ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

(Case C-342/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Article 5 - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Articles 16 and 17(6) - Article 56 TFEU - Tax consultancy company established in a Member State and providing services in another Member State - Legislation of a Member State requiring the registration and recognition of tax consultancy companies))

(2016/C 068/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft

Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 56 TFEU, legislation of a Member State which defines the conditions of access to the activity of professional assistance in tax matters may not restrict the freedom to provide services of a tax consultancy company — formed in accordance with the law of another Member State in which that company is established, which draws up, in the latter Member State where tax consultancy work is not regulated, a tax return on behalf of a recipient of services in the first Member State and sends that tax return to the tax authority of the first Member State —, without the qualification obtained by that company, or by the natural persons providing services of professional assistance in tax matters for that company, in other Member States being accorded its proper value and being duly taken into account.

(1) OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
1.

Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for by that regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, read in conjunction with Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 473/2009 of 25 May 2009 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 484/2009 of 9 June 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings from requiring that the applicant for agri-environmental aid supply to the paying authority, at the same time as its aid application, a certificate in relation to the rare plant species which gives the applicant the right to payment of that aid, on the condition that that legislation permits the operators concerned to comply under reasonable conditions with the requirements of that legislation, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.
2.

Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that the draft version of regional legislation which maintains in force, throughout the region concerned, the provisions of legislation common to the various regions of a Member State that has expired is subject to the notification obligation laid down in that Article 8(1), in so far as that draft version contains technical regulations within the meaning of Article 1 of the directive, with the result that failure to comply with that obligation renders those regulations unenforceable against an individual in the context of criminal proceedings. Such an obligation is not called into question by the fact that that common legislation had previously been notified to the Commission at the draft stage pursuant to Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34 and expressly provided for the possibility of an extension, which possibility, however, was not exercised.
2.

Orders that the effects of Delegated Regulation No 275/2014 be maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, which may not exceed six months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new act intended to replace it;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Air Baltic Corporation AS v Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba

(Case C-429/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Montreal Convention - Articles 19, 22 and 29 - Liability of air carrier in the event of delay in the international carriage of passengers - Contract of carriage concluded by the passengers’ employer - Damage caused by delay - Damage suffered by the employer))

(2016/C 145/09)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Air Baltic Corporation AS

Defendant: Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba

Operative part of the judgment

The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, in particular Articles 19, 22 and 29 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which has concluded a contract of international carriage with an employer of persons carried as passengers, such as the employer at issue in the main proceedings, is liable to that employer for damage occasioned by a delay in flights on which its employees were passengers pursuant to that contract, on account of which the employer incurred additional expenditure.

(1) OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Sparkasse Allgäu v Finanzamt Kempten

(Case C-522/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Legislation of a Member State requiring credit institutions to notify the tax authorities of deceased customers’ assets for purposes related to the collection of inheritance tax - Application of that legislation to branches established in another Member State in which banking secrecy prohibits, in principle, the disclosure of such information))

(2016/C 211/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sparkasse Allgäu

Defendant: Finanzamt Kempten

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which requires credit institutions having their head office in that Member State to notify the national authorities of assets held or managed at their dependent branches established in another Member State in the event of the death of the owner of those assets who is resident in the first Member State, in the case where there is no similar notification obligation in that second Member State and credit institutions there are subject to banking secrecy breach of which constitutes a criminal offence.

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz

(Case C-315/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 17(2) - Indemnity in respect of customers - Conditions for granting - Acquisition of new customers - Concept of ‘new customers’ - Principal’s customers purchasing, for the first time, goods which the commercial agent was assigned to sell))

(2016/C 211/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marchon Germany GmbH

Defendant: Yvonne Karaszkiewicz

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of Article 17(2)(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that customers brought in by the commercial agent for the goods that he has been assigned by the principal to sell must be regarded as new customers, within the meaning of that provision, in the case where, even though those customers already had business relations with that principal in relation to other goods, the sale, by that agent, of the first goods required the establishment of specific business relations, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/7

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu -Poland) — ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-418/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directive 2003/96/EC - Differentiated rates of excise duty for motor fuels and heating fuels - Condition for the application of the rate for heating fuels - Submission of a monthly list of statements that the products purchased are for heating purposes - Application of the rate of excise duty laid down for motor fuels where that list is not submitted - Principle of proportionality))

(2016/C 287/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April 2004, and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as:

— not precluding national legislation under which sellers of heating fuel are required to submit, within a prescribed time limit, a monthly list of statements from purchasers that the products purchased are for heating purposes, and

— precluding national legislation under which, if a list of statements from purchasers is not submitted within a prescribed time limit, the excise duty applicable for motor fuels is applied to the heating fuel sold, even though it has been found that the intended use of that product for heating purposes is not in doubt.

(1) OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Philip Morris Brands SARL, Philip Morris Ltd, British American Tobacco UK Ltd v The Secretary of State for Health

(Case C-547/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2014/40/EU - Articles 7, 18 and 24(2) and (3) - Articles 8(3), 9(3), 10(1)(a), (c) and (g), 13 and 14 - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Validity - Legal basis - Article 114 TFEU - Principle of proportionality - Principle of subsidiarity - Fundamental rights of the European Union - Freedom of expression - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 11))

(2016/C 243/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The Queen, on the application of: Philip Morris Brands SARL, Philip Morris Ltd, British American Tobacco UK Ltd

Defendant: The Secretary of State for Health

Interested parties and interveners: Imperial Tobacco Ltd, JT International SA, Gallaher Ltd, Tann UK Ltd, Tannpapier GmbH, V. Mane Fils, Deutsche Benkert GmbH & Co. KG, Benkert UK Ltd, Joh. Wilh. von Eicken GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 24(2) of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC must be interpreted as permitting Member States to maintain or introduce further requirements in relation to aspects of the packaging of tobacco products which are not harmonised by that directive.

2. Article 13(1) of Directive 2014/40 must be interpreted as prohibiting the display, on the labelling of unit packets and on the outside packaging, as well as on the tobacco product itself, of any information covered by that provision, even if the information concerned is factually accurate.

3. Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 7, 18 and 24(2) and (3) of Directive 2014/40 or that of the provisions of Chapter II of Title II of that directive.

(1) OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.
2.

If the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 8 000 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 7 May 2009 in Commission v Portugal (C-530/07, EU:C:2009:292), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 7 May 2009 in Commission v Portugal (C-530/07, EU:C:2009:292) has been complied with in full;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/10

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania)) — Vasile Budișan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-586/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Tax levied by a Member State on motor vehicles at the time of their first registration or of the first transfer of the right of ownership - Fiscal neutrality as between second-hand motor vehicles imported from other Member States and similar motor vehicles available on the domestic market))

(2016/C 296/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vasile Budișan

Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Operative part of the judgment

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as:

— not precluding a Member State from introducing a tax on motor vehicles which is levied on imported second-hand vehicles at the time of their first registration in that Member State and on vehicles already registered in that Member State at the time of the first transfer, within that Member State, of the ownership of those vehicles;

— precluding that Member State from exempting from that tax vehicles already registered and in respect of which a tax previously in force but found to be incompatible with EU law has been paid and not repaid.

(1) OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/4

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Finn Frogne A/S v Rigspolitiet ved Center for Beredskabskommunikation

(Case C-549/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 2 - Principle of equal treatment - Obligation of transparency - Contract for the supply of a complex communications system - Difficulties in performance of the contract - Disagreement of the parties in regard to areas of responsibility - Settlement - Reduction in the scope of the contract - Transformation of a rental of equipment into a sale of equipment - Material amendment to a contract - Justification by the objective expediency of achieving a settlement agreement))

(2016/C 402/04)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finn Frogne A/S

Defendant: Rigspolitiet ved Center for Beredskabskommunikation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, following the award of a public contract, a material amendment cannot be made to that contract without a new tendering procedure being initiated even in the case where that amendment is, objectively, a type of settlement agreement, with both parties agreeing to mutual waivers, designed to bring an end to a dispute the outcome of which is uncertain, which arose from the difficulties encountered in the performance of that contract. The position would be different only if the contract documents provided for the possibility of adjusting certain conditions, even material ones, after the contract had been awarded and fixed the detailed rules for the application of that possibility.

(1) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Xavier Grau Ferrer, Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer, Alberto Rubio Ferrer

(Case C-597/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1), third subparagraph - Figurative mark - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier trade mark - Proof of the existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier trade mark - Consideration by the Board of Appeal of evidence submitted out of time - Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal))

(2016/C 343/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Xavier Grau Ferrer, Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer, Alberto Rubio Ferrer

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti, Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — SC Star Storage SA v Institutul Naţional de Cercetare-Dezvoltare în Informatică (ICI) (C-439/14), SC Max Boegl România SRL and Others v RA Aeroportul Oradea and Others (C-488/14)

(Joined Cases C-439/14 and C-488/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC - Public procurement - Review procedures - National legislation making the admissibility of appeals against the acts of a contracting authority subject to giving a ‘good conduct guarantee’ - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy))

(2016/C 419/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti, Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SC Star Storage SA (C-439/14), SC Max Boegl România SRL, SC UTI Grup SA, Astaldi SpA, SC Construcții Napoca SA (C-488/14)

Defendants: Institutul Naţional de Cercetare-Dezvoltare în Informatică (ICI) (C-439/14), RA Aeroportul Oradea, SC Porr Construct SRL, Teerag-Asdag Aktiengesellschaft SC Col-Air Trading SRL, AVZI SA, Trameco SA, Iamsat Muntenia SA (C-488/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) to (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and Article 1(1) to (3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66, and read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the admissibility of any action against an act of the contracting authority subject to the obligation for the applicant to constitute a good conduct guarantee that it provides to the contracting authority, if that guarantee must be refunded to the applicant whatever the outcome of the action.

(1) OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

OJ C 26, 26.01.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 — Kingdom of Sweden v Darius Nicolai Spirlea, Mihaela Spirlea, European Commission, Czech Republic, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Spain, Republic of Finland

(Case C-562/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Right of public access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Incorrect interpretation - Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents - General presumption of confidentiality - Documents relating to an EU Pilot procedure))

(2017/C 239/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Darius Nicolai Spirlea, Mihaela Spirlea, European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the European Commission: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.