ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/21

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Adzo Domenyo Alokpa, Jarel Moudoulou, Eja Moudoulou v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

(Case C-86/12) (1)

(Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of residence of a third-country national who is a direct relative in the ascending line of Union citizens who are minor children - Union citizens born in a Member State other than that of which they are nationals and who have not made use of their right of freedom of movement - Fundamental rights)

2013/C 344/35

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Adzo Domenyo Alokpa, Jarel Moudoulou, Eja Moudoulou

Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative — Interpretation of Article 20 TFEU and of Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Refusal by a Member State to grant a right of residence to a third-country national who is the direct ascendant of infants who are citizens of the European Union, with the nationality of one of the Member States, and for whom he or she has sole responsibility — No shared family life with another direct ascendant of the children, who is resident in another Member State — Scope of the refusals to allow residence, to grant a residence permit and to grant a work permit — Implications for the genuine enjoyment of the rights attaching to the status of citizen of the Union

Operative part of the judgment

In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from refusing to allow a third-country national to reside in its territory, where that third-country national has sole responsibility for her minor children who are citizens of the European Union, and who have resided with her in that Member State since their birth, without possessing the nationality of that Member State and making use of their right to freedom of movement, in so far as those Union citizens do not satisfy the conditions set out in 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, or such a refusal does not deprive those citizens of effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of the status of European Union citizenship, a matter which is to be determined by the referring court.

(1) OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.
1.

Declares that the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Appeal Chamber) of 8 November 2012 in Case T-268/11 P Commission v Strack adversely affects the unity and consistency of European Union law inasmuch as the General Court, as an appeal court, disregarding the right to paid annual leave as a principle of the social law of the European Union also expressly affirmed by Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in particular, referred to by 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, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: — interpreted Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations to the effect that it does not include the requirements relating to the organisation of working time contained in Directive 2003/88, in particular, paid annual leave, and — consequently, interpreted Article 4 of Annex V to those regulations as implying that the right to carry over annual leave exceeding the limit laid down in that provision may be granted only where the official has been unable to take leave for reasons connected with his activity as an official and the duties he has thus been required to perform.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 October 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-95/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - National legislation providing for a blocking minority of 20 % in respect of the adoption of certain decisions by the shareholders of Volkswagen AG)

2013/C 367/10

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Schwarze, J. Möller and J. Kemper, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply fully with the judgment of the Court of 23 October 2007 in Case C-112/05 Commission v Germany concerning the infringement of Article 56(1) EC — National legislation requiring, exceptionally, a majority of more than 80 % for the adoption of certain decisions by the shareholders of Volkswagen AG, thereby enabling the Land of Lower Saxony, which holds 20 % of those shares, to block those decisions — Calculation of penalties: payment of both a penalty payment and a lump sum

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Yvon Welte v Finanzamt Velbert

(Case C-181/12) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Articles 56 EC to 58 EC - Inheritance tax - Deceased person and heir resident in a third country - Estate - Immovable property located in a Member State - Right to an allowance against the taxable value - Different treatment of residents and non-residents)

2013/C 367/18

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Yvon Welte

Defendant: Finanzamt Velbert

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Legislation of a Member State on inheritance tax fixing the tax-free part of the value of land at EUR 2 000 if the deceased person and the acquirer are resident in a third country, whereas the tax-free part is EUR 500 000 if either the deceased person or the acquirer is resident in the national territory

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State relating to the calculation of inheritance tax which provides that, in the event of inheritance of immovable property in that State, in a case where, as in the main proceedings, the deceased and the heir had a permanent residence in a third country, such as the Swiss Confederation, at the time of the death, the tax-free allowance is less than the allowance which would have been applied if at least one of them had been resident in that Member State at that time.

(1) OJ 2012 C 174, p. 20
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/14

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch — Austria) — Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH, TUI Österreich GmbH

(Case C-478/12) (1)

(Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 16(1) - Contract for travel concluded between a consumer domiciled in one Member State and a travel agency established in another Member State - Supplier of services used by the travel agency established in the Member State where the consumer is domiciled - Right of a consumer to bring an action against two undertakings before the court for the place of his domicile)

2014/C 9/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Feldkirch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic

Defendant: lastminute.com GmbH, TUI Österreich GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Feldkirch — Interpretation of Article 16(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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction in respect of contracts entered into by consumers — All-inclusive travel contract concluded between a consumer and a company — Situation in which the company is established in a Member State other than that of the consumer and has recourse, for the purpose of performing that contract, to a company which is established in the Member State of the consumer — Whether the consumer is entitled to bring proceedings, before the court of his place of residence, against those two companies

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘other party to the contract’ laid down in Article 16(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, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, that it also covers the contracting partner of the operator with which the consumer concluded that contract and which has its registered office in the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/20

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Isdin, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bial-Portela & Ca SA

(Case C-597/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZEBEXIR - Earlier word mark ZEBINIX - Relative grounds for refusal - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 367/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Isdin, SA (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and P. López Ronda, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent), Bial-Portela & Ca, SA

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2012 in Case T-366/11 Bial-Portela & Ca v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which the General Court annulled Decision R 1212/2009-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 6 April 2011, dismissing the action brought against the Opposition Division’s decision which rejected the opposition brought by the owner of the Community word mark ‘ZEBENIX’ in respect of goods and services classified in Classes 3, 5 and 42, against the application for registration of the word mark ‘ZEBEXIR’ in respect of goods classified in Classes 3 and 5 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 October 2012 in Case T-366/11 Bial-Portela v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-13/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(9) - Export price - Article 3(5) and (6) - Determination of injury - Article 6(7) - Investigation - Article 8(4) - Offer of undertakings - Non-confidential version - Article 20(1) - Disclosure - Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part)

2014/C 45/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, advocaat, and N. Mizulin, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and N. Chesaites, Barrister), European Commission (represented by H. van Vliet and M. França, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2011 in Case T-190/08 CHEMK and KF v Council, by which the General Court dismissed an application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6) and, in the alternative, annulment of the Commission decision of 28 February 2008 refusing the then applicants’ request for suspension of the anti-dumping measures introduced by the contested regulation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie Ferrosplavy OAO (KF) to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

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

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2013 — Kendrion NV v European Commission

(Case C-50/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - Industrial plastic bags sector - Whether the infringement by a subsidiary may be attributed to the parent company - Joint and several liability of the parent company for the payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary - Excessive length of the proceedings before the General Court - Principle of effective legal protection)

2014/C 39/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Kendrion NV (represented by: P. Glazener and T. Ottervanger, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and S. Noë, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-54/06 Kendrion v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 (EC) (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), in so far as it is addressed to Kendrion, concerning a cartel in the industrial plastic bags sector, and application for annulment or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on Kendrion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Kendrion NV to pay the costs of this appeal.

(1) OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/19

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Rivella International AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas

(Case C-445/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BASKAYA’ - Opposition - Bilateral convention - Territory of a non-Member State - ‘Genuine use’)

2014/C 52/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Rivella International AG (represented by: C. Spintig, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 12 July 2012 in Case T-170/11 Rivella International v OHIM — Baskaya di Baskaya Alim (BASKAYA) by which the General Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2011 (Case R 534/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Rivella International AG and Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas — Likelihood of confusion between a figurative sign containing the word element ‘BASKAYA’ and an earlier international figurative mark containing the word element ‘Passaia’ — Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Error of assessment in examining the opposition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Rivella International AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 366, 24.11.12
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH v Land Salzburg

(Case C-514/12) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(1) - National legislation providing for account to be taken only of a proportion of the periods of service completed with employers other than Land Salzburg - Restriction of freedom of movement for workers - Justifications - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Objective of rewarding loyalty - Administrative simplification - Transparency)

2014/C 45/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH

Defendant: Land Salzburg

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Salzburg — Interpretation of Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1) — Remuneration of contractual civil servants of a Member State — National legislation providing for account to be taken of all periods of service completed with a specific public employer, but for account to be taken of only a proportion of the periods of service completed after a certain age with other public or private employers.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in determining the reference date for the purposes of the advancement of an employee of a local or regional authority to the next pay step in his grade, account is to be taken of all uninterrupted periods of service completed with that authority, but of only a proportion of any other periods of service.

(1) OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/18

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s Hertogenbosch (Netherlands)) — X

(Case C-437/12) (1)

(Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Registration duty - Similar domestic products - Neutrality of the tax between imported used automobile vehicles and similar vehicles already present on the national market)

2014/C 52/29

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof ’s Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

X

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te’s Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 110 TFEU — Domestic taxation — National legislation imposing a registration levy at the time of the first use of a vehicle on the national road network — Amount of the levy based, as from 2010, on CO2 emissions — Vehicle first used on the roads outside the Netherlands in 2006 and registered in 2010 for use within national territory.

Operative part of the judgment

1. For the purpose of applying Article 110 TFEU, the similar domestic products which are comparable to a used vehicle such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which was first put into service before 1 February 2008 and was imported and registered in the Netherlands in 2010, are the vehicles already present on the Netherlands market whose characteristics are closest to those of the vehicle in question.

2. Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a tax, such as the passenger-car and motorcycle tax (belasting personenauto’s en motorrijwielen) as in force in 2010, if and in so far as the amount of that tax levied on used imported vehicles upon their registration in the Netherlands exceeds the lowest residual amount of BPM incorporated into the value of similar used vehicles already registered in that same Member State.

(1) OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association Vent De Colère! Fédération nationale and Others v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie

(Case C-262/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Concept of ‘intervention by the State or through State resources’ - Wind-generated electricity - Obligation to purchase at a price higher than the market price - Offsetting in full - Charges payable by final consumers of electricity)

2014/C 52/17

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Association Vent De Colère! Fédération nationale, Alain Bruguier, Jean-Pierre Le Gorgeu, Marie-Christine Piot, Eric Errec, Didier Wirth, Daniel Steinbach, Sabine Servan-Schreiber, Philippe Rusch, Pierre Recher, Jean-Louis Moret, Didier Jocteur Monrozier

Defendants: Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie

Intervener: Syndicat des énergies renouvelables

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (France) — Interpretation of Article 87 EC, now Article 107 TFEU — Concept of intervention by the State or through State resources — Obligation to purchase wind-generated electricity at a price higher than the market price — Additional costs offset in full — Change in the method of financing that offsetting — Charges payable by final consumers of electricity.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a mechanism for offsetting in full the additional costs imposed on undertakings because of an obligation to purchase wind-generated electricity at a price higher than the market price that is financed by all final consumers of electricity in the national territory, such as that resulting from Law No 2000-108 of 10 February 2000 on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, as amended by Law No 2006-1537 of 7 December 2006 on the energy sector, constitutes an intervention through State resources.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012