ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

An action in which one parent asks the court to remedy the lack of agreement of the other parent to their child travelling outside his Member State of residence and a passport being issued in the child’s name is within the material scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, even though the decision in that action will have to be taken into account by the authorities of the Member State of which the child is a national in the administrative procedure for the issue of that passport.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/20

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Naazneen Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Energy Brands, Inc.

(Case C-252/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Revocation proceedings - Article 51(1)(a) - Community word mark SMART WATER - Genuine use - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75))

(2016/C 156/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (represented by: P. Goldenbaum and I. Rohr, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Gája and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents), Energy Brands, Inc. (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and D. Stone and A. Dykes, Solicitors)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Naazneen Investments Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/9

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Youssef Hassan v Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-163/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 23 - Licence - Register of Community trade marks - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the Register))

(2016/C 106/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Youssef Hassan

Defendant: Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee may bring proceedings alleging infringement of a Community trade mark which is the subject of the licence, although that licence has not been entered in the Register of Community trade marks.

(1) OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 May 2016 — Rose Vision, SL v European Commission

(Case C-224/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research - Audits finding irregularities in the implementation of certain projects - Commission decisions suspending payment of the amounts payable under certain projects - Action for compensation - Rejection - Statement of reasons))

(2016/C 260/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Rose Vision, SL (represented by: J.J. Marín López, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 March 2015 in Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission (T-45/13, not published, EU:T:2015:138), in so far as it concerns Rose Vision SL;

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Brussels — Belgium) — Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), M v M, Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Caisse auxiliaire de paiement des allocations de chômage (CAPAC)

(Case C-284/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 45 TFEU and Article 48 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 15(2) - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 67(3) - Social security - Unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment - Award of that benefit - Completion of periods of employment - Aggregation of periods of insurance or employment - Taking into account of periods of insurance or employment completed under the legislation of another Member State))

(2016/C 211/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Brussels

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), M

Defendants: M, Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Caisse auxiliaire de paiement des allocations de chômage (CAPAC)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from refusing to aggregate periods of employment necessary to qualify for unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment, where that employment was not preceded by any period of insurance or of employment in that Member State.

2. Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 67(3) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
2.

Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which permits a third country national in respect of whom the return procedure established by that directive has not yet been completed to be imprisoned merely on account of illegal entry across an internal border, resulting in an illegal stay. That interpretation also applies where the national concerned may be taken back by another Member State pursuant to an agreement or arrangement within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/10

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE v Ypourgos Oikonomikon

(Case C-81/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - General arrangements governing excise duty - Directive 92/12/EEC - Manufactured tobacco moving under an excise duty suspension arrangement - Liability of the authorised warehousekeeper - Whether Member States may make the authorised warehousekeeper jointly and severally liable for the payment of sums corresponding to the financial penalties imposed on those engaged in smuggling - Principles of proportionality and legal certainty))

(2016/C 287/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE

Defendant: Ypourgos Oikonomikon

Operative part of the judgment

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, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, read in the light of the general principles of EU law, in particular the principles of legal certainty and proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits, inter alia, the owners of products moving under excise duty suspension arrangements to be declared jointly and severally liable for payment of sums corresponding to the financial penalties imposed in the event of the commission of an offence during the movement of those products under excise duty suspension, where the owners are linked to the perpetrators of the offence by a contractual relationship making them their agents — under which the authorised warehousekeeper is declared jointly and severally liable for payment of those sums, with no possibility for him to escape that liability by providing proof that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the acts of the perpetrators of the offence, even if, under national law, that warehousekeeper was neither the owner of those products at the time when the offence was committed nor linked to the perpetrators of that offence by a contractual relationship making them his agents.

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v Innova Vital GmbH

(Case C-19/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Nutrition and health claims made on foods - Article 1(2) - Scope - Foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer - Claims made in a commercial communication addressed exclusively to health professionals))

(2016/C 335/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

Defendant: Innova Vital GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1047/2012 of 8 November 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that nutrition or health claims made in a commercial communication on a food which is intended to be delivered as such to the final consumer, if that communication is addressed not to the final consumer, but exclusively to health professionals, falls within the scope of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
1.

Article 10(2), read in conjunction with Article 2(f), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that where a passenger is downgraded on a flight, the price to be taken into account in determining the reimbursement for the passenger affected is the price of the flight on which he was downgraded unless that price is not indicated on the ticket entitling him to transport on that flight, in which case it must be based on the part of the price of the ticket corresponding to the quotient resulting from the distance of that flight and the total distance which the passenger is entitled to travel.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/22

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation v European Commission

(Case C-271/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Public right of access to documents of the EU institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Incorrect interpretation - Obligation to state reasons - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of application of the exception to the right of access to all documents in the administrative file - Scope of the presumption of confidentiality - Application for access to the complaint which gave rise to an inquiry procedure - Refusal of access - Overriding public interest))

(2016/C 335/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation (represented by: B. Nascimbene and M. Merola, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, D. Grespan and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Sea Handling SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/16

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Guy Riskin, Geneviève Timmermans v État belge

(Case C-176/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 and 65 TFEU - Article 4 TEU - Direct taxation - Taxation of dividends - Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Third State - Scope))

(2016/C 335/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Guy Riskin, Geneviève Timmermans

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4 TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from not extending, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the benefit of the advantageous treatment accorded to a resident shareholder as a result of a bilateral double taxation convention concluded between that Member State and a third State — by which tax deducted at source by the third State is allowed unconditionally as a credit against tax payable in the shareholder’s Member State of residence — to a resident shareholder in receipt of dividends from a Member State with which that Member State of residence has concluded a bilateral double taxation convention under which the granting of such a set-off is subject to compliance with additional conditions provided for by national law.

(1) OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.
2.

Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73, read in the light of Articles 14 TFEU and 106 TFEU and Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest, annexed to the EU Treaty, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, and the FEU Treaty, must be interpreted as allowing the Member States to assess whether, in the general economic interest, public service obligations relating to the price of supply of natural gas should be imposed on undertakings operating in the gas sector, in order in particular to ensure security of supply and territorial cohesion, provided that, first, all the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the directive are satisfied, specifically the non-discriminatory nature of such obligations, and, secondly, that the imposition of those obligations complies with the principle of proportionality. Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73 must be interpreted as not precluding a method of determination of prices based on taking costs into consideration, provided that the application of the method does not have the consequence that the State intervention goes beyond what is necessary for achieving the objectives of general economic interest pursued.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/5

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

(Case C-80/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Temporary importation procedure with relief from duties - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Conditions laid down for the total relief from import duties - Means of transport for aviation registered outside of the customs territory of the Union and used by a person established outside of that territory - Article 555(1)(a) - Commercial use - Concept - Use of helicopters by an aviation school for remunerated training flights flown by a trainee and instructor - Not included))

(2016/C 350/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Robert Fuchs AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

Operative part of the judgment

Article 555(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 must be interpreted as meaning that remunerated flights for helicopter flight instruction, with a trainee pilot and a flight instructor on board, are not to be regarded as constituting commercial use of a means of transport for the purposes of that provision

(1) OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/24

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC) and Others v Council of the European Union

(Case C-595/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken 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 - Meaning of associated entity))

(2016/C 419/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC), National Iranian Oil Company International Affairs Ltd (NIOC International Affairs), Iran Fuel Conservation Organization (IFCO), Karoon Oil & Gas Production Co., Petroleum Engineering & Development Co. (PEDEC), Khazar Exploration and Production Co. (KEPCO), National Iranian Drilling Co. (NIDC), South Zagros Oil & Gas Production Co., Maroun Oil & Gas Co., Masjed-Soleyman Oil & Gas Co. (MOGC), Gachsaran Oil & Gas Co., Aghajari Oil & Gas Production Co. (AOGPC), Arvandan Oil & Gas Co. (AOGC), West Oil & Gas Production Co., East Oil & Gas Production Co. (EOGPC), Iranian Oil Terminals Co. (IOTC), Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC), National Iranian Oil Company International Affairs Ltd (NIOC International Affairs), Iran Fuel Conservation Organization (IFCO), Karoon Oil & Gas Production Co., Petroleum Engineering & Development Co. (PEDEC), Khazar Exploration and Production Co. (KEPCO), National Iranian Drilling Co. (NIDC), South Zagros Oil & Gas Production Co., Maroun Oil & Gas Co., Masjed-Soleyman Oil & Gas Co. (MOGC), Gachsaran Oil & Gas Co., Aghajari Oil & Gas Production Co. (AOGPC), Arvandan Oil & Gas Co. (AOGC), West Oil & Gas Production Co., East Oil & Gas Production Co. (EOGPC), Iranian Oil Terminals Co. (IOTC) and Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 59, 15.02.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/14

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 September 2016 — Konstantinos Mallis (C-105/15 P), Elli Konstantinou Malli (C-105/15 P), Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou (C-106/15 P), Petros Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Elenitsa Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Lella Chatziioannou (C-108/15 P), Marinos Nikolaou (C-109/15 P) v European Commission, European Central Bank

(Joined Cases C-105/15 P to C-109/15 P) (1)

((Appeals - Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus - Eurogroup statement concerning, in particular, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus - Actions for annulment))

(2016/C 419/17)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: Konstantinos Mallis (C-105/15 P), Elli Konstantinou Malli (C-105/15 P), Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou (C-106/15 P), Petros Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Elenitsa Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Lella Chatziioannou (C-108/15 P), Marinos Nikolaou (C-109/15 P) (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Koutsoukou, O. Heinz and K. Laurinavičius, acting as Agents, and H.G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-105/15 P to C-109/15 P;

2. Orders Konstantinos Mallis, Elli Konstantinou Malli, Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou, Petros Chatzithoma, Elenitsa Chatzithoma, Lella Chatziioannou and Marinos Nikolaou to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/3

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Sven Mathys v De Grave Antverpia NV

(Case C-92/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 96/75/EC - Systems of chartering and pricing in inland waterway transport - Scope - Article 1(b) - ‘Carrier’ - Article 2 - Freedom to conclude contracts and negotiate prices))

(2016/C 462/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sven Mathys

Respondent: De Grave Antverpia NV

Operative part of the judgment

In the context of inland waterway transport activities, Article 1(b) of Council Directive 96/75/EC of 19 November 1996 on the systems of chartering and pricing in national and international inland waterway transport in the Community, in so far as it defines a ‘carrier’ as an owner or an operator of one or more inland waterway vessels, and Article 2 of that directive, in so far as it states that, in that field, contracts are to be freely concluded between the parties concerned, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, that would enable a person who does not correspond to that definition to conclude a contract of carriage as a carrier.

(1) OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.