ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/9

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Fernand Ullens de Schooten v État belge

(Case C-268/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fundamental freedoms - Articles 49, 56 and 63 TFEU - Situation confined in all respects within a single Member State - Non-contractual liability of a Member State for damage caused to individuals by breaches of EU law for which the national legislature and courts are to be held responsible))

(2017/C 014/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fernand Ullens de Schooten

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that the system of non-contractual liability of a Member State for damage caused by a breach of that law does not apply in the case of damage allegedly caused to an individual as a result of an alleged breach of a fundamental freedom laid down in Article 49, 56 or 63 TFEU by national legislation that is applicable without distinction to the State’s own nationals and those of other Member States, where, in a situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State, there is no link between the subject or circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings and those articles.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Maria Do Céu Bragança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

(Case C-238/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement of persons - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(2) - Financial aid for higher education studies - Students not residing in the territory of the Member State concerned subject to the condition that they be the children of workers who have been employed or who have pursued their professional activity in that Member State for a continuous period of at least five years - Indirect discrimination - Justification - Objective of increasing the proportion of residents with a higher education degree - Whether appropriate - Proportionality))

(2017/C 046/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Maria Do Céu Bragança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga

Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) 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 legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, with the aim of encouraging an increase in the proportion of residents with a higher education degree, makes the grant of financial aid for higher education studies to a non-resident student conditional on at least one of that student’s parents having worked in that Member State for a minimum and continuous period of five years at the time the application for financial aid is made, but which does not lay down such a condition in respect of a student residing in the territory of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
1.

Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the fees of procuradores subject to a tariff which may be increased or decreased only by 12 %, in respect of which the national courts merely check its strict application without being in a position, in exceptional circumstances, to derogate from the limits set by that tariff.
1.

Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2005/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2005, must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to adopt a scheme to guarantee shares in recognised cooperatives operating in the financial sector, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and as not precluding Member States from adopting such a scheme, in so far as that scheme does not undermine the practical effectiveness of the deposit-guarantee scheme that that directive requires Member States to establish, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court, and provided that it complies with the FEU Treaty, in particular with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU;
1.

Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of calculating the average loss, it is necessary to divide the total amount of the actual expenditure for export refunds for products which come under that provision by the total amount of the quantities of those products which were exported, regardless of whether or not refunds have in fact been paid for the latter.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-460/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Monitoring plan - Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 - Article 49(1) and point 10 of Annex IV - Calculation of the emissions of an installation - Subtraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) transferred - Exclusion of CO2 used in the production of precipitated calcium carbonate - Legality of the exclusion))

(2017/C 070/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 49(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and point 10(B) of Annex IV to that regulation are invalid in so far as they systematically include the carbon dioxide (CO2) transferred to another installation for the production of precipitated calcium carbonate in the emissions of the lime combustion installation, regardless of whether or not that CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

(1) OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber Chamber) of 2 March 2017 — Panrico, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (EUIPO), HDN Development Corp.

(Case C-655/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Union trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 52 - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) - Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘krispy kreme doughnuts’ - National and international word and figurative marks containing the elements ‘donut’, ‘donuts’ and ‘doughnuts’ - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Dismissal))

(2017/C 121/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Panrico, SA (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), HDN Development Corp. (represented by: M. H. Granado Carpenter and L. Polo Carreño, abogadas)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the appeal;

2. orders Panrico SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
1.

The provisions of Annex II to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, read in the light of Article 11(1) and (10) and Article 16(6) of the directive, are to be interpreted as meaning that the notified body is not under a general obligation to carry out unannounced inspections, to examine devices and/or to examine the manufacturer’s business records. However, in the face of evidence indicating that a medical device may not comply with the requirements laid down in Directive 93/42, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, the notified body must take all the steps necessary to ensure that it fulfils its obligations under Article 16(6) of the directive and Sections 3.2, 3.3, 4.1 to 4.3 and 5.1 of Annex II to the directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — Stichting Woonlinie, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting Woonstede v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN)

(Case C-414/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Existing aid - Article 108(1) TFEU - Aid schemes in favour of social housing corporations - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 17, 18 and 19 - Assessment by the Commission of the compatibility with the internal market of an existing aid scheme - Proposal of appropriate measures - Commitments given by the national authorities in order to comply with EU law - Compatibility decision - Scope of judicial review - Legal effects))

(2017/C 151/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Stichting Woonlinie, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting Woonstede (represented by: L. Hancher, E. Besselink and P. Glazener, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, advocaat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2015, Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission (T-202/10 RENV, not published, EU:T:2015:287);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
1.

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that enforcement proceedings brought by a company owned by a local authority against a natural person domiciled in another Member State, for the purposes of recovering an unpaid debt for parking in a public car park, the operation of which has been delegated to that company by that authority, which are not in any way punitive but merely constitute consideration for a service provided, fall within the scope of that regulation.
1.

Rules that, by not having put in place the connection to the EU driving licence network, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences;
2.

Examination of the second question has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(2)(b) to (d) and (3), and Article 7 of, and Annex III to, Decision 2014/512, as amended by Decision 2014/872, or of Articles 3 and 3a, Article 4(3) and (4), Article 5(2)(b) to (d) and (3), and Article 11 of, and Annexes II and VI to, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014; The principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from imposing criminal penalties that are to be applied in the event of an infringement of the provisions of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Regulation No 1290/2014, in accordance with Article 8(1) of that regulation, before the scope of those provisions and, therefore, the scope of the associated criminal penalties, has been clarified by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Brockenhurst College

(Case C-699/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Supply of restaurant and entertainment services by an educational establishment to a limited public in return for consideration))

(2017/C 213/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Defendant: Brockenhurst College

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that activities carried out in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in students of a higher education establishment supplying, for consideration and as part of their education, restaurant and entertainment services to third parties, may be regarded as supplies ‘closely related’ to the principal supply of education and accordingly be exempt from value added tax (VAT), provided that those services are essential to the students’ education and that their basic purpose is not to obtain additional income for that establishment by carrying out transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for VAT, which it is for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA v European Commission

(Case C-469/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European banana market in Greece, Italy and Portugal - Coordination in the fixing of prices - Admissibility of evidence transmitted by national tax authorities - Rights of the defence - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Scope of judicial review - Classification as an ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’))

(2017/C 202/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: FSL Holdings NV, Firma Léon Van Parys NV, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA (represented by: P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, advocaaten, and by C. Verdonck, avocate, J. Auwerx, advocaat, and B. Gielen, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders FSL Holdings NV, Firma Leon Van Parys NV and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 May 2017 — Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. v Council of the European Union

(Case C-45/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Action for damages - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Material damage - Non-material damage - Error of assessment in respect of the amount of compensation - None - Cross-appeal - Conditions governing the incurring of the European Union’s non-contractual liability - Obligation to substantiate the restrictive measures - Sufficiently serious breach))

(2017/C 249/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. (represented by: A. Bahrami, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, M. Bishop and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Council of the European Union: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Gray, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals brought by Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. and the Council of the European Union;

2. Orders Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs;

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

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Jan Šalplachta

(Case C-670/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Access to justice in cross-border disputes - Directive 2003/8/EC - Minimum common rules relating to legal aid granted for such disputes - Scope - Legislation of a Member State providing that the costs of translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of a legal aid application are not reimbursable))

(2017/C 309/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Jan Šalplachta

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3, 8 and 12 of Council Directive 2003/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, read together, must be interpreted as meaning that legal aid granted by the Member State of the court hearing the particular case, in which a natural person domiciled or resident in another Member State has submitted a legal aid application in the context of a cross-border dispute, also covers the costs paid by that person for the translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of that application.

(1) OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/4

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 June 2017 — Novartis Europharm Ltd v European Commission, Teva Pharma BV (C-629/15 P), Hospira UK Ltd (C-630/15 P)

(Joined Cases C-629/15 P and C-630/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation - Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 - Centralised procedure at European Union level - Development of a medicinal product that was the subject of a marketing authorisation for other therapeutic indications - Separate marketing authorisation and new trade name - Directive 2001/83/EC - Second subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) - Concept of a ‘global marketing authorisation’ - Regulatory data protection period))

(2017/C 283/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici, A. Sipos and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents), Teva Pharma BV (represented by: K. Bacon QC, instructed by C. Firth, Solicitor) (C-629/15 P), Hospira UK Ltd (represented by: J. Stratford QC, instructed by E. Vickers and N. Stoate, Solicitors) (C-630/15 P)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-629/15 P and C-630/15 P;

2. Orders Novartis Europharm Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, by Teva Pharma BV and by Hospira UK Ltd in Cases C-629/15 P and C-630/15 P.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/4

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 — Riva Fire SpA, in liquidation v European Commission

(Case C-89/15 P P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian producers of reinforcing bars - Fixing of prices and limiting and controlling output and sales - Infringement of Article 65 CS - Annulment of the initial decision by the General Court of the European Union - Decision re-adopted on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Failure to issue a new statement of objections - Lack of a hearing following the annulment of the initial decision - Time taken in the proceedings before the General Court))

(2017/C 392/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Riva Fire SpA, in liquidation (represented by: M. Merola, M. Pappalardo, T. Ubaldi and M. Toniolo, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Manzini, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 December 2014, Riva Fire v Commission (T-83/10, not published, EU:T:2014:1034);

2. Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in so far as it concerns Riva Fire SpA;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Riva Fire SpA both at first instance and in the present appeal.

(1) OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — The Tea Board v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Delta Lingerie

(Joined Cases C-673/15 P to C-676/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word marks and figurative marks including the word element ‘darjeeling’ or ‘darjeeling collection de lingerie’ - Opposition by the proprietor of EU collective marks - Collective marks consisting of the geographical indication ‘Darjeeling’ - Article 66(2) - Essential function - Conflict with applications for registration of individual trade marks - Likelihood of confusion - Definition - Similarity of goods and services - Criteria for assessment - Article 8(5)))

(2017/C 382/14)

Language of the cases: English

Parties

Appellant: The Tea Board (represented by: M. Maier and A. Nordemann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Delta Lingerie (represented by: G. Marchais and P. Martini-Berthon, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders The Tea Board to pay the costs of the main appeals;

3. Orders Delta Lingerie to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.