ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

It is for the national court to determine whether other measures or measures which are not installed in consoles could cause less interference with the activities of third parties or limitations to those activities, while still providing comparable protection of the rightholder’s rights. Accordingly, it is relevant to take account, inter alia, of the relative costs of different types of technological measures, of technological and practical aspects of their implementation, and of a comparison of the effectiveness of those different types of technological measures as regards the protection of the rightholder’s rights, that effectiveness however not having to be absolute. That court must also examine the purpose of devices, products or components, which are capable of circumventing those technological measures. In that regard, the evidence of use which third parties actually make of them will, in the light of the circumstances at issue, be particularly relevant. The national court may, in particular, examine how often those devices, products or components are in fact used in disregard of copyright and how often they are used for purposes which do not infringe copyright.
1.

Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for it to be permissible for them to be sold on the market of a Member State, articles of precious metal imported from another Member State, in which they are authorised to be put on the market and which have been stamped with a hallmark in accordance with the legislation of that second Member State, must, where the information concerning the standard of fineness of those articles provided in that hallmark does not comply with the requirements of the legislation of that first Member State, be stamped again, by an independent assay office authorised by that first Member State, with a hallmark confirming that those articles have been inspected and showing their standard of fineness in accordance with those requirements;
1)

Having regard to the principle of fiscal neutrality, the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001, read in conjunction with Annex H, category 5, thereto, and Article 98(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III, point 5, thereto, must be interpreted as not precluding two types of services for the local transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage, namely transport by taxi and transport by minicab, from being subject to different rates of value added tax, one a reduced rate and the other the standard rate, in so far as, first, by reason of the different statutory requirements to which those two types of transport are subject, the activity of local transport of passengers by taxi constitutes a concrete and specific aspect of the category of services of transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage, covered by category 5 and point 5 of the respective annexes to those directives and, secondly, those differences have a decisive influence on the decision of the average user to use one such service or the other. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the position in the cases in the main proceedings;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium)) — Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-285/12) (1)

(Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Person eligible for subsidiary protection - Article 15(c) - Serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict - ‘Internal armed conflict’ - Interpretation independent of international humanitarian law - Criteria for assessment)

2014/C 93/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Aboubacar Diakité

Respondent: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Refusal to grant refugee status or subsidiary protection — Person eligible for subsidiary protection — ‘Internal armed conflict’ — Whether a specific interpretation independent of international humanitarian law is required, or whether an interpretation consistent with that provided under international humanitarian law is permissible — Criteria for assessment.

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, it must be acknowledged that an internal armed conflict exists, for the purposes of applying that provision, if a State’s armed forces confront one or more armed groups or if two or more armed groups confront each other. It is not necessary for that conflict to be categorised as ‘armed conflict not of an international character’ under international humanitarian law; nor is it necessary to carry out, in addition to an appraisal of the level of violence present in the territory concerned, a separate assessment of the intensity of the armed confrontations, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the conflict.

(1) OJ C 235, 4.8.2012
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria)) — Backaldrin Österreich The Kornspitz Company GmbH v Pfahnl Backmittel GmbH

(Case C-409/12) (1)

((Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 12(2)(a) - Revocation - Trade mark which, in consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, has become the common name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered - Perception of the word sign ‘KORNSPITZ’ by sellers, on the one hand, and by end users, on the other - Loss of distinctive character from the point of view of end users only))

2014/C 129/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Backaldrin Österreich The Kornspitz Company GmbH

Defendant: Pfahnl Backmittel GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Interpretation of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) — Grounds for revocation — Registered word mark which has become the common name for the product concerned for consumers on account of the absence of information given by intermediaries as to the existence of the mark — No alternative names to describe the product concerned — Inactivity of the proprietor of the mark.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a trade mark is liable to revocation in respect of a product for which it is registered if, in consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, that trade mark has become the common name for that product from the point of view solely of end users of the product.

2. Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be classified as ‘inactivity’ within the meaning of that provision if the proprietor of a trade mark does not encourage sellers to make more use of that mark in marketing a product in respect of which the mark is registered.

3. Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the revocation of a trade mark does not presuppose that it must be ascertained whether there are other names for a product for which that trade mark has become the common name in the trade.

(1) OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Sintax Trading OÜ v Maksu- ja Tolliamet

(Case C-583/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 - Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market - Article 13(1) - Powers of the customs authorities to establish the infringement of an intellectual property right))

2014/C 175/10

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sintax Trading OÜ

Defendant: Maksu- ja Tolliamet

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Riigikohus — Interpretation of Articles 13(1) and 17 of and recitals 1, 2 and 3 in the preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7) — Measures intended to prevent the placing on the market of counterfeit and pirated goods — Procedure to determine whether there has been an infringement of an intellectual property right — Competence of the customs authorities with respect to the ascertainment of an infringement of an intellectual property right — Right of the customs authorities to initiate of their own motion the procedure for determining whether there has been an infringement of an intellectual property right without it being necessary for the right-holder to initiate the procedure

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the customs authorities, in the absence of any initiative by the holder of the intellectual property right, from initiating and conducting the proceedings referred to in that provision themselves, provided that the relevant decisions taken by those authorities may be subject to appeal ensuring that the rights derived by individuals from EU law and, in particular, from that regulation are safeguarded.

(1) OJ C 55, 23. 2. 2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2014 — French Republic v European Commission

(Case C-559/12 P) (1)

((Appeals - State aid - Aid in the form of an implied, unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste as a result of its status as a publicly-owned establishment - Existence of the guarantee - Presence of State resources - Advantage - Burden and standard of proof))

2014/C 159/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Gstalter and by J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 in Case T 154/10 France v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the French Republic for the annulment of Commission Decision 2010/605/EU of 26 January 2010 on State aid C 56/07 (ex E 15/05) granted by France to La Poste (OJ 2010 L 274, p. 1) — Aid allegedly implemented by France in the form of an unlimited implied guarantee in favour of La Poste resulting from its status as a publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment — Establishment outside the scope of the ordinary law on administration and compulsory liquidation of firms in difficulty — Existence of an advantage — Existence of a transfer of State resources — Burden and standard of proof — Equiparation of the conditions under which State liability is incurred with a guarantee mechanism

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Fermo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M

(Case C-398/12) (1)

((Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle - Scope - Order made by a court of a Contracting State finding that there is no ground to refer a case to a trial court because of insufficient evidence - Possibility of reopening the criminal investigation in the case where new facts and/or evidence come to light - Concept of person whose trial has been ‘finally disposed of’ - Criminal prosecution in another Contracting State of the same person in respect of the same acts - Preclusion of further prosecution and application of the ne bis in idem principle))

2014/C 253/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Fermo

Party in the criminal proceedings in the main action

M

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Fermo — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle — Concept of ‘person whose trial has been finally disposed of’ — Final decision of no case to answer made by a court of a Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, must be interpreted as meaning that an order making a finding that there is no ground to refer a case to a trial court which precludes, in the Contracting State in which that order was made, the bringing of new criminal proceedings in respect of the same acts against the person to whom that finding applies, unless new facts and/or evidence against that person come to light, must be considered to be a final judgment, for the purposes of that article, precluding new proceedings against the same person in respect of the same acts in another Contracting State.

(1) OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others

(Case C-483/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principles of equality and non-discrimination - Implementation of EU law - Scope of application of EU law - None - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

2014/C 202/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pelckmans Turnhout NV

Defendants: Walter Van Gastel Balen NV, Walter Van Gastel NV, Walter Van Gastel Lifestyle NV, Walter Van Gastel Schoten NV

Intervening parties: Ministerraad

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium — Interpretation of Article 6(3) TEU, Articles 34, 35, 36, 56 and 57 TFEU, and Articles 15, 16, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation requiring retail establishments to close one day per week — Exceptions provided for in respect of retailers established in certain places or marketing certain products

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium).

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — European Commission v Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), Hellenic Republic, Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE, Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (H.E. & D.S.A.)

(Case C-553/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC - Maintenance of preferential rights granted by the Hellenic Republic in favour of a public undertaking for the exploration and exploitation of lignite deposits - Exercise of those rights - Competitive advantage on the markets for the supply of lignite and wholesale electricity - Maintenance, extension or strengthening of a dominant position))

2014/C 315/08

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Oikonomou, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: P. Anestis, dikigoros), Hellenic Republic (represented by M.-T. Marinos, P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents), Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE, Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (H.E. & D.S.A.)

Interveners in support of the applicants: Mytilinaios AE, Protergia AE, Alouminion AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, I. Zarzoura, D. Diakopoulos and E. Chrisafis, dikigoroi)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in DEI v Commission, T-169/08, EU:T:2012:448.

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for adjudication on the pleas raised before it on which the Court of Justice of the European Union has not ruled.

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-377/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - Council Decision 2012/272/EU on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and the Republic of the Philippines - Choice of legal basis - Articles 79 TFEU, 91 TFEU, 100 TFEU, 191 TFEU and 209 TFEU - Readmission of third-country nationals - Transport - Environment - Development cooperation))

2014/C 282/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt, G. Valero Jordana and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and E. Ruffer, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and A. Carroll, Barrister), Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Khala and G. Papagianni, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by A. Robinson, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and M. Holt, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Annuls Council Decision 2012/272/EU of 14 May 2012 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part, in so far as the Council of the European Union added thereto the legal bases relating to readmission of third-country nationals, transport and the environment;

2) Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

3) Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Austria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.
1)

Article 5 of Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market must be interpreted as not precluding a national support scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the issuance, by the competent regional regulatory authority, of tradable certificates in respect of green electricity produced on the territory of the region concerned and which places electricity suppliers under an obligation, subject to an administrative fine, to surrender annually to that authority a certain number of those certificates corresponding to a proportion of the total volume of the electricity that they have supplied in that region, without those suppliers being allowed to fulfil that obligation by using guarantees of origin originating from other Member States of the European Union or non-member States which are parties to the EEA Agreement.
1.

Sets asides the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in YKK and Others v Commission (EU:T:2012:322), as regards the application, for the purposes of determining the maximum amount of the fine, in the context of the cooperation in the Baseler-Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer circles on the market for metal and plastic fasteners and attaching machines, of a 10 % upper limit calculated on the basis of the YKK group turnover in the year preceding the adoption of Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article [81 EC] (Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard haberdashery: fasteners), as regards the period of the infringement for which YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH was held to be solely responsible;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — Kingdom of Denmark v European Commission

(Case C-417/12 P) (1)

((Appeals - EAGGF - Setting-aside of land - Remote-sensing controls - Green cover of parcels set aside - Financial corrections))

(2014/C 462/02)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Pinborg and P. Biering, advokaterne)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agent, assisted by T. Ryhl, advokat)

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. de Ree and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Leppo, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by U. Persson, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.