ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 May 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-147/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Implementing enhanced cooperation - Unitary patent - Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 - Provisions concerning translation - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 291 TFEU - Delegation of powers to bodies outside the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 118 TFEU - Legal basis - Principle of autonomy of EU law))

(2015/C 213/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Chamizo Llatas and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Middleton, F. Florindo Gijón, M. Balta and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by C. Pochet, J.-C. Halleux and T. Materne, acting as Agents), Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by C. Thorning and M. Wolff, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze, M. Möller and J. Kemper, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, F.-X. Bréchot, D. Colas and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary (represented by Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by M. Holt, acting as Agent, and by J. Stratford QC and T. Mitcheson, Barrister), European Parliament (represented by M. Gómez-Leal, U. Rösslein and M. Dean, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by I. Martínez del Peral, T. van Rijn, B. Smulders and F. Bulst, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
1.

Article 7(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1632/2000 of 25 July 2000, in conjunction with Article 11 of that regulation, is to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that an economic agent must have been engaged in commercial activity as an importer ‘independently and on [his] own account’ must be satisfied not only for the purpose of the registration of such an agent as a ‘newcomer’ within the meaning of that provision but also that of ensuring that the agent may maintain that status in order to import bananas under the tariff quotas laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations;
Case C-686/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — X AB v Skatteverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Holdings for business purposes — Legislation of a Member State exempting capital gains and, by the same token, excluding deduction of capital losses — Transfer by a resident company of shares in a non-resident subsidiary — Capital loss resulting from a currency loss)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — X AB v Skatteverket

(Case C-686/13) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Holdings for business purposes — Legislation of a Member State exempting capital gains and, by the same token, excluding deduction of capital losses — Transfer by a resident company of shares in a non-resident subsidiary — Capital loss resulting from a currency loss)’

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X AB

Defendant: Skatteverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 of the TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the tax legislation of a Member State which, in principle, exempts capital gains on holdings for business purposes from corporation tax and, by the same token, excludes the deduction of capital losses on such holdings, even where those capital losses are due to currency losses.

( 1 ) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-361/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation No 883/2004 - Article 7 - Old-age benefit - Christmas bonus - Residence requirement))

(2015/C 371/02)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár, D. Martin and F. Schatz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
2.

orders the Italian Republic to pay the European Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 1 20 000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Italy (C-297/08, EU:C:2010:115), from the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Commission v Italy (C-297/08, EU:C:2010:115) is complied with,
3.

In a situation such as that at issue in the main actions, the courts of the Member States may not rely on judgments in which the judicature of the European Union annulled a regulation that had imposed anti-dumping duties, in so far as it related to certain exporting producers covered by it, in order to hold that the duties imposed on the products of other exporting producers covered by that regulation, and in the same situation as the exporting producers in respect of which the regulation was annulled, are not legally owed within the meaning of Article 236(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. As such a regulation has not been withdrawn by the institution of the European Union which adopted it, annulled by the judicature of the European Union or declared invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union in so far as it imposes duties on the products of those other exporting producers, those duties remain legally owed within the meaning of that provision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Ville de Mons v Base Company SA, formerly KPN Group Belgium SA

(Case C-346/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 13 - Fee for rights to install facilities - Scope - Municipal regulations making owners of mobile telephone transmission pylons and masts subject to payment of a tax))

(2015/C 398/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ville de Mons

Defendant: Base Company SA, formerly KPN Group Belgium SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding a tax, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, being imposed on the owner of free-standing structures, such as transmission pylons or masts intended to support the antennas required for the functioning of the mobile telecommunication network, and which it was not possible to place on an existing site.

(1) OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch Belgium v European Commission

(Case C-642/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement - Proof - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Reasonable time - Proportionality))

(2017/C 104/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch Belgium (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and N. Lorjé, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Villeroy & Boch Belgium SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
1.

Declares that, by failing to transpose completely or correctly Articles 2(19), (20), (26) and (27), 8(1), 9(2), 10(3) and 11(5) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by Directive 2008/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, points 1.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4 and 2.4.1 of Annex V to that directive and points 7.2 to 7.10 of Part A of Annex VII to that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions and Article 24 of that same directive;
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid — Spain) — Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava v Jose María Ariza Toledano

(Case C-117/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - National legislation providing for an employment contract of indefinite duration with a probationary period of one year - Implementation of EU law - None - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2015/C 107/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava

Defendant: Jose María Ariza Toledano

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid (Spain) by decision of 4 March 2014.

(1) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/13

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Zoran Spasic

(Case C-129/14 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 50 and 52 - Ne bis in idem principle - Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - Penalty which ‘has been enforced’ or which is ‘actually in the process of being enforced’))

2014/C 253/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

Party in the main proceedings

Zoran Spasic

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement in conjunction with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle — Condition that the penalty has been enforced, is actually in the process of being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing Contracting Party — Person having been convicted and penalised by a custodial sentence and a fine for the same facts in another Member State, but not having served his prison sentence.

Operative part of the judgment

1) 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 on 19 June 1990 and entered into force on 26 March 1995, which makes the application of the ne bis in idem principle subject to the condition that, upon conviction and sentencing, the penalty imposed ‘has been enforced’ or is ‘actually in the process of being enforced’, is compatible with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in which that principle is enshrined.

2) Article 54 of that convention must be interpreted as meaning that the mere payment of a fine by a person sentenced by the self-same decision of a court of another Member State to a custodial sentence that has not been served is not sufficient to consider that the penalty ‘has been enforced’ or is ‘actually in the process of being enforced’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland)) — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Telefonia Dialog sp. z o.o. v T-Mobile Polska SA, formerly Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa SA

(Case C-3/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Articles 7 and 20 - Resolution of disputes between undertakings providing electronic communications networks or services - Obligation to implement the procedure laid down in Article 7(3) - Measure which may have an effect on trade between Member States - Directive 2002/19/EC - Article 5 - Powers and responsibilities of the national regulatory authorities with regard to access and interconnection - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 28 - Non-geographic numbers))

(2015/C 198/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Telefonia Dialog sp. z o.o.

Defendant: T-Mobile Polska SA, formerly Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa SA

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 7(3) and 20 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) must be interpreted as meaning that a national regulatory authority is required to implement the procedure laid down in the former of those provisions if, in resolving a dispute between undertakings providing electronic communications networks or services in a Member State, it intends to impose obligations designed to ensure access to non-geographic numbers in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) and those obligations may affect trade between Member States.

2. Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21 must be interpreted as meaning that a measure adopted by a national regulatory authority in order to ensure that end-users have access to non-geographic numbers in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22 affects trade between Member States, within the meaning of that provision, if it may have, other than in an insignificant manner, an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on that trade, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
1.

Declares that, by maintaining in force, with respect to occasional workers in the entertainment arts, derogations from the measures designed to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work of 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/14

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 — JAS Jet Air Service France (SARL) v European Commission

(Case C-53/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Community Customs Code - Article 239 - Community Customs Code Implementing Regulation - Article 905 - Importation of jean trousers from the United States - Import duties - Decision declaring the refund of those duties unjustified - No ‘special situation’))

(2015/C 236/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: JAS Jet Air Service France (SARL) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders JAS Jet Air Service France SARL to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/12

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-227/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels - Price-fixing - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 13 - Determination of value of sales - Joint venture - Taking sales to parent companies into account - Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (2002) - Point 23(b), final paragraph - Partial immunity from fines - Evidence of facts previously unknown to the Commission))

(2015/C 205/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd (represented by: A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders LG Display Co. Ltd and LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
3.

Article 15b(1) of Directive 92/49, as amended by Directive 2007/44, must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, it does not preclude the competent national authority from imposing a requirement relating to corporate governance concerning, as in the case in the main proceedings, the composition of the supervisory boards of the insurance companies concerned by the proposed acquisition. It is for the national court to determine, by taking account of all the circumstances in the main proceedings, whether that requirement is necessary to enable the acquisitions at issue in the main proceedings to satisfy the criteria laid down in that provision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece)) — Konstantinos Maïstrellis v Ypourgos Dikaiosynis, Diafaneias kai Anthropinon Dikaiomaton

(Case C-222/14) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework agreement on parental leave - Clause 2.1 - Individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth of a child - National legislation denying the right to such leave for a staff member whose wife does not work - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1)(c) - Working conditions - Direct discrimination))

(2015/C 302/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Konstantinos Maïstrellis

Defendant: Ypourgos Dikaiosynis, Diafaneias kai Anthropinon Dikaiomaton

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997, and Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, must be interpreted as precluding national provisions under which a civil servant is not entitled to parental leave in a situation where his wife does not work or exercise any profession, unless it is considered that due to a serious illness or injury the wife is unable to meet the needs related to the upbringing of the child.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Fundação Eugénio de Almeida

(Case C-249/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Community figurative mark QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA - Application for registration - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national figurative marks VINHO PÊRAMANCA TINTO, VINHO PÊRAMANCA BRANCO and PÊRAMANCA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion))

(2015/C 294/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda (represented by J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda de Sousa, advogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Fundação Eugénio de Almeida (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J.M. Pimenta, advogados)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.