ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/4

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Sundsvall — Sweden) — OKG AB v Skatteverket

(Case C-606/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Articles 4 and 21 - Directive 2008/118/EC - Directive 92/12/EEC - Article 3(1) - Scope - Rules of a Member State - Levying of a tax on the thermal power of nuclear reactors))

(2015/C 381/03)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Sundsvall

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OKG AB

Defendant: Skatteverket

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 4(2) and 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the levying of a tax on the thermal power of nuclear reactors, in so far as such a tax does not come within the scope of that directive.

2. Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products must be interpreted as meaning that a tax on the thermal power of a nuclear reactor is not an excise duty for the purposes of that directive.

(1) OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg

(Case C-687/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(7)(a) - Normal value - Determination on the basis of the price in a market economy third country - Selection of the appropriate third country - Duty of care - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Sampling))

(2015/C 363/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Regensburg

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China.

(1) OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades SA, formerly Repsol Lubricantes YPF y Especialidades SA, Repsol Petróleo SA, Repsol SA v European Commission

(Case C-617/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 81 EC - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Market sharing and price coordination - Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (2002) - Final paragraph of point 23(b) - Partial immunity from fines - Evidence of facts previously unknown to the Commission))

(2016/C 296/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades SA, formerly Repsol Lubricantes YPF y Especialidades SA, Repsol Petróleo SA, Repsol SA (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, J. Buendía Sierra, M. Muñoz de Juan, A. Givaja Sanz and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades SA, Repsol Petróleo SA and Repsol SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
1.

Article 13B(d)(6) 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, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that investment companies such as the companies at issue in the main proceedings, in which capital is pooled by several investors who bear the risk connected with the management of the assets assembled in those companies with a view to purchasing, owning, managing and selling immovable property in order to derive a profit therefrom which will be distributed to all unit-holders in the form of a dividend, those unit-holders benefiting also from an increase in the value of their holding, may be regarded as ‘special investment funds’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that the Member State concerned has made those companies subject to specific State supervision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch v European Commission

(Case C-644/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement - Proof - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Reasonable time - Proportionality))

(2017/C 104/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch (represented by: J. Philippe, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Villeroy & Boch SAS to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-611/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Obligation to state reasons - Protection of legitimate expectations))

(2017/C 104/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Hansa Metallwerke AG, Hansa Nederland BV, Hansa Italiana Srl, Hansa Belgium, Hansa Austria GmbH (represented by: S. Cappellari, H.-J. Hellmann and C. Malz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and R. Sauer, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Hansa Metallwerke AG, Hansa Nederland BV, Hansa Italiana Srl, Hansa Belgium and Hansa Austria GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/19

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Christie’s France SNC v Syndicat national des antiquaires

(Case C-41/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/84/EC - Article 1 - Intellectual property - Sale at auction of original works of art - Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art - Person liable for the resale royalty - Buyer or seller - Derogation by agreement))

(2015/C 138/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Christie’s France SNC

Respondent: Syndicat national des antiquaires

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(4) of Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art must be interpreted as not precluding the person by whom the resale royalty is payable, designated as such by national law, whether that is the seller or an art market professional involved in the transaction, from agreeing with any other person, including the buyer, that that other person will definitively bear, in whole or in part, the cost of the royalty, provided that a contractual arrangement of that kind does not affect the obligations and liability which the person by whom the royalty is payable has towards the author.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
1.

Article 60 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted as meaning that, where animals specially prepared for laboratory use, which an importer brings into the European Union, are intended for a public establishment or an authorised private establishment which is principally engaged in education or scientific research, that importer, although it is not itself such an establishment, may be entitled to the relief from import duties provided for by that article for goods of this type.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes — France) — Jean-Claude Van Hove v CNP Assurances SA

(Case C-96/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Insurance contract - Article 4(2) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract - Term intended to ensure that mortgage loan repayments are covered - Borrower’s total incapacity for work - Exclusion from cover in the event of recognised fitness to undertake an activity, paid or otherwise))

(2015/C 205/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jean-Claude Van Hove

Defendant: CNP Assurances SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a term of an insurance contract intended to ensure that loan repayments payable to the lender will be covered in the event of the borrower’s total incapacity for work falls within the exception set out in that provision only where the referring court finds:

— first, that, having regard to the nature, general scheme and the stipulations of the contractual framework of which it forms part, and to its legal and factual context, that term lays down an essential component of that contractual framework, and, as such, characterises it, and

— secondly, that that term is drafted in plain, intelligible language, that is to say that it is not only grammatically intelligible to the consumer, but also that the contract sets out transparently the specific functioning of the arrangements to which the relevant term refers and the relationship between those arrangements and the arrangements laid down in respect of other contractual terms, so that that consumer is in a position to evaluate, on the basis of precise, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him which derive from it.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/6

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG v European Commission

(Case C-7/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community Customs Code - Articles 220(2) and 239 - Refund of import duties - Import of preserved mushrooms from China - Decision declaring the refund of import duties unjustified))

(2015/C 171/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG (represented by: K. Landry and G. Schwendinger, Rechtsanwalte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.14.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/18

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Kansaneläkelaitos

(Case C-269/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(4) - Service concession - Definition - Aggregation of contracts between a social security authority and taxi companies providing for an electronic scheme for direct reimbursement of transport costs of insured persons and a system of booking journeys))

(2015/C 236/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Kansaneläkelaitos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(4) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that an aggregation of contracts, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may be considered to constitute a ‘service concession’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that the contracting authority has transferred the entirety of, or a significant share of, the risk which it bears in relation to the economic exploitation of the services; this being a matter which must be determined by the referring court taking into account all the inherent characteristics of the services covered by that aggregation of contracts.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/19

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann

(Case C-339/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Period of prohibition - Issue of the driving licence by a Member State before the entry into force of a period of prohibition in the Member State of normal residence - Grounds for refusing to recognise in the Member State of normal residence the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State))

(2015/C 236/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

Party in the criminal proceedings

Andreas Wittmann

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that a measure by which the Member State of normal residence of the driver of a motor vehicle, which is unable to withdraw his driving licence because he has already been subject to an earlier withdrawal decision, orders that a new driving licence may not be issued to him for a given period of time must be regarded as a measure restricting, suspending or withdrawing the driving licence for the purposes of that provision, with the consequence that it precludes the recognition of any licence issued by another Member State before the expiry of that period. The fact that the judgment concerning that measure became final after the issue of the driving licence in the second Member State is irrelevant in that regard, provided that the licence was obtained after the delivery of that judgment and the grounds justifying that measure existed on the date that licence was issued.

(1) OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-231/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels - Price-fixing - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 13 - Determination of the value of sales to which the infringement relates - Internal sales of the goods concerned outside the EEA - Inclusion of sales to third parties in the EEA of finished products incorporating the goods concerned))

(2015/C 294/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat, and R. Burton, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders InnoLux Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče (Slovenia)) — Hotel Sava Rogaška, Gostinstvo, turizem in storitve, d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-207/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Natural mineral water - Directive 2009/54/EC - Article 8(2) - Annex I - Prohibition on marketing ‘natural mineral water from one and the same spring’ under more than one trade description - Meaning))

(2015/C 279/17)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hotel Sava Rogaška, gostinstvo, turizem in storitve, d.o.o.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

The notion of ‘natural mineral water from one and the same spring’ contained in Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters must be interpreted as referring to a natural mineral water that is drawn from one or more natural or bore exits, and which originates in one and the same underground water table or in one and the same underground deposit, where, at all those natural or bore exits, that water has identical characteristics, pursuant to the criteria specified in Annex I to Directive 2009/54, which remain stable within the limits of natural fluctuation.

(1) OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — A v B

(Case C-184/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 3(c) and (d) - Matter relating to maintenance in respect of minor children concurrent with the parents’ separation proceedings, brought in a Member State other than that in which the children are habitually resident))

(2015/C 302/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: B

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(c) and (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be understood as meaning that, in the event that a court of a Member State is seized of proceedings involving the separation or dissolution of a marital link between the parents of a minor child and a court of another Member State is seized of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility involving that same child, an application relating to maintenance concerning that child is ancillary only to the proceedings concerning parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
1.

Articles 2(1), 14 and 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where a lease agreement relating to immovable property provides either that ownership of that property is to be transferred to the lessee on the expiry of that agreement or that all the essential powers attaching to ownership of that property are to be enjoyed by the lessee and, in particular, substantially all the rewards and risks incidental to legal ownership of that property are transferred to the lessee and the present value of the amount of the lease payments is practically identical to the market value of the property, the transaction resulting from that agreement must be treated as an acquisition of capital goods.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-44/14) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 - Crossing of the external borders - Eurosur system - Development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis - Participation - Cooperation with Ireland and the United Kingdom - Validity))

(2015/C 363/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore, S. Alonso de Leon and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Chavrier, F. Florindo Gijón, M.-M. Joséphidès and P. Plaza García, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and G. Gilmore, Barrister), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie, acting as Agent, and J. Holmes, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

3) Orders Ireland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
1)

Article 4(3) 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, if the reputation of an earlier Community mark is established in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, which may, in some circumstances, coincide with the territory of a single Member State, which does not have to be the State in which the application for the later national mark was filed, it must be held that that mark has a reputation in the European Union. The criteria laid down by the case-law concerning the genuine use of the Community trade mark are not relevant, as such, in order to establish the existence of a ‘reputation’ within the meaning of Article 4(3) thereof.
2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay a penalty payment of EUR 12 million to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, for every six months of delay in implementing the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in Commission v Italy (C-302/09, EU:C:2011:634), from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the judgment in Commission v Italy has been complied with.