ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Sommer Antriebs- und Funktechnik GmbH v Rademacher Geräte-Elektronik GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-369/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Waste electrical and electronic equipment - Directive 2002/96/EC - Articles 2(1) and 3(a) and Annexes I A and I B - Directive 2012/19/EU - Articles 2(1)(a), 2(3)(b) and 3(1)(a) and (b), and Annexes I and II - Concepts of ‘electrical and electronic equipment’ and ‘electrical and electronic tools’ - Garage-door operating devices))

(2015/C 311/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sommer Antriebs- und Funktechnik GmbH

Defendant: Rademacher Geräte-Elektronik GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 3(a) of Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), and Annexes I A, point 6, and I B, point 6, thereto, and Article 2(1)(a) and 2(3)(b), and Article 3(1)(a) and (b), of Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and Annexes I, point 6, and II, point 6, thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that garage-door operating devices, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are dependent on an electric current of approximately 220 to 240 volts to work properly, designed to be incorporated into the building structure together with the relevant garage door and can at any time be dismantled, re-installed and/or added to that structure, fall within the scope of Directive 2002/96 and, during the transitional period fixed in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2012/19, that of the latter directive.

(1) OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht — Germany) — Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and Others

(Case C-67/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Citizenship of the Union - Equal treatment - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(2) - Social assistance - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 4 and 70 - Special non-contributory cash benefits - Member State nationals who are job-seekers and resident in a different Member State - Excluded - Retention of the status of ‘worker’))

(2015/C 371/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln

Defendants: Nazifa Alimanovic, Sonita Alimanovic, Valentina Alimanovic, Valentino Alimanovic

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1244/2010 of 9 December 2010, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which nationals of other Member States who are in a situation such as that referred to in Article 14(4)(b) of that directive are excluded from entitlement to certain ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 883/2004, which also constitute ‘social assistance’ within the meaning of Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, although those benefits are granted to nationals of the Member State concerned who are in the same situation.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
1.

Article 7(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, and Articles 10c to 11a, 12a and 12b of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a certificate issued by the competent institution of a Member State in the form of an E 101 certificate in order to certify that a worker is subject to the social security legislation of that Member State, when that worker comes within the scope of the Agreement of 13 February 1961 concerning the Social Security of Rhine Boatmen, signed at Geneva on 30 November 1979, is not binding on the institutions of other Member States. The fact that the issuing institution did not intend to issue a genuine E 101 certificate but used the standard form of that certificate for administrative reasons is irrelevant in that regard.
2)

Article 1 of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66, and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness do not preclude the charging of multiple court fees to an individual who brings several court actions concerning the same award of a public contract or that individual from having to pay additional court fees in order to be able to raise supplementary pleas concerning the same award of a public contract within ongoing judicial proceedings. However, in the event of objections being raised by a party concerned, it is for the national court to examine the subject-matter of the actions submitted by an individual or the pleas raised by that individual within the same proceedings. If the national court finds that the subject-matter of those actions is not in fact separate or does not amount to a significant enlargement of the subject-matter of the dispute that is already pending, it is required to relieve that individual of the obligation to pay cumulative court fees.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 — Electrabel SA and Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt v European Commission

(Case C-357/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Aid granted by the Hungarian authorities to certain electricity generators - Power purchase agreements concluded between a public undertaking and certain electricity generators - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Meaning of ‘party’ capable of bringing an appeal before the Court - Accession of Hungary to the European Union - Date relevant to the assessment of the existence of aid - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test - Methodology for calculating the amount of aid))

(2015/C 381/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Electrabel SA and Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt (represented by: J. Philippe, F.-H. Boret and A.-C. Guyon, avocats, and by P. Turner QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3) Orders Electrabel SA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 — AC Treuhand AG v European Commission

(Case C-194/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European tin stabiliser and ESBO/esters heat stabiliser markets - Article 81(1) EC - Scope - Consultancy firm not operating on the relevant markets - Definition of ‘agreement between undertakings’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Calculation of the amount of fines - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2015/C 414/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: AC Treuhand AG (represented by: C. Steinle, I. Bodenstein and C. von Köckritz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders AC-Treuhand AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/9

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-270/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for Community word mark SÔ:UNIC - Earlier national and Community word marks SO…?, SO…? ONE, SO…? CHIC - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Family of marks))

(2015/C 406/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Debonair Trading Internacional Lda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
2.

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a seller established in another Member State must hold a retail sale licence in order to import alcoholic beverages with a view to their retail sale to consumers residing in the first Member State, where that seller, or someone acting on his behalf, transports those beverages, provided that that legislation is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued, in the present case the protection of health and public policy, that the objective in question could not be achieved with at least an equivalent level of effectiveness by less restrictive methods and that the legislation does not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between the Member States, which it is for the referring court to verify.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Sveda’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-126/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Right of deduction - Deduction of input VAT on the acquisition or production of capital goods - Recreational path directly intended for use by the public free of charge - Use of the recreational path as a means of carrying out taxed transactions))

(2015/C 414/04)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Sveda’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Third party: Klaipėdos apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as granting, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a taxable person the right to deduct the input value added tax paid for the acquisition or production of capital goods, for the purposes of a planned economic activity related to rural and recreational tourism, which are (i) directly intended for use by the public free of charge, and may (ii) enable taxed transactions to be carried out, provided that a direct and immediate link is established between the expenses associated with the input transactions and an output transaction or transactions giving rise to the right to deduct or with the taxable person’s economic activity as a whole, which is a matter for the referring court to determine on the basis of objective evidence.

(1) OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/4

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Canon Europa NV v European Commission

(Case C-552/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 - Actions for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties - Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques))

(2016/C 048/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Canon Europa NV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, and P. Muñiz, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Canon Europa NV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Quenon K. SPRL v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA, formerly Citilife SA

(Case C-338/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 17(2) - Termination of the agency contract by the principal - Compensation of the agent - Prohibition of the simultaneous operation of the indemnity for customers scheme and compensation for damage scheme - Entitlement of the agent to damages additional to the indemnity for customers - Conditions))

(2016/C 038/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Quenon K. SPRL

Respondents: Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA, formerly Citilife SA

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 17(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing that a commercial agent is entitled, on termination of the agency contract, both to an indemnity for customers limited to a maximum of one year’s remuneration and, if that indemnity does not cover all of the loss actually incurred, to the award of additional damages, provided that such legislation does not result in the agent being compensated twice for the loss of commission following termination of the contract.

2. Article 17(2)(c) of Directive 86/653/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not make the award of damages conditional on demonstration of the existence of a fault attributable to the principal which caused the alleged harm, but does require the alleged harm to be distinct from that compensated for by the indemnity for customers.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
1.

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a licensing agreement concerning the making available of know-how enabling operation of a website by which interactive audiovisual services were supplied, concluded with a company established in a Member State other than that in which the company granting the licence is established, arose from an abuse of rights designed to benefit from the fact that the rate of value added tax applicable to those services was lower in that other Member State, the fact that the manager and sole shareholder of the latter company was the creator of that know-how, that that same person exercised influence or control over the development and exploitation of that know-how and over the supply of the services which were based on it and that management of the financial transactions, staff and technical instruments necessary for the supply of those services was carried out by subcontractors, and the reasons which may have led the company granting the licence to make the know-how at issue available to a company established in that other Member State instead of exploiting it itself, do not appear decisive in themselves. It is incumbent upon the referring court to analyse all the circumstances of the main proceedings in order to determine whether that agreement constituted a wholly artificial arrangement concealing the fact that the services at issue were not actually supplied by the company acquiring the licence, but were in fact supplied by the company granting it, examining in particular whether the establishment of the place of business or fixed establishment of the company acquiring the licence was not genuine, whether that company, for the purpose of engaging in the economic activity concerned, did not possess an appropriate structure in terms of premises and human and technical resources and whether it did not engage in that economic activity in its own name and on its own behalf, under its own responsibility and at its own risk.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/18

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Virpi Komu, Hanna Ruotsalainen, Ritva Komu v Pekka Komu, Jelena Komu

(Case C-605/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Scope - Exclusive jurisdiction - Article 22(1) - Proceedings concerning rights in rem in immovable property - Concept - Action to terminate, by way of sale, the co-ownership in undivided shares of immovable property))

(2016/C 068/22)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Virpi Komu, Hanna Ruotsalainen, Ritva Komu

Defendants: Pekka Komu, Jelena Komu

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for the termination of co-ownership in undivided shares of immovable property by way of sale, by an appointed agent, falls within the category of proceedings ‘which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/7

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission, Lagardère SCA, Wendel

(Case C-514/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Merger of undertakings in the book publishing market - Decision adopted following the annulment of a decision approving the purchaser of certain assets for lack of independence of an agent - Article 266 TFEU - Enforcement of the judgment ordering annulment - Subject matter of proceedings - Legal basis for the decision at issue - Retroactive effect of that decision - Independence of the purchaser of the assets sold vis-à-vis the seller))

(2016/C 106/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, O. Fréget and L. Eskenazi, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and B. Mongin, acting as Agents), Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure, J.-B. Pinçon and L. Bary, avocats), Wendel (represented by: M. Trabucchi, F. Gordon, A. Gosset-Grainville, avocats, and C. Renner, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, Lagardère SCA and Wendel.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 — Toshiba Corporation v European Commission

(Case C-373/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101(1) TFEU - Power transformers market - Oral market-sharing agreement (‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’) - Restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Barriers to entry - Presumption of participation in an unlawful cartel - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 18))

(2016/C 098/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Toshiba Corporation (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, and by J. Jourdan and P. Berghe, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek, J. Norris-Usher and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Toshiba Corporation to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/9

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2016 — National Iranian Oil Company v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-440/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 - Legal basis - Criterion relating to the material, logistical or financial support for the Government of Iran))

(2016/C 156/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: National Iranian Oil Company (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, D. Gauci and L. Gussetti, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders National Iranian Oil Company to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.
1.

Declares that by introducing and retaining the Széchenyi leisure card scheme provided for by Government Decree No 55/2011 of 12 April 2011 regulating the issue and use of the Széchenyi leisure card, and amended by Law No CLVI of 21 November 2011 amending certain tax laws and other related measures, Hungary has infringed Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, in so far as: — Paragraph 13 of Government Decree No 55/2011, read in conjunction with Paragraph 2(2)(d) of Law No XCVI of 1993 on voluntary mutual insurance funds, Paragraph 2(b) of Law No CXXXII of 1997 on branches and commercial agencies of undertakings which have their registered office abroad and Paragraphs 1, 2(1) and (2), 55(1) and (3) and 64(1) of Law No IV of 2006 on companies and firms governed by commercial law, precludes the issue of the Széchenyi leisure card by branches and thereby infringes Article 14, point (3), of Directive 2006/123; — Paragraph 13 of Government Decree No 55/2011, read in conjunction with the above-mentioned national provisions, which does not recognise, for the purposes of the conditions laid down in Paragraph 13(a) to (c) of that decree, the activity of groups whose parent company is not a company formed in accordance with Hungarian law and whose members do not operate in the forms of company provided for by Hungarian law, infringes Article 15(1), (2)(b) and (3) of Directive 2006/123; — Paragraph 13 of Government Decree No 55/2011, read in conjunction with the above-mentioned national provisions, which restricts to banks and financial institutions the possibility of issuing the Széchenyi leisure card as they are the only entities able to meet the conditions laid down by Paragraph 13 of the decree, infringes Article 15(1), (2)(d) and (3) of Directive 2006/123; — Paragraph 13 of Government Decree No 55/2011 infringes Article 16 of Directive 2006/123 inasmuch as it requires, for the issue of the Széchenyi leisure card, the existence of an establishment in Hungary;