ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/7

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Unionen v Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB

(Case C-336/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 3 - Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings - Collective agreements applicable to the transferee and the transferor - Additional periods of notice granted to dismissed workers - Account to be taken of the length of service with the transferor))

(2017/C 168/07)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Arbetsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Unionen

Defendants: Almega Tjänsteförbunden,

ISS Facility Services AB,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, the transferee must, when dismissing an employee more than one year after the transfer of the undertaking, include, in the calculation of that employee’s length of service, which is relevant for determining the period of notice to which that employee is entitled, the length of service which that employee acquired with the transferor.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/6

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

(Case C-324/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Article 57(f) - Authorisation - Substances of very high concern - Identification - Equivalent level of concern - Hexahydromethylphthalic anhydride, hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride, hexahydro-1-methylphthalic anhydride and hexahydro-3-methylphthalic anhydride))

(2017/C 151/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH, 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 Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH and Polynt SpA to bear their 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales (Urssaf) d’Alsace, successor in law to the Urssaf du Bas-Rhin, and Sozialversicherungsanstalt des Kantons Graubünden

(Case C-620/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Legislation applicable - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(a) - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 12a(1a) - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation - Travelling personnel - Workers posted to another Member State - Swiss branch - E 101 certificate - Probative value))

(2017/C 202/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH

Defendants: Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales (Urssaf) d’Alsace, successor in law to the Urssaf du Bas-Rhin, and Sozialversicherungsanstalt des Kantons Graubünden

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12a(1a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 certificate issued by the institution designated by the competent authority of a Member State pursuant to Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, is binding on both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the work is carried out and the courts of that Member State, even where it is found by those courts that the conditions under which the worker concerned carries out his activities clearly do not fall within the material scope of that provision of Regulation No 1408/71.

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory, Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)

(Joined Cases C-376/15 P and C-377/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(10) and (11) - Exclusion of certain export transactions for the purposes of calculating the dumping margin - Fair comparison between the export price and the normal value in the case of imports from a non-market economy country))

(2017/C 168/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Changshu City Standard Parts Factory, Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd, (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and S. Boelaert, Agents, and by N. Tuominen, avocat), European Commission (represented by T. Maxian Rusche and M. França, Agents), European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 April 2015, Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council (T-558/12 and T-559/12, EU:T:2015:237);

2. Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, in so far as it relates to Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd;

3. Dismisses the appeal in Case C-377/15 P;

4. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd in relation to the proceedings at first instance in Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12 as well as those relating to the appeal proceedings in Case C-376/15 P;

5. Orders Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation to the appeal proceedings in Case C-377/15 P;

6. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance in Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12 as well as those relating to the appeal proceedings in Cases C-376/15 P and C-377/15 P.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 — Schniga GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC

(Case C-625/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community plant variety rights - Application for a Community plant variety right - Apple variety ‘Gala Schnitzer’ - Technical examination - Test guidelines issued by the Administrative Council of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) - Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 - Article 23(1) - Powers of the President of the CPVO - Addition of a distinctive characteristic on completion of the technical examination - Stability of the characteristic during two growing cycles))

(2017/C 249/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Schniga GmbH (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and F. Mattina, acting as Agents), Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC (represented by: M. Eller, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 September 2015, Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand and Elaris (Gala Schnitzer) (T-91/14 and T-92/14, not published, EU:T:2015:624);

2. Annuls the decisions of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 20 September 2013 relating to the grant of a Community plant variety right for the Gala Schnitzer apple variety (Cases A 003/2007 and A 004/2007);

3. Orders the Community Plant Variety Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Schniga GmbH;

4. Orders Brookfield New Zealand Ltd and Elaris SNC to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc., Nike Retail BV

(Case C-617/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - EU trade mark - Article 97(1) - International jurisdiction - Action for infringement brought against an undertaking with its seat in a third country - Second-tier subsidiary with its seat in the Member State of the court seised - Definition of ‘establishment’))

(2017/C 239/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hummel Holding A/S

Defendant: Nike Inc., Nike Retail BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 97(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary, with its seat in a Member State, of a parent body that has no seat in the European Union is an ‘establishment’, within the meaning of that provision, of that parent body if the subsidiary is a centre of operations which, in the Member State where it is located, has a certain real and stable presence from which commercial activity is pursued, and has the appearance of permanency to the outside world, such as an extension of the parent body.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/3

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and Others v European Commission, European Chemicals Agency, Assogalvanica and Others

(Case C-651/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) - Article 58(2) - Authorisation - Substances of very high concern - Exemption - Regulation amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation))

(2017/C 293/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO), Adolf Krämer GmbH & Co. KG, AgO Argentum GmbH and Others (full list included in the appeal) (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents), Assogalvanica, Ecometal, Comité européen des traitements de surfaces (CETS) and Others (full list included in the appeal) (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Intervener in support of the European Commission: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Traband, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and the other appellants whose names are listed in Annex I to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the French Republic and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by ‘Agrodetalė’ UAB

(Case C-513/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market - EC type-approval - Directive 2003/37/EC - Scope - Agricultural or forestry tractors - Placement on the market and registration in the European Union of used or second-hand vehicles imported from a third country - Concepts of ‘new vehicle’ and ‘entry into service’))

(2017/C 277/05)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Party to the main proceedings

‘Agrodetalė’ UAB

Operative part of the judgment

1. Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on type-approval of agricultural or forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units and repealing Directive 74/150/EEC, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/44/EU of 18 March 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that the first placing on the market and the registration in a Member State of used or second-hand tractors imported from a third country are subject to compliance with the technical requirements laid down by that directive.

2. Article 23(1)(b) of Directive 2003/37, as amended by Directive 2014/44, must be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of that directive apply to second-hand vehicles coming under categories T1, T2 and T3 and imported into the European Union from a third country, where they are entered into service in the European Union for the first time on or after 1 July 2009.

(1) OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
2.

EU law requires that the domestic law of a Member State provide remedies to shareholders who, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, have received dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’ but have not, however, obtained a tax credit in respect of those dividends, in order to enable those shareholders to enforce the rights that Article 63 TFEU confers on them. In that regard, the national court with jurisdiction must ensure that shareholders not subject to income tax in respect of dividends who have received dividends that have their origin in foreign-sourced dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’, such as the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme, have a remedy which, first, ensures payment of such a tax credit — of which the beneficiaries have been unduly deprived — under rules which are not less favourable than those relating to an action seeking payment of a tax credit, or of a comparable tax advantage, in a situation where the tax authorities have unduly deprived the beneficiaries of that tax credit or of that tax advantage on a distribution of dividends which have their origin in the dividends received from a UK-resident company and, second, allows the protection of the rights conferred on such shareholders by Article 63 TFEU to be guaranteed in an effective manner.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 — French Republic v Carl Schlyter, European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-331/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Right of public access to documents of the EU institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), third indent - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Protection of the purpose of investigations - Directive 98/34/EC - Articles 8 and 9 - Detailed opinion of the European Commission concerning a draft technical regulation - Refusal to grant access))

(2017/C 374/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, G. de Bergues, B. Fodda and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Carl Schlyter (represented by: S. Schubert, Rechtsanwalt and O.W. Brouwer, advocaat), European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, A. Tokár and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, N. Otte Widgren, U. Persson, A. Falk, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the French Republic, Mr Carl Schlyter and the Commission to bear their own costs;

3. Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs;

4. Orders the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2017 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-467/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Aid granted by the Italian Republic to milk producers - Aid scheme linked to the reimbursement of the milk levy - Conditional decision - Decision adopted by the Council of the European Union pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b) and (c) - Existing aid - New aid - Definitions - Alteration to existing aid in breach of a condition ensuring compatibility of the aid with the internal market))

(2017/C 437/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino and P. Grasso, avvocati dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 June 2015, Italy v Commission (T-527/13, EU:T:2015:429);

2. Dismisses the action brought by the Italian Republic before the General Court in Case T-527/13;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission both at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Aviva Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie

(Case C-605/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(f) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Exemption for the supply of services by independent groups of persons for their members - Applicability to insurance))

(2017/C 392/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Aviva Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that the exemption provided for in that provision relates only to independent groups of persons whose members carry on an activity in the public interest referred to in Article 132 of that directive and that, therefore, the services supplied by independent groups of persons whose members carry on an economic activity in the area of insurance, which does not constitute such an activity in the public interest, are not entitled to that exemption.

(1) OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Ville de Nivelles v Rudy Matzak

(Case C-518/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Article 2 - Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’ - Article 17 - Derogations - Firefighters - Stand-by times - Stand-by times at home))

(2018/C 134/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ville de Nivelles

Defendant: Rudy Matzak

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 17(3)(c)(iii) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may not derogate, with regard to certain categories of firefighters recruited by the public fire services, from all the obligations arising from the provisions of that directive, including Article 2 thereof, which defines, in particular, the concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’.

2. Article 15 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not permitting Member States to maintain or adopt a less restrictive definition of the concept of ‘working time’ than that laid down in Article 2 of that directive.

3. Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to determine the remuneration of periods of stand-by time such as those at issue in the main proceedings according to the prior classification of those periods as ‘working time’ or ‘rest period’.

4. Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that stand-by time which a worker spends at home with the duty to respond to calls from his employer within 8 minutes, very significantly restricting the opportunities for other activities, must be regarded as ‘working time’.

(1) OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.