ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/14

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — SCI Senior Home, in administration v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG

(Case C-195/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 5 - Notion of ‘third parties’ rights in rem’ - Public charge against immovable property to ensure payment of real property tax))

(2017/C 006/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SCI Senior Home, in administration

Defendants: Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted to the effect that security created by virtue of a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which the real property of a person owing real property taxes is, by operation of law, to be subject to a public charge and that property owner must accept enforcement of the decision recording that tax debt against that property, constitutes a ‘right in rem’ for the purposes of that article.

(1) OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/16

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín

(Case C-243/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Article 6(3) - Aarhus Convention - Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters - Articles 6 and 9 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Project to construct an enclosure - Protected site ‘Strážovské vrchy’ - Administrative authorisation procedure - Environmental organisation - Request for the status of party to the procedure - Rejection - Legal action))

(2017/C 006/20)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK

Respondent: Obvodný úrad Trenčín

Third party: Biely potok a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

Inasmuch as Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 9(2) and (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, enshrines the right to effective judicial protection, in conditions ensuring wide access to justice, of the rights which an environmental organisation meeting the conditions laid down in Article 2(5) of that convention derives from EU law, in this instance from Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) of that convention, it must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, an interpretation of rules of national procedural law to the effect that an action against a decision refusing such an organisation the status of party to an administrative procedure for authorisation of a project that is to be carried out on a site protected pursuant to Directive 92/43 as amended by Directive 2006/105 does not necessarily have to be examined during the course of that procedure, which may be definitively concluded before a definitive judicial decision on possession of the status of party is adopted, and is automatically dismissed as soon as that project is authorised, thereby requiring that organisation to bring an action of another type in order to obtain that status and to secure judicial review of compliance by the competent national authorities with their obligations stemming from Article 6(3) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Wolfgang Schmidt v Christiane Schmidt

(Case C-417/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Scope - First subparagraph of Article 24(1) - Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property - Article 7(1)(a) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Action seeking the avoidance of a contract of gift of immovable property and the removal of an entry in the land register evidencing a right of ownership))

(2017/C 014/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang Schmidt

Defendant: Christiane Schmidt

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that an action seeking the avoidance of a gift of immovable property on the ground of the donor’s incapacity to contract does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated, provided for under Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, but within the special jurisdiction provided for under Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation.

An action seeking the removal from the land register of notices evidencing the donee’s right of ownership falls within the exclusive jurisdiction provided for under Article 24(1) of the same regulation.

(1) OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
2.

Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding a taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows persons who have not yet reached the age of 30 to deduct in full, under certain conditions, vocational training costs from their taxable income, whereas that right to deduct is restricted in the case of persons who have reached that age, in so far as, first, that scheme is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate objective relating to employment and labour market policy and, second, the means of attaining that objective are appropriate and necessary. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2016 — Hungary v Commission

(Case C-644/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Common organisation of agricultural markets - Fruit and vegetable sector - Article 103e - National financial assistance granted to producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector - Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 - Article 97 - Commission decision concerning the reimbursement by the European Union of the national financial assistance granted by Hungary to producer organisations))

(2017/C 046/10)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and E.E. Sebestyén, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A Lewis and B. Béres, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court — Ireland) — David L. Parris v Trinity College Dublin and Others

(Case C-443/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2 - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and age - National pension scheme - Payment of a survivor’s benefit to the civil partner - Condition - Partnership contracted before the 60th birthday of the member of the scheme - Civil partnership - Not possible in the Member State concerned before 2010 - Existing stable relationship - Article 6(2) - Justification of differences of treatment on grounds of age))

(2017/C 030/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Labour Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: David L. Parris

Defendants: Trinity College Dublin, Higher Education Authority, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Education and Skills

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule which, in connection with an occupational benefit scheme, makes the right of surviving civil partners of members to receive a survivor’s benefit subject to the condition that the civil partnership was entered into before the member reached the age of 60, where national law did not allow the member to enter into a civil partnership before reaching that age, does not constitute discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

2. Articles 2 and 6(2) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in connection with an occupational benefit scheme, makes the right of surviving civil partners of members to receive a survivor’s benefit subject to the condition that the civil partnership was entered into before the member reached the age of 60, where national law did not allow the member to enter into a civil partnership before reaching that age, does not constitute discrimination on grounds of age.

3. Articles 2 and 6(2) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings is not capable of creating discrimination as a result of the combined effect of sexual orientation and age, where that rule does not constitute discrimination either on the ground of sexual orientation or on the ground of age taken in isolation.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
1.

Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, if there is no agreement with the workers’ representatives on projected collective redundancies, an employer can effect such redundancies only if the competent national public authority which must be notified of the projected collective redundancies does not adopt, within the period prescribed by that legislation and after examining the documents in the file and assessing the conditions in the labour market, the situation of the undertaking and the interests of the national economy, a reasoned decision not to authorise some or all of the projected redundancies. The position is different, however, if — a matter which is, as the case may be, for the referring court to ascertain — in the light of the three assessment criteria to which that legislation refers and of the specific application of them by the public authority, subject to review by the courts having jurisdiction, that legislation proves to have the consequence of depriving the provisions of that directive of their practical effect. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, national legislation such as that referred to in the first sentence of the first paragraph of this point.
1.

Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 5 February 2015, Aer Lingus v Commission (T-473/12, not published, EU:T:2015:78), and Ryanair v Commission (T-500/12, not published, EU:T:2015:73), in so far as they annul Article 4 of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel rates implemented by Ireland, in so far as that article ordered that the aid be recovered from the beneficiaries in an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Stowarzyszenie ‘Oławska Telewizja Kablowa’ v Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich

(Case C-367/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 13 - Intellectual and industrial property - Infringement - Calculation of damages - Legislation of a Member State - Twice the amount of the royalties normally due))

(2017/C 078/02)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Stowarzyszenie ‘Oławska Telewizja Kablowa’

Respondent: Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the holder of an intellectual property right that has been infringed may demand from the person who has infringed that right either compensation for the damage that he has suffered, taking account of all the appropriate aspects of the particular case, or, without him having to prove the actual loss, payment of a sum corresponding to twice the appropriate fee which would have been due if permission had been given for the work concerned to be used.

(1) OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Rainer Typke v European Commission

(Case C-491/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 3 - Notion of document - Article 2(3) - Documents held by an institution - Characterisation of information contained in a database - Obligation to create a document which does not already exist - None - Existing documents capable of being extracted from a database))

(2017/C 063/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Rainer Typke (represented by: C. Cortese, avvocato)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Rainer Typke to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG v European Commission

(Case C-94/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Obligation to state reasons - Evidence of the infringement - Distortion of the evidence))

(2017/C 112/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG (represented by: U. Itzen and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dimsisses the appeal;

2. Orders Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu — Croatia) — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer

(Case C-484/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order - Concept of ‘court’ - Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’ - Authentic instrument))

(2017/C 144/10)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ibrica Zulfikarpašić

Defendant: Slaven Gajer

Operative part of the judgment

1. Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation.

2. Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a writ of execution adopted by a notary, in Croatia, based on an ‘authentic document’, and which has not been contested may not be certified as a European Enforcement Order since it does not relate to an uncontested claim within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/5

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV v comtech GmbH

(Case C-568/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 21 - Communication by telephone - Operation of a telephone line by a trader to enable consumers to contact him in relation to a contract concluded - Prohibition on applying a rate higher than the basic rate - Concept of ‘basic rate’))

(2017/C 121/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV

Defendant: comtech GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘basic rate’ referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that call charges relating to a contract concluded with a trader to a telephone helpline operated by the trader may not exceed the cost of a call to a standard geographic landline or mobile telephone line. Provided that that limit is respected, the fact that the relevant trader makes or does not make a profit through that telephone helpline is irrelevant.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — European Ombudsman v Claire Staelen

(Case C-337/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Handling by the European Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the management of a list of suitable candidates in an open competition - Breaches of the duty to act diligently - Concept of a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ of a rule of EU law - Non-material damage - Loss of confidence in the office of the European Ombudsman))

(2017/C 168/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Ombudsman (represented initially by: G. Grill, and subsequently by L. Papadias and P. Dyrberg, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares the application made by Ms Claire Staelen in her response for the European Ombudsman to be ordered to pay her compensation in the amount of EUR 50 000 inadmissible;

2. Sets aside points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 April 2015, Staelen v Ombudsman (T-217/11, EU:T:2015:238);

3. Orders the European Ombudsman to pay Ms Claire Staelen compensation in the amount of EUR 7 000;

4. Orders Ms Claire Staelen to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Ombudsman in relation to the cross-appeal, dismissed by order of 29 June 2016, Ombudsman v Staelen (C-337/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:670);

5. Orders the European Ombudsman to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Claire Staelen in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and to the main appeal.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — Polynt SpA v New Japan Chemical, REACh ChemAdvice GmbH, Sitre Srl, European Chemicals Agency, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

(Case C-323/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Article 57(f) - Authorisation - Substances of very high concern - Identification - Equivalent level of concern - Cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride, cis-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride and trans-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride))

(2017/C 151/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Polynt SpA (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: New Japan Chemical (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats), REACh ChemAdvice GmbH (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats), Sitre Srl (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, C. Buchanan, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and J. Stuyck, advocaat), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Schillemans and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Polynt SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission to bear their own costs;

4. Orders New Japan Chemical and REACh ChemAdvice GmbH to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.