ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1)

A national rule in relation to limitation periods for criminal offences such as that laid down by the last subparagraph of Article 160 of the Penal Code, as amended by Law No 251 of 5 December 2005, read in conjunction with Article 161 of that Code — which provided, at the material time in the main proceedings, that the interruption of criminal proceedings concerning serious fraud in relation to value added tax had the effect of extending the limitation period by only a quarter of its initial duration — is liable to have an adverse effect on fulfilment of the Member States’ obligations under Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU if that national rule prevents the imposition of effective and dissuasive penalties in a significant number of cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union, or provides for longer limitation periods in respect of cases of fraud affecting the financial interests of the Member State concerned than in respect of those affecting the financial interests of the European Union, which it is for the national court to verify. The national court must give full effect to Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU, if need be by disapplying the provisions of national law the effect of which would be to prevent the Member State concerned from fulfilling its obligations under Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU.
2.

Article 52 of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted to the effect that — although it includes certain requirements with regard to the determination of the conditions for registration of economic operators on the national official lists and for certification — it does not exhaustively define (i) the conditions for registration of those economic operators on the national official lists or the conditions for their certification or (ii) the rights and obligations of public entities in that respect. In all events, Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as precluding national rules under which, on the one hand, national public authorities that are authorised to offer the works, products or services covered by the contract notice concerned may not be registered on those lists, or may not obtain certification, while, on the other hand, the right to participate in the tendering procedure concerned is afforded only to operators which are included on those lists or which have obtained certification.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Skerdjan Celaj

(Case C-290/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Return decision accompanied by an entry ban of three years’ duration - Breach of an entry ban - Third-country national previously removed - Sentence of imprisonment in case of new unlawful entry into the national territory - Compatibility))

(2015/C 381/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Party in the main proceedings

Skerdjan Celaj

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as not, in principle, precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for the imposition of a prison sentence on an illegally staying third-country national who, after having been returned to his country of origin in the context of an earlier return procedure, unlawfully re-enters the territory of that State in breach of an entry ban.

(1) OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — PPUH Stehcemp sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

(Case C-277/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Sixth Directive - Right of deduction - Refusal - Sale by an entity regarded as non-existent))

(2015/C 414/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PPUH Stehcemp sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions 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 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which a taxable person is not allowed to deduct the value added tax due or paid in respect of goods that were delivered to him on the grounds that the invoice was issued by a trader which is to be regarded, in the light of the criteria provided by that legislation, as a non-existent trader, and that it is impossible to determine the identity of the actual supplier of the goods, except where it is established, on the basis of objective factors and without the taxable person being required to carry out checks which are not his responsibility, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that that transaction was connected with value-added-tax fraud, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/12

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — European Union v Axa Belgium SA

(Case C-494/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Officials - Staff Regulations - Articles 73, 78 and 85a - Traffic accident - National law establishing strict liability - Subrogation of the European Union - Concept of a ‘third party’ - Autonomous concept of EU law - Concept covering any person required, under national law, to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the victim or those entitled under him - Benefits not definitively payable by the European Union))

(2015/C 406/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: European Union

Defendant: Axa Belgium SA

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘the third party’ (‘le tiers responsable’) referred to in Article 85a(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 781/98 of 7 April 1998, must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation within the EU legal order.

2. The concept of ‘the third party’ (‘le tiers responsable’), referred to in Article 85a(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities laid down by Regulation No 259/68, as amended by Regulation No 781/98, covers any person, including insurers, required under national law to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the victim or those entitled under him.

3. The Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities laid down by Regulation No 259/68, as amended by Regulation No 781/98, may not be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a direct action under Article 85a(4) of those regulations, the benefits that the European Union is required to provide under, first, Article 73 of those regulations, covering risks of sickness and accident, and, secondly, Article 78 of the regulations, in respect of the payment of an invalidity pension, must definitively remain its own responsibility.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
1.

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ referred to in that article encompasses not only documents drawn up or certified by a public authority or official but also private documents of which the formal transmission to an addressee residing abroad is necessary for the purposes of exercising, proving or safeguarding a right or a claim in civil or commercial law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Marorell — Spain) — BBVA SA, formerly Unnim Banc SA v Pedro Peñalva López, Clara López Durán, Diego Fernández Gabarro

(Case C-8/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Mortgage loan agreement - Unfair terms - Enforcement proceedings - Opposition - Time-limits))

(2015/C 429/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 4 de Marorell

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BBVA SA, formerly Unnim Banc SA

Defendant: Pedro Peñalva López, Clara López Durán, Diego Fernández Gabarro

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national transitional provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, as regards mortgage enforcement proceedings which were instituted before the date of entry into force of the law of which that provision forms part and which were not concluded at that date, imposes a time-limit on consumers calculated from the day following the publication of that law, to object to enforcement on the basis of the alleged unfairness of contractual terms.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
1.

Declares that, by failing to implement an average weekly working time of not more than 48 hours and by failing to ensure a minimum daily rest period or an equivalent period of compensatory rest which directly follows the working time which that period is supposed to compensate for, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/10

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) v Luis Aira Pascual, Algeposa Terminales Ferroviarios SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

(Case C-509/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Obligation on the transferee to take on workers - Public undertaking responsible for a public service - Provision of the service by another undertaking pursuant to a public service operating agreement - Decision not to extend that agreement following its expiry - Retention of identity of the economic entity - Activity based essentially on equipment - Employees not taken on))

(2016/C 038/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF)

Defendants: Luis Aira Pascual, Algeposa Terminales Ferroviarios SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of that directive covers a situation in which a public undertaking, responsible for the economic activity of handling intermodal transport units, entrusts, by a public service operating agreement, the performance of that activity to another undertaking, providing to the latter undertaking the necessary facilities and equipment, which it owns, and subsequently decides to terminate that agreement without taking over the employees of the latter undertaking, on the ground that it will henceforth perform that activity itself with its own staff.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
3.

The Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that, where a new assessment of the implications for a site carried out in order to rectify errors identified in relation to the prior assessment conducted before the inclusion of that site in the list of SCIs or in relation to the subsequent review under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, even though the plan or project has already been implemented, the requirements of a check made in the context of such a review may be amended on account of the fact that the planning decision approving that plan or project was immediately enforceable, that an application for interim measures had been dismissed and that that dismissal decision was no longer open to appeal. Moreover, that review must take into account the risks of deterioration or disturbance that could be significant, within the meaning of Article 6(2) of that directive, which may have arisen because the plan or project has been carried out. Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements of the check made in the context of the review of alternative solutions may not be amended on account of the fact that the plan or project has already been implemented.
2.

Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to certify a judgment delivered in absentia as a European Enforcement Order, the court ruling on such an application must satisfy itself that its national law effectively and without exception allows for a full review, in law and in fact, of such a judgment in the two situations referred to in that provision and that it allows the periods for challenging a judgment on an uncontested claim to be extended, not only in the event of force majeure, but also where other extraordinary circumstances beyond the debtor’s control prevented him from contesting the claim in question.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Rosanna Laezza

(Case C-375/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - Judgment of the Court of Justice which declared the national rules on licences for the collection of bets incompatible with EU law - Reorganisation of the system by way of a new call for tenders - Free-of-charge transfer of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned by licensees and which constitute their network for the management and collection of bets. - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))

(2016/C 106/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Frosinone

Party in the main proceedings

Rosanna Laezza

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
1)

Declares that by failing to repeal, with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004, the age-related criterion in Article 27 of Law 97 (Ι)/1997 on Pensions which deters workers from leaving their Member State of origin in order to work in another Member State, or within an EU institution, or other international organisation and which has the effect of creating unequal treatment between migrant workers including those who work within the EU institutions or within another international organisation, on the one hand, and civil servants who have worked in Cyprus, on the other, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU and under Article 4(3) TEU;
3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HeidelbergCement AG with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-302/11 and the appeal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-12/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 46b - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 54 - Old-age pensions - Rules against overlapping - Persons entitled to an old-age pension under the rules of one Member State and to a civil-service pension under the rules of another Member State - Reduction in the amount of the old-age pension))

(2016/C 156/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar and P. Grech, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and G. Hesse, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Beeko, S. Behzadi-Spencer and V. Kaye, acting as Agents, assisted by T. de la Mare QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Austria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-528/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 - Article 3 - Relief from import duties - Personal property - Transfer of residence from a third country to a Member State - Definition of ‘normal place of residence’ - Impossible to have at the same time a normal place of residence in a Member State and in a third country - Criteria for determining the normal place of residence))

(2016/C 243/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the application of that provision, a natural person may not have at the same time a normal place of residence in both a Member State and in a third country.

2. In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where the person concerned has both personal and occupational ties in a third country and personal ties in a Member State, it is necessary, for the purpose of determining whether the normal place of residence of that person within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 1186/2009 is in the third country, to attach particular importance to the length of that person’s stay in the third country when carrying out an overall assessment of the relevant facts.

(1) OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona — Spain) — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank SA (C-381/14), and Youssouf Drame Ba v Catalunya Caixa SA (Catalunya Banc SA) (C-385/14)

(Joined Cases C-381/14 and C-385/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers - Mortgage contracts - ‘Floor’ clause - Examination of the clause with a view to its invalidation - Collective proceedings - Action for an injunction - Stay of an individual action with the same subject matter))

(2016/C 211/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jorge Sales Sinués (C-381/14), Youssouf Drame Ba (C-385/14)

Defendants: Caixabank SA (C-381/14), Catalunya Caixa SA (Catalunya Banc SA) (C-385/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a court, before which an individual action has been brought by a consumer seeking a declaration that a contractual term binding him to a seller or supplier is unfair, automatically to suspend such an action pending a final judgment concerning an ongoing collective action brought by a consumer association on the basis of Article 7(2) of Directive 93/13 seeking to prevent the continued use, in contracts of the same type, of terms similar to those at issue in that individual action, without the relevance of such a suspension from the point of view of the protection of the consumer who brought the individual action before the court being able to be taken into consideration and without that consumer being able to decide to dissociate himself from the collective action.

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
1.

Declares that, by failing to ensure that the coordinator for the allocation of slots is independent by separating the coordinator functionally from any single interested party and by failing to ensure that the system of financing the coordinator’s activities is such as to guarantee the coordinator’s independent status, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 545/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009;