer protection organisation seeking an injunction to prevent a trader from using unfair terms — National rules of civil procedure conferring jurisdiction on the court of the place where the defendant has its address — National legislation excluding any appeal against an order declining jurisdiction

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national procedural rules under which actions for an injunction brought by consumer protection associations must be brought before the courts where the defendant is established or has its address and whereby no appeal lies against a decision declining territorial jurisdiction handed down by a court of first instance.

(1) OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce, Verviers — Belgium) — Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA

(Case C-9/12) (1)

(Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 2 - Article 5(1)(a) and (b) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to contract - Concepts of ‘sale of goods’ and ‘supply of services’ - Agreement for the distribution of goods)

2014/C 52/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce, Verviers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corman-Collins SA

Defendant: La Maison du Whisky SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de commerce de Verviers — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5(1)(a) and (b) 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Exclusive distribution of goods agreement concluded between a grantor of the exclusive distribution rights established in France and an exclusive distributor established in Belgium — Permissibility of a national law providing for the jurisdiction of the courts of the exclusive distributor, irrespective of where the grantor of the exclusive distribution rights has its registered office.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 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 as meaning that, where the defendant is domiciled in a Member State other than that in which the court seised is situated, it precludes the application of a national rule of jurisdiction such as that provided for in Article 4 of Law of 27 July 1961 on Unilateral Termination of Exclusive Distribution Agreements of Indefinite Duration, as amended by the Law of 13 April 1971 on Unilateral termination of distribution agreements.

2. Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule of jurisdiction laid down in the second indent of that provision for disputes relating to contracts for the supply of services is applicable in the case of a legal action by which a plaintiff established in one Member State claims, against a defendant established in another Member State, rights arising from an exclusive distribution agreement, which requires the contract binding the parties to contain specific terms concerning the distribution by the distributor of goods sold by the grantor. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case in the before it.

(1) OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.