ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C‑203/14

Consorci Sanitari del Maresme

v

Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva

(Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic)

‛Opening of the oral procedure — Holding a hearing’

Summary — Order of the Court (Grand Chamber) 24 April 2015

Judicial proceedings — Oral procedure — Holding a hearing in order to enable the parties referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice to submit their observations on a question raised by the Court

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83)

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 5-8)

Case C‑203/14

Consorci Sanitari del Maresme

v

Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva

(Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic)

‛Opening of the oral procedure — Holding a hearing’

Summary — Order of the Court (Grand Chamber) 24 April 2015

Judicial proceedings — Oral procedure — Holding a hearing in order to enable the parties referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice to submit their observations on a question raised by the Court

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83)

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 5-8)
1.

Articles 3(1), 4(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the assessment by the national court of the unfairness of contractual clauses coming under that directive requires it to take into account the nature of the goods and services which form the subject of the contract concerned by referring, in relation to the date of the conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances surrounding it.
2.

In so far the products at issue in the main proceedings consist of a heat sink and a fan and are intended exclusively for use in computers, which is a matter to be ascertained by the national court, they must be classified for tariff purposes on the basis of the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature provided for in 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 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007.
1.

Appeal — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see para. 8)
1.

Appeal — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it — Admissibility of a claim seeking substitution of grounds which amounts to a defence to one of the opposing party’s pleas (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56, second para.) (see paras 34-36)
2.

Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 51, 52)
3.

Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 33)
1.

Judicial proceedings — Intervention — Admissibility criteria — Interest in the result of the case — Meaning — Need for a direct and existing interest — Action for annulment brought against a decision of the Commission finding aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — No direct interest of a creditor relying on an infringement of its financial interests — Limits — Outcome capable of changing the legal situation of that creditor (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.) (see paras 5-7, 17-21, 26)
1.

Appeal — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 15, 27)
1.

Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 32)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 —

Signum Alfa Sped

(Case C‑446/15) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right of deduction — Refusal — Issuer of the invoice considered not to have been the real supplier of the invoiced services — Obligation on the taxable person to carry out checks)

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation—Common system of value added tax—Deduction of input tax—Refusal on the basis that the issuer of the invoice considered not to have been the real supplier of the invoiced services—Not permissible—Limits—Conditions—Addressee of the invoice who was aware, or should have been aware, of the fraud—Verification a matter for the national court (Council Directive 2006/112) (see paras 32, 33, 41-45, operative part.)

Operative part

The provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national practice under which the tax authorities refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax which is payable or paid in respect of services supplied to it on the ground that the invoices relating to those services lack verisimilitude since the issuer of those invoices could not be the real supplier of those services, unless it is established, in the light of objective factors and without the taxable person being required to carry out checks not required of it, that that taxable person knew or should have known that those services were involved in value added tax fraud, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

( 1 ) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2016 –

Cahier and Others v Council and Commission

(Case C‑227/15 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 — Article 28(1) — Compulsory distillation of the quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the normal quantity and not exported outside the Union — Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 — Distillation carried out by the producer himself in his capacity as distiller — Production of spirits with designation of origin’

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Claim for compensation for a prohibition imposed by EU law on wine producers from themselves distilling into spirits quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the quantity normally produced — No such prohibition — No liability (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No1493/1999, Art. 28; Commission Regulation No 1623/2000, Arts 41(1)(b), 42, 53, 54, 65(3), (8) and (9)) (see paras 33-35, 38, 43)

2. Appeal — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 42, 51, 54)

3. Appeal — Grounds — Lack of specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning — Failure to indicate the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal that are contested — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, al. 1; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 55-57)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Messrs Jean-Marie Cahier, Robert Aubineau, Laurent Bigot, Pascal Bourdeau, Jacques Brard-Blanchard, Olivier Charruaud, Daniel Chauvet, Régis Chauvet, Fabrice Compagnon, Francis Crepeau, Philippe Davril, Bernard Deborde, Ms Chantal Goulard, Messrs Jean-Pierre Gourdet, Bernard Goursaud, Jean Gravouil, Guy Herbelot, Rodrigue Herbelot, Ms Sophie Landrit, Messrs Michel Mallet, Michel Merlet, Alain Phelipon, Claude Potut, Philippe Pruleau, Philippe Riche, Ms Françoise Rousseau, Mr René Roy and Ms Pascale Rulleaud-Beaufour shall bear their own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

( 1 ) OJ C 311 du 21.9.2015.
3.

Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 32)
1.

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Weighing-up of the interests — Judgment of the General Court which partially annulled a regulation — Application for interim measures seeking to maintain the effects of a judgment of the General Court and satisfying the condition of a prima facie case — Circumstance not sufficient to relax the condition relating to urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3)) (see paras 19-21, 24, 25)
Judicial proceedings—Costs—Taxation—Recoverable costs—Elements to be taken into consideration—Discretion of the Court—Costs incurred in the context of an appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 144(b) and 184(1))

(see paras 10, 11, 18)
It is apparent from the very wording of clause 2(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, that the scope of the Framework Agreement is conceived in broad terms, covering generally ‘fixed-term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined in law, collective agreements or practices in each Member State’. In addition, the definition of fixed-term workers for the purposes of the Framework Agreement, set out in clause 3(1), encompasses all workers without drawing a distinction according to whether their employer is in the public or private sector. Since the Framework Agreement does not exclude any particular sector from its scope, it is therefore applicable to staff recruited in the veterinary health inspection sector.

It follows that a worker employed in the public sector as veterinary assistant in the veterinary health inspection sector, whose employment contract is, under national law, necessarily concluded by their employer for a fixed duration, comes within the scope of the Framework Agreement.

(see paras 33-35)
13

Article 2 of that decree provides: ‘1. The reference price referred to in this Decree may not exceed the lowest price actually applied by the person announcing the reduction for a similar article or service in the same retail establishment or on an e-commerce website in the 30 days directly preceding the launch of the advertisement. The reference price set in this way may be maintained where reductions in price are announced consecutively throughout a single commercial operation, for a duration of one month, starting from the date of the first announcement of the price reduction, or throughout a single sales or clearance period. The person announcing the price reduction must be able to prove by means of bills, slips, order forms, till receipts or any other document, all the prices that he applied in practice during the relevant period, where asked to do so by the agents referred to in Article L. 450-1 of the Commercial Code. 2. The person announcing the price reduction may also use, as the reference price, the price recommended by the manufacturer or importer of the product or the maximum price resulting from a provision of the economic rules. He must in this case be able to demonstrate to the agents referred to in Article L. 450-1 of the Commercial Code that the references are genuine and that these prices are currently available from the other distributors of that same product. 3. Where a similar item has not previously been sold at the same point of sale or on the same e-commerce website, and where a manufacturer or importer no longer recommends a price, price reduction announcements caught by Article 1 may be set by reference to the last recommended price, as long as the latter does not precede the launch of the advertisement by three years or more. In these circumstances, the price reduction announcement shall indicate next to the reference price the mention “recommended price” along with the year to which this price relates. Upon request by the agents referred to in Article L. 450(1) of the Commercial Code, the person announcing the price reduction must be able to show that this recommended price existed and that it has been applied.’
Order of the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2019 — ECB v Mallis and Others

(Case C‑105/15 P-DEP)

(Taxation of costs)

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer — Included — Elements to be taken into consideration for the purposes of taxation

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 144(b) and 184(1))

(see paras 15-17, 19, 20)

Operative part

The total costs to be reimbursed by Mr Konstantinos Mallis, Ms Elli Konstantinou Malli, Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou, Mr Petros Chatzithoma, Ms Elenitsa Chatzithoma, Ms Lella Chatziioannou and Mr Marinos Nikolaou to the European Central Bank in Cases C‑105/15 P to C‑109/15 P are fixed at EUR 6 553.65.
20

It was in those circumstances that the Judecătoria Satu Mare (Court of First Instance, Satu Mare), decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13, as regards the definition of “consumer”, be interpreted as including in or, conversely, as excluding from, that definition natural persons who have, as guarantors/sureties, concluded additional acts and contracts (guarantee contracts, contracts providing immovable property as security) ancillary to the credit agreement entered into by a commercial company for the purposes of its business, where those natural persons have no connection with the activities of the commercial company and have acted for purposes unconnected with their trade, business or profession, in the light of the fact that, initially, the applicants were natural persons acting as guarantors of the principal debtor — a legal person of which one of the applicants was director — in connection with a loan agreement concluded with the defendant creditor, but subsequently the agreement in question was amended and the original debtor, of which the applicant referred to above was director, entered into a novation of the loan, with the agreement of the defendant creditor, with another legal person, neither of the applicants holding the position of director of that legal person but having undertaken, as sureties, for the benefit of the new debtor (a legal person), the obligation under the novation vis-à-vis the new debtor? (2) Must Article 1(1) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as meaning that only contracts concluded between traders and consumers concerning the sale of goods or supply of services fall within the ambit of that directive or as meaning that contracts (contracts of guarantee and of surety) ancillary to a credit agreement, the beneficiary of which is a commercial company, concluded by natural persons who have no connection with the activities of that commercial company and who have acted for purposes unconnected with their trade, business or profession also fall within the ambit of that directive, in the light of the fact that, initially, the applicants were natural persons acting as guarantors of the principal debtor — a legal person of which one of the applicants was director — in connection with a loan agreement concluded with the defendant creditor, but that subsequently the agreement in question was amended and the original debtor, of which the applicant referred to above was director, entered into a novation of the loan, with the agreement of the defendant creditor, with another legal person, neither of the applicants being director of that legal person but having undertaken, as sureties, for the benefit of the new debtor (a legal person), the obligation under the novation vis-à-vis the new debtor?’
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EUIPO

(Case C‑379/16 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public service contracts — Software development and maintenance services — Misinterpretation of the arguments and distortion of the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the General Court)

Appeals—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Review by the Court of the findings of fact—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall bear their own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 —

Edra Costruzioni and Edilfac

(Case C‑140/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a tendering procedure — Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work — Judicial obligation to include such a reference — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Questions identical to those already ruled on in the case-law—Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 19-21)

2. Approximation of laws—Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts—Directive 2004/18—Principle of equal treatment of tenderers—Obligation of transparency—Exclusion of an economic operator which has not complied with an obligation which was not expressly laid down in the contract documentation or in the national law from participating in a contract—No possibility of rectifying that omission—Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Arts 27(1) and 49 to 51) (see paras 32-35, operative part)

Operative part

The principle of equality of treatment and the duty of transparency, as implemented by Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of a tenderer from a procedure for the award of a public works contract as a result of the tender’s failure to comply with a requirement to indicate clearly in the tender the business charges relating to safety and security at work — for which the penalty for non-compliance is exclusion from the procedure — a requirement which arises, not expressly from the procurement documents or from national legislation, but from an interpretation of that legislation and the filling of gaps in those documents by the national court adjudicating at last instance. The principles of equality of treatment and of proportionality must also be interpreted as not precluding such a tenderer from being afforded the opportunity of remedying the situation and satisfying that requirement within a time limit set by the awarding authority.

( 1 ) OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
Order of the Vice-president of the Court of 14 June 2016 —

Chemtura Netherlands v EFSA

(Case C‑134/16 P(R))

‛Appeal — Order for interim measures — Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market — Publication of documents relating to that procedure — Application for confidential treatment of certain information contained in those documents — Rejection — Application for suspension of the decision rejecting the application for confidential treatment and for the grant of other interim measures — Urgency’

Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate or contradictory grounds — Scope of the obligation to state reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 119) (see paras 46-47)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal—Grounds—Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal—Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 5)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 —

TVR Italia v EUIPO

(Case C‑576/16 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative mark containing the word elements “TVR ITALIA” — Rejection of the application for registration)

Appeal—Grounds—Lack of specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning and of legal arguments in support of the appeal—Inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d) and 169)

(see para. 3)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
1.

Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Interest in bringing proceedings—Need for an actual and current interest—Assessment at the time when the action was lodged—Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 32-35)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 October 2016 —

Médis v EUIPO

(Case C‑313/16 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Signed original of the application — Lodgement out of time — Handwritten signature — Defect capable of being rectified — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Signed original of the application not submitted before expiry of the time limit — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 51(4), 73(1), 78(6) and 177(7)) (see paras 4, 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Case C‑192/16

Stephen Fisher and Others

v

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 355(3) TFEU — Status of Gibraltar — Article 49 TFEU — Article 63 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Purely internal situation)

Summary — Order of the Court (Second Chamber), 12 October 2017

EU Treaties—Territorial scope—Gibraltar—Included—Freedom of establishment—Free movement of capital—Applicability (Arts 49 TFEU, 63 TFEU and 355(3) TFEU) Freedom of establishment—Free movement of capital—Provisions of the Treaty—Not applicable in a situation purely internal to a Member State—Exercise of the freedom of establishment or of free movement of capital between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar—Purely internal situation (Arts 49 TFEU, 63 TFEU and 355(3) TFEU)