ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘ERGO Insurance’ SE, represented by ‘ERGO Insurance’ SE Lietuvos filialas v ‘If P&C Insurance’ AS, represented by ‘IF P&C Insurance’ AS filialas (C-359/14), ‘Gjensidige Baltic’ AAS, represented by ‘Gjensidige Baltic’ AAS Lietuvos filialas v ‘PZU Lietuva’ UAB DK (C-475/14)

(Joined Cases C-359/14 and C-475/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Choice of applicable law - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 and Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Directive 2009/103/EC - Accident caused by a tractor unit coupled with a trailer, each of the vehicles being insured by different insurers - Accident which occurred in a Member State other than that in which the insurance contracts were concluded - Action for indemnity between the insurers - Applicable law - Definitions of ‘contractual obligations’ and ‘non-contractual obligations’))

(2016/C 098/09)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:‘ERGO Insurance’ SE, represented by ‘ERGO Insurance’ SE Lietuvis filialas (C-359/14), ‘Gjensidige Baltic’ AAS, represented by ‘Gjensidige Baltic’ AAS Lietuvos filialas (C-475/14)

Defendants:‘If P&C Insurance’ AS, represented by ‘IF P&C Insurance’ AS filialas (C-359/14), ‘PZU Lietuva’ UAB DK (C-475/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(b) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as meaning that that provision does not contain any specific conflict-of-law rule intended to determine the law applicable to the action for indemnity between insurers in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings.

Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) and Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted to the effect that the law applicable to an action for indemnity between the insurer of a tractor unit, which has compensated the victims of an accident caused by the driver of that vehicle, against the insurer of the trailer coupled to it at the time of that accident, is to be determined in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation No 593/2008 if the rules of liability in tort, delict and quasi-delict applicable to that accident by virtue of Article 4 et seq of Regulation No 864/2007 provide for an apportionment of the obligation to compensate for the damage.

(1) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/9

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2016 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-431/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of evidence))

(2016/C 156/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, R. Sauer and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
1)

Declares that, by failing to adopt, for each of the landfill sites at issue, namely those in Urtuella (Basque Country) and in Zurita and Juan Grande (Canary Islands), the measures necessary to request the operator to prepare a conditioning plan and ensure full implementation of that plan in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, with the exception of those listed in Annex I, point 1, of that directive, within eight years after the date laid down in Article 18(1) of that directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(c) of that directive in relation to each of those landfill sites;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — ADM Hamburg AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Case C-294/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Community Customs Code - Tariff Preferences - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 74(1) - Products originating from a beneficiary country - Transport - Consignments composed of a mixture of crude palm kernel oil originating in several countries benefiting from the same preferential treatment))

(2016/C 211/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ADM Hamburg AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 74(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1063/2010 of 18 November 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where valid certificates of origin have been presented, the preferential origin, within the meaning of the generalised system of preferences established by Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007, of consignments of crude palm kernel oil may be recognised even where those products have been mixed in the tank of a vessel at the time of their transport to the European Union in circumstances where it is possible to rule out that other products, in particular products not benefiting from any preferential treatment, have been added to that tank.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Johannes Evert Antonius Massar v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

(Case C-460/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Free choice of lawyer for an insured person - Inquiry or proceedings - Definition - Authorisation granted by a public body to an employer for the purpose of terminating an employment contract))

(2016/C 211/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Johannes Evert Antonius Massar

Defendant: DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘inquiry’ referred to in that provision includes a procedure at the end of which a public body authorises an employer to dismiss an employee who is covered by legal expenses insurance.

(1) OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.
2.

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, read in conjunction with Article 7 of Directive 2008/118, must be interpreted as precluding a refusal by the national authorities to exempt from excise duty energy products which, after having been sold by an authorised warehousekeeper to an intermediate purchaser, are sold on by that purchaser to an end-user who satisfies all the requirements under national law to benefit from an exemption of excise duty on those products and to whom those products are delivered directly by that authorised warehousekeeper from his tax warehouse, on the sole ground that the intermediate purchaser, declared by that warehousekeeper as the consignee of those products, does not have the status of end-user authorised under national law to receive energy products exempt from excise duty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-346/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 4(3) TEU - Article 288 TFEU - Directive 2000/60/EC - EU water policy - Article 4(1) - Prevention of deterioration of the status of bodies of surface water - Article 4(7) - Derogation from the prohibition of deterioration - Overriding public interest - Authorisation to construct a hydropower plant on the Schwarze Sulm River (Austria) - Deterioration of the water status))

(2016/C 243/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, C. Hermes and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Z. Petzl and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bologna (District Court, Bologna — Italy) — Pebros Servizi Srl v Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd

(Case C-511/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Article 3(1)(b) - Conditions for certification - Judgment in default - Concept of ‘uncontested claim - Procedural conduct of a party capable of constituting an ‘absence of contestation of the claim’))

(2016/C 305/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Bologna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pebros Servizi Srl

Defendant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The conditions according to which, in the case of a judgment by default, a claim is to be regarded as ‘uncontested’, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1)(b) of 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 assessed autonomously, solely in accordance with that regulation.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf — Germany)) — Sabine Hünnebeck v Finanzamt Krefeld

(Case C-479/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Gift tax - Gift of immovable property situated within national territory - National law providing for a higher tax-free allowance for residents than for non-residents - Existence of an optional regime allowing any person resident in an EU Member State to benefit from the higher tax-free allowance))

(2016/C 296/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sabine Hünnebeck

Defendant: Finanzamt Krefeld

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of national law that provide, in respect of gifts between non-residents, in the absence of a specific request by the beneficiary, for recourse to a method of calculation of taxation by application of a lower tax-free allowance. Those articles also preclude, in any event, rules of national law which provide, at the request of such a beneficiary, for recourse to a method of calculation of taxation by application of a higher tax-free allowance which applies to gifts in respect of which at least one party is a resident, the exercise of that option by the non-resident beneficiary involving the aggregation, for the purpose of the calculation of tax due on the gift in question, of all the gifts received by that beneficiary from the same person over the course of the 10 years preceding and the 10 years following that gift.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-113/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Choice of legal basis - Article 43(2) TFEU or Article 43(3) TFEU - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 7 - Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013 - Article 2 - Measures on fixing prices - Reference thresholds - Intervention prices))

(2016/C 402/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, A. Lippstreu and A. Wiedmann, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt, C. Brodie and J. Kraehling, acting as Agents, and by A. Bates, Barrister), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Škeřík, J. Vláčil and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, R. Kaškina and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza, J.-P. Hix and S. Barbagallo, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007;

2. Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013 of 16 December 2013 determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products;

3. Declares that the effects of Article 7 of Regulation No 1308/2013 and of Article 2 of Regulation No 1370/2013 are to be maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period of time which cannot exceed five months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new regulation on the correct legal basis, namely Article 43(3) TFEU;

4. Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

5. Orders the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia and the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — Promoimpresa srl (Case C 458/14) v Consorzio dei comuni della Sponda Bresciana del Lago di Garda e del Lago di Idro, Regione Lombardia and Mario Melis and Others (C 67/15) v Comune di Loiri Porto San Paolo, Provincia di Olbia Tempio

(Joined Cases C-458/14 and C-67/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public contracts and freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 12 - Concessions of State-owned maritime, lakeside and waterway property of an economic interest - Automatic extension - Lack of tender procedure))

(2016/C 335/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring courts

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia and the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sardegna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Promoimpresa srl (Case C 458/14) and Mario Melis and Others (C 67/15)

Defendants: Consorzio dei comuni della Sponda Bresciana del Lago di Garda e del Lago di Idro, Regione Lombardia (C-458/14), Comune di Loiri Porto San Paolo, Provincia di Olbia Tempio (C-67/15)

Interveners: Alessandro Piredda and Others

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 12(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits the automatic extension of existing authorisations of State-owned maritime and lakeside property for tourist and leisure-oriented business activities, without any selection procedure for potential candidates.

2. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits the automatic extension of existing concessions of State-owned property for tourist and leisure-oriented business activities, in so far as those concessions are of certain cross-border interest.

(1) OJ C 448, 15.12.2014

OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Yara Suomi Oy, Borealis Polymers Oy, Neste Oil Oyj, SSAB Europe Oy v Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö

(Case C-506/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Method of allocating free allowances - Calculation of the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor - Decision 2013/448/EU - Article 4 - Annex II - Validity - Application of uniform cross-sectoral correction factor to facilities in sectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage - Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 10(9) - Annex I - Validity))

(2017/C 006/05)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Yara Suomi Oy, Borealis Polymers Oy, Neste Oil Oyj, SSAB Europe Oy

Defendant: Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö

Operative part of the judgment

1. Examination of the third and fourth questions has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

2. Examination of the sixth and seventh questions has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Annex I to Decision 2011/278.

3. Examination of the fifth question referred has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the first subparagraph of Article 10(9) of Decision 2011/278.

4. Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council are invalid.

5. The temporal effects of the declaration of invalidity of Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Decision 2013/448 are limited so that, first, that declaration does not produce effects until 10 months following the date of delivery of the judgment in Borealis Polyolefine and Others (C-191/14, C-192/14, C-295/14, C-389/14 and C-391/14 to C-393/14, EU:C:2016:311), so as to enable the European Commission to adopt the necessary measures and, second, measures adopted during that period on the basis of the invalidated provisions cannot be called into question.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-525/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Precious metals hallmarked in a third country in accordance with Netherlands legislation - Import into the Czech Republic after being put into free circulation - Refusal to recognise the hallmark - Consumer protection - Proportionality - Admissibility))

(2016/C 419/08)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by refusing to recognise the hallmarks of the WaarborgHolland assay office, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 TFEU;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission, the Czech Republic and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
2.

Article 44 of Directive 2004/18, in conjunction with Article 48(2)(a) thereof and the principle of equal treatment of economic operators in Article 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow an economic operator to rely on the capacities of another entity, within the meaning of Article 48(3) of that directive, by combining the knowledge and experience of two entities which, individually, do not have the capacities required for the performance of a particular contract, where the contracting authority considers that the contract concerned cannot be divided, in that it must be performed by a single operator, and that such exclusion of the possibility to rely on the experience of several economic operators is related and proportionate to the subject matter of the contract which must be performed by a single operator.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — European Commission v Hansestadt Lübeck, successor in law to Flughafen Lübeck GmbH

(Case C-524/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Airport charges - Article 108(2) TFEU - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Admissibility of an action for annulment - Person individually concerned - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Article 107(1) TFEU - Condition relating to selectivity))

(2017/C 053/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, R. Sauer and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Hansestadt Lübeck, successor in law to Flughafen Lübeck GmbH (represented by: M. Núñez Müller and I. Ruck, Rechtsanwälte)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hansestadt Lübeck;

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

(1) OJ 26, 26.1.2015.