ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-227/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Medtronic GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 9021 10 10, 9021 10 90 and 9021 90 90 — Spinal fixation systems — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1214/2014)

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Medtronic GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss

(Case C-227/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 9021 10 10, 9021 10 90 and 9021 90 90 — Spinal fixation systems — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1214/2014)’

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Medtronic GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Neuss

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that spinal fixation systems such as those at issue in the main proceedings may not be classified under subheading 9021 90 90 of the Combined Nomenclature if they are covered by another subheading of heading 9021 of the Combined Nomenclature. Whether those systems may be classified under subheading 9021 10 10 or subheading 9021 10 90 of the Combined Nomenclature will depend on the principal function they perform, which is a matter for the referring court to determine by having regard to the objective characteristics and properties of such systems as well as to their intended and actual use.

( 1 ) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Case C-39/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Lubrizol France SAS v Caisse nationale du Régime social des indépendants (RSI) participations extérieures (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Articles 28 and 30 TFEU — Charges having equivalent effect — Article 110 TFEU — Internal taxation — Social solidarity contribution payable by companies — Charge — Basis of assessment — Companies’ overall annual turnover — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 17 — Transfer of goods to another Member State — Value of the goods transferred — Inclusion in the overall annual turnover)

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Lubrizol France SAS v Caisse nationale du Régime social des indépendants (RSI) participations extérieures

(Case C-39/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Articles 28 and 30 TFEU — Charges having equivalent effect — Article 110 TFEU — Internal taxation — Social solidarity contribution payable by companies — Charge — Basis of assessment — Companies’ overall annual turnover — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 17 — Transfer of goods to another Member State — Value of the goods transferred — Inclusion in the overall annual turnover)’

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS

Defendant: Caisse nationale du Régime social des indépendants (RSI) participations extérieures

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 28 and 30 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the basis of assessment for contributions levied on the annual turnover of companies, provided that the latter reaches or exceeds a certain amount, is calculated by taking into account the representative value of the goods transferred by or on behalf of a taxable person, for the purposes of his business, from that Member State to another EU Member State, that value being taken into account from the time of that transfer, whereas, in the case where the same goods are transferred by or on behalf of the taxable person, for the purposes of his business, within the territory of the Member State concerned, their value is taken into account in that basis of assessment only at the time of their subsequent sale, on condition that:

— first, the value of those goods is not taken into account in that basis of assessment for a second time at the time of their subsequent sale in that Member State;

— secondly, their value is deducted from that basis of assessment when those goods are not intended to be sold in the other Member State or have been transferred back to the Member State of origin without having been sold, and

— thirdly, the advantages stemming from the use of those contributions do not offset in full the burden borne by the national product marketed on the national market when it is placed on the market, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

( 1 ) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Case C-32/17 P: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 6 June 2018 — Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for registration of the figurative and word marks PARKWAY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(c))

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 6 June 2018 — Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-32/17 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for registration of the figurative and word marks PARKWAY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(c))’

Parties

Appellant: Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH (represented by: A. Lohmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Söder, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2018 — Liam Jenkinson v European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-43/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Staff of international missions of the European Union - Jurisdiction to rule on disputes concerning employment contracts - Consecutive fixed-term contracts - Arbitration clauses conferring jurisdiction, in the final contract, on the Courts of the European Union, and, in the previous contracts, on the Brussels (Belgium) courts - Decision not to renew the final contract - Claim that all the contractual relationships should be recategorised as a ‘contract of indefinite duration’ - Claims for compensation for unfair dismissal - Contractual relationships prior to the final contract to be taken into account - Jurisdiction of the General Court of the European Union))

(2018/C 301/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Liam Jenkinson (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by: G. Gattinara, L. Radu Bouyon and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, A. Aresu and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents), European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt, R. Spac and E. Orgován, acting as Agents), Eulex Kosovo (represented by: M. Vicente Hernandez, avocate, and subsequently by E. Raoult, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2016, Jenkinson v Council and Others (T-602/15, EU:T:2016:660);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Case C-90/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Turbogás Produtora Energética SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Third subparagraph of Article 21(5) — Entity producing electricity for its own use — Small producers of electricity — Article 14(1)(a) — Energy products used for the production of electricity — Obligation to exempt)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Turbogás Produtora Energética SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-90/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Third subparagraph of Article 21(5) — Entity producing electricity for its own use — Small producers of electricity — Article 14(1)(a) — Energy products used for the production of electricity — Obligation to exempt)’

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Turbogás Produtora Energética SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

The third subparagraph of Article 21(5) and Article 14(1)(a) 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 meaning that an entity such as the one in question in the main proceedings, which generates electricity for its own use, regardless of its size and irrespective of its main economic activity, must be regarded as a ‘distributor’, within the meaning of the first of those provisions, whose consumption of electricity for the production of electricity, however, comes under the mandatory exemption provided for in Article 14(1)(a).

( 1 ) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo v ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund

(Case C-338/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency - Directive 2008/94/EC - Articles 3 and 4 - Employees’ claims borne by guarantee institutions - Limitation on the liability of guarantee institutions - Exclusion of wage claims arising over three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings))

(2018/C 328/23)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo

Defendant:‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 4(1) of the Zakon za garantiranite vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite pri nesastoyatelnost na rabotodatelia (Law on employees’ guaranteed claims in the event of the employer’s insolvency), which does not guarantee the wage claims of employees whose employment relationship ended more than three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings in respect of their employer.

(1) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Profit Europe NV v Belgische Staat

(Joined Cases C-397/17 and C-398/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 7307 11 10, 7307 19 10 and 7307 19 90 - Cast tube or pipe fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron))

(2018/C 319/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Profit Europe NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that the cast tube or pipe fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron must be classified under subheading 7307 19 90 thereof.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Gerhard Prenninger and Others v Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

(Case C-329/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Annex II - Point 1(d) - Concept of ‘deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use’ - Clearance of a path in a forest in connection with the construction and operation of an overhead electrical power line))

(2018/C 352/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gerhard Prenninger, Karl Helmberger, Franziska Zimmer, Franz Scharinger, Norbert Pühringer, Agrargemeinschaft Pettenbach, Marktgemeinde Vorchdorf, Marktgemeinde Pettenbach, Gemeinde Steinbach am Ziehberg

Defendant: Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

intervener: Netz Oberösterreich GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Point 1(d) of Annex II to Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the clearance of a path in a forest for the purpose of the construction and operation of an overhead electrical power line, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and for the duration of its lawful existence is covered by the concept of ‘deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’ v Gilead Sciences Inc.

(Case C-121/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) - Originator medicines and generic medicines - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(a) - Conditions for obtaining - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria for assessment))

(2018/C 328/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’

Defendant: Gilead Sciences Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, must be interpreted as meaning that a product composed of several active ingredients with a combined effect is ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ within the meaning of that provision where, even if the combination of active ingredients of which that product is composed is not expressly mentioned in the claims of the basic patent, those claims relate necessarily and specifically to that combination. For that purpose, from the point of view of a person skilled in the art and on the basis of the prior art at the filing date or priority date of the basic patent:

— the combination of those active ingredients must necessarily, in the light of the description and drawings of that patent, fall under the invention covered by that patent, and

— each of those active ingredients must be specifically identifiable, in the light of all the information disclosed by that patent.

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Helga Löber v Barclays Bank plc

(Case C-304/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(3) - Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur - Consumer, domiciled in a Member State, who bought, through a bank established in that Member State, securities issued by a bank established in another Member State - Jurisdiction to hear and determine the tort action brought by that consumer against the bank concerned))

(2018/C 408/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Helga Löber

Defendant: Barclays Bank plc

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) 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 to the effect that in a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, in which an investor brings, on the basis of the prospectus relating to a certificate in which he or she invested, a tort action against the bank which issued that certificate, the courts of that investor’s domicile, as the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred within the meaning of that provision, have jurisdiction to hear and determine that action, where the damage the investor claims to have suffered consists in financial loss which occurred directly in that investor’s bank account with a bank established within the jurisdiction of those courts and the other specific circumstances of that situation also contribute to attributing jurisdiction to those courts.

(1) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
2.

Article 1(4) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that the body referred to in that provision has the right to bring an action, in addition to an action against the person or persons responsible for the accident, against the person who was subject to the obligation to take out insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of the vehicle which caused the damage or injuries for which compensation was provided by that body, but who had not concluded a contract for that purpose, even if that person has no civil liability for the accident in which the damage or injuries occurred.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 — Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France SAS v European Commission

(Case C-98/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for smart card chips - Network of bilateral contacts - Exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Single and continuous infringement - Participation in the infringement and awareness, by a participant in some of the bilateral contacts, of the other bilateral contacts - Judicial review))

(2018/C 408/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France SAS (represented by: J.K. de Pree, A.M. ter Haar and T.M. Snoep, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, A. Dawes and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France SAS to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
1.

The principle of free movement of pyrotechnic articles, as provided for, inter alia, in Article 6(2) of Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles, does not preclude national legislation which restricts the possession or use by consumers and the sale to consumers of fireworks of which the pyrotechnic composition exceeds 1 kg, to the extent that such legislation is appropriate to guarantee public order and security and does not go beyond what is necessary to protect those fundamental interests, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
1.

Declares that, by having failed to comply, as regards the 68 landfill sites in question, with the obligation to adopt all necessary measures to close down as soon as possible, under Article 7(g) and Article 13 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, sites which have not been granted, in accordance with Article 8, a permit to continue to operate, Romania is in breach of its obligations under Article 14(b), in conjunction with Article 13, of that directive;
2.

Declares that, since the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) failed to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with the procedure provided for in the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, in order to determine whether it was necessary to refuse to take into account, for the purpose of calculating the reimbursement of the advance payment made by a resident company in respect of the distribution of dividends paid by a non-resident company via a non-resident subsidiary, the tax incurred by that second company on the profits underlying those dividends, even though its interpretation of the provisions of EU law in the judgments of 10 December 2012, Rhodia (FR:CESSR:2012:317074.20121210), and of 10 December 2012, Accor (FR:CESSR:2012:317075.20121210), was not so obvious as to leave no scope for doubt, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU;
1.

Article 80 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, read in conjunction with Article 57(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which requires an economic operator wishing to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence of a relevant ground for exclusion to clarify the facts and circumstances relating to the criminal offence or the misconduct committed in a comprehensive manner by actively cooperating not only with the investigating authority, but also with the contracting authority, in the context of the latter’s specific role, in order to provide it with proof of the re-establishment of its reliability, to the extent that that cooperation is limited to the measures strictly necessary for that examination.