ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Holcim (Romania) SA v European Commission

(Case C-556/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Articles 19 and 20 - Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 - Article 10 - System of registries for transactions concerning emission allowances - Liability for fault - Commission’s refusal to disclose information on and to prohibit all transactions involving stolen emission allowances - Strict liability))

(2016/C 211/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Holcim (Romania) SA (represented by: L. Arnauts, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. White and K. Mifsud Bonnici, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Holcim (Romania) SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
2.

Articles 5(1) and 8(3) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), read in conjunction with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22, must be interpreted as allowing a national regulatory authority, in resolving a dispute between two operators, to impose on one of them the obligation to ensure that end-users are able to access services using non-geographic numbers provided on the other’s network and to set, on the basis of Article 13 of Directive 2002/19, pricing procedures for that access between those operators such as those at issue in the main proceedings, provided that those obligations are objective, transparent, proportionate, non-discriminatory, based on the nature of the problem identified and justified in the light of the objectives laid down in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), and the procedures provided for in Articles 6 and 7 of that directive have, where applicable, been observed, which it is for the national court to verify.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v Skatteverket

(Case C-252/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Taxation of pension funds’ income - Difference in treatment of resident and non-resident pension funds - Resident pension funds subject to lump sum taxation on the basis of a notional yield - Withholding tax applied to dividends received by non-resident pension funds - Whether comparable))

(2016/C 287/05)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek

Defendant: Skatteverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as:

— not precluding national legislation under which the dividends distributed by a resident company are subject to a tax levied at source (a withholding tax) where those dividends are paid to a non-resident pension fund and, where those dividends are paid to a resident pension fund, to a tax calculated as a definitive lump sum and on a notional yield, which, over time, is intended to correspond to the normal taxation of all yields on capital under the general law regime;

— nevertheless precluding non-resident pension funds being prevented from taking into account any professional expenses directly linked to the receipt of dividends, where the calculation method for the tax base of resident pension funds allows them to be taken into account, that being a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2016 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-358/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Approximation of laws - Directive 2014/40/EU - Article 2(25), Article 6(2)(b), Article 7(1) to (5), the first sentence of Article 7(7), Article 7(12) to (14) and Article 13(1)(c) - Validity - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products with characterising flavours - Tobacco products containing menthol - Legal basis - Article 114 TFEU - Principle of proportionality - Principle of subsidiarity))

(2016/C 243/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szwarc, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Romania (represented by: R.-H. Radu, D.M. Bulancea and A. Vacaru, Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, J. Rodrigues and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Segnana, J. Herrmann, K. Pleśniak and M. Simm, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Ireland (represented by: J. Quaney and A. Joyce, Agents, and by E. Barrington SC and J. Cooke SC and E. Carolan, Barrister-at-Law), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and S. Ghiandoni, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Kaye, C. Brodie and M. Holt, Agents, and by I. Rogers QC and S. Abram and E. Metcalfe, Barristers), European Commission (represented by: M. Van Hoof, C. Cattabriga and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-540/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany - Rejection of the inscription of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances - Provision relating to cases of ‘undue hardship’ - Implementing powers of the Commission))

(2016/C 314/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P.-A. Schütter, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA), Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP) v Administración del Estado, Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos Digitales (Ametic)

(Case C-470/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(2)(b) - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Private copying - Fair compensation - Financing from the General State Budget - Whether permissible - Conditions))

(2016/C 296/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA), Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP)

Defendants: Administración del Estado, Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos Digitales (Ametic)

Intervening parties: Artistas Intérpretes, Sociedad de Gestión (AISGE), Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos (CEDRO), Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI), Entidad de Gestión, Artistas, Intérpretes o Ejecutantes, Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE), Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE),

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding a scheme for fair compensation for private copying which, like the one at issue in the main proceedings, is financed from the General State Budget in such a way that it is not possible to ensure that the cost of that compensation is borne by the users of private copies.

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Attorney General

(Case C-592/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 - Article 18(1)(b) - Cosmetic products containing ingredients, or a combination of ingredients, which have been the subject of animal testing ‘in order to meet the requirements of this Regulation’ - Prohibition of marketing within the European Union - Scope))

(2016/C 419/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

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

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients

Defendants: Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Attorney General

Intervening parties: Cruelty Free International, formerly British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, European Coalition to End Animal Experiments

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that it may prohibit the placing on the European Union market of cosmetic products containing some ingredients that have been tested on animals outside the European Union, in order to market cosmetic products in third countries, if the resulting data is used to prove the safety of those products for the purposes of placing them on the EU market.

(1) OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz — Austria) — Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH v Finanzamt Linz

(Case C-493/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Aid scheme in the form of reductions in environmental taxes - Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 - Categories of aid which may be regarded as compatible with the internal market and exempt from the obligation to notify - Mandatory nature of the conditions for exemption - Article 3(1) - Express reference to that regulation in the aid scheme))

(2016/C 343/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Linz

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] (General block exemption Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that the absence, in an aid scheme such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of an express reference to that regulation, by citing its title and publication reference in the Official Journal of the European Union, precludes that scheme from being considered to fulfil the conditions for exemption, under Article 25(1) of that regulation, from the obligation to notify laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
1.

Article 7(1) and (3) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of assessing whether a commercial practice must be regarded as a misleading omission, consideration should be given to the context in which that practice takes place, in particular the limitations of the communications medium used for the purposes of that commercial practice, the limitations of time and space imposed by that communications medium and any measures taken by the trader to make the information available to consumers by other means, even though that requirement is not expressly referred to in the wording of the national legislation in question.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to guarantee the existence, in cross-border situations, of a compensation scheme for victims of all violent intentional crimes committed on its territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims;
3.

Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that: — the examination of the potential unfairness of a term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer requires it to be determined whether that term causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under a contract to the detriment of the consumer. That examination must be carried out in the light of national rules which, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, are applicable, the means which the consumer has at his disposal under national law to bring an end to the use of that type of term, the nature of the goods or services covered by the contract at issue and all the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the contract; — where the national court considers that a contractual term relating to the calculation of ordinary interest, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is not in plain intelligible language, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of that directive, it is required to examine whether that term is unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the directive. In the context of that examination, it is the duty of the referring court, inter alia, to compare the method of calculation of the rate of ordinary interest laid down in that term and the actual sum resulting from that rate with the methods of calculation generally used, the statutory interest rate and the interest rates applied on the market at the date of conclusion of the agreement at issue in the main proceedings for a loan of a comparable sum and term to those of the loan agreement under consideration; and — as regards the assessment by a national court of the potential unfairness of the term relating to accelerated repayment resulting from a failure on the part of the debtor to comply with his obligations during a limited specific period, it is for the referring court to examine whether the right of the seller or supplier to call in the totality of the loan is conditional upon the non-compliance by the consumer with an obligation which is of essential importance in the context of the contractual relationship in question, whether that right is provided for in cases in which such non-compliance is sufficiently serious in the light of the term and amount of the loan, whether that right derogates from the applicable common law rules, where specific contractual provisions are lacking, and whether national law provides for adequate and effective means enabling the consumer subject to such a term to remedy the effects of the loan being called in.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/10

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main v Duval GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-44/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Position 9025 - Concept of ‘thermometer’ - Indicators of exposure to a predetermined target temperature to be used on one occasion only))

(2016/C 038/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main

Defendant: Duval GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Heading 9025 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 must be interpreted as covering ambient temperature indicators made of paper, in some circumstances covered with plastic film, such as the goods at issue in the main proceedings, which, by the effect of a change in colour, indicate, irreversibly and without the possibility of subsequent re-use, whether one or more threshold temperatures have been reached.

(1) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/14

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Sonos Europe BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-84/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8517, 8518, 8519, 8527 and 8543 - Stand-alone device designed to retrieve, receive and stream digital audio files in the form of amplified sound))

(2016/C 156/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sonos Europe BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a stand-alone device designed to retrieve, receive and stream digital audio files in the form of amplified sound, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all of the facts which it has available to it, be classified under tariff heading 8519 of that nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
1.

Declares that: — by exempting from value added tax, in the context of sailing or leisure activities which cannot be equated with the practice of sport or physical education, the hiring out of berths and sites for the storage of boats to the members of water sports associations which have no employees for delivery of their services, and — by limiting, in cases where the berths and sites for the storage of boats are hired out to persons taking part in sport and that hiring-out is closely linked to and essential for the practice of that sport, the exemption for hiring-out to water sports associations which have no employees for delivery of their services, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 24(1) and 133 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in conjunction with Article 132(1)(m) thereof;
1.

Rules 2(b) and 3(b) of the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, respectively, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the essential character of a gas mixture, such as the liquefied petroleum gas at issue in the main proceedings, is determined by all the components of that mixture together, so that no component may be identified as the factor giving it its essential character and, in any event, the exact quantity of each of the components of the liquefied petroleum gas at issue may not be determined, a presumption that the factor which gives the goods their essential character, within the meaning of rule 3(b) of those general rules, is the substance which is present in the greatest proportion in the mixture must not be used.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-193/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime - Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded - Set of indicia - Distortion of the sense of the evidence))

(2016/C 211/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Tarif Akhras (represented by: S. Millar and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and L. Havas, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Tarif Akhras to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.