ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Franz Lesar v Beim Vorstand der Telekom Austria AG eingerichtetes Personalamt

(Case C-159/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(a) - Article 6(2) - Age discrimination - Determination of pension rights of former civil servants - Periods of apprenticeship and of work - Failure to take into account such periods completed before the age of 18))

(2016/C 305/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Franz Lesar

Defendant: Beim Vorstand der Telekom Austria AG eingerichtetes Personalamt

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1), 2(2)(a) and 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the taking into account of periods of apprenticeship and of employment completed by a civil servant before reaching the age of 18 for the purpose of granting a pension entitlement and the calculation of the amount of his retirement pension, in so far as that legislation seeks to guarantee, within a civil service retirement scheme, a uniform age for admission to that scheme and a uniform age for entitlement to the retirement benefits provided under that scheme.

(1) OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
2.

Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a European arrest warrant based on the existence of an ‘arrest warrant’ within the meaning of that provision does not contain any reference to the existence of a national arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority must refuse to give effect to it if, in the light of the information provided pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, and any other information available to it, that authority concludes that the European arrest warrant is not valid because it was in fact issued in the absence of any national warrant separate from the European arrest warrant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/13

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-97/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8471 and 8521 - Explanatory notes - Agreement on trade in information technology products - ‘Screenplays’))

(2016/C 335/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

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, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that devices such as the screenplays at issue in the main proceedings, whose function is both to store multimedia files and to reproduce them on a television or video monitor, come under heading 8521 of that nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
2.

The second sentence of Article 9(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as precluding the proprietor of an EU trade mark from being able to claim compensation in respect of acts of third parties occurring before publication of an application for registration of a trade mark. In the case of acts of third parties committed during the period after publication of the application for registration of the mark concerned but before publication of its registration, the concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ in that provision refers to recovery of the profits actually derived by third parties from use of the mark during that period. On the other hand, that concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ rules out compensation for the wider harm which the proprietor of the mark may have suffered, including, as the case may be, moral prejudice.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — Hilde Orleans, Rudi Van Buel, Marina Apers (C-387/15) and Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle (C-388/15) v Vlaams Gewest

(Joined Cases C-387/15 and C-388/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Special areas of conservation - Natura 2000 site ‘Scheldt and Durme estuary from the Dutch border to Ghent’ - Development of a port area - Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site - Occurrence of adverse effects - Prior but not yet completed development of an area of an equivalent type to the part destroyed - Completion subsequent to the assessment - Article 6(3) and (4)))

(2016/C 343/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hilde Orleans, Rudi Van Buel, Marina Apers (C-387/15) and Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle (C-388/15)

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Intervening party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that measures, contained in a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site of Community importance, providing, prior to the occurrence of adverse effects on a natural habitat type present thereon, for the future creation of an area of that type, but the completion of which will take place subsequently to the assessment of the significance of any adverse effects on the integrity of that site, may not be taken into consideration in that assessment. Such measures can be categorised as ‘compensatory measures’, within the meaning of Article 6(4), only if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
1.

The second indent of Article 48(2)(a)(ii) of 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 meaning that, even if not transposed into national law, it satisfies the conditions for conferring on individuals rights that they may assert against a contracting authority before national courts, provided that that authority is a public entity or has been given responsibility, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a public-interest service under the control of the State and which has, for that purpose, special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA v European Commission

(Case C-101/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 - European market for automotive glass - Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Point 13 - Value of sales - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Second subparagraph of Article 23(2) - Statutory ceiling of the fine - Exchange rate for the calculation of the ceiling of the fine - Amount of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction - Mono-product undertakings - Proportionality - Equal treatment))

(2016/C 402/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA (represented by: S. Wisking and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors, and by C. Puech Baron, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and H. Leupold, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH and Pilkington Italia SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/12

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Nils-Johannes Kratzer v R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG

(Case C-423/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 3(1)(a) - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Article 14(1)(a) - Scope - Definition of ‘access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation’ - Application for a post for the purpose of acquiring the formal status of applicant only in order to claim compensation for discrimination - Abuse of rights))

(2016/C 350/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nils-Johannes Kratzer

Defendant: R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and Article 14(1)(a) of 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 meaning that a situation in which a person who in making an application for a post does not seek to obtain that post but only seeks the formal status of applicant with the sole purpose of seeking compensation does not fall within the definition of ‘access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation’, within the meaning of those provisions, and may, if the requisite conditions under EU law are met, be considered to be an abuse of rights.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/23

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 — Ori Martin SA C-490/15 P), Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) (C-505/15 P) v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-490/15 P and C-505/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Fines - Setting of the fines - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence by the parent company over the subsidiary - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of non-retroactivity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy within a reasonable time - Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 41 - Right to proceedings being conducted within a reasonable time))

(2016/C 419/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Ori Martin SA (C-490/15 P), Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) (C-505/15 P) (represented by: G. Belotti and P. Ziotti, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Conte and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals in cases C-490/15 P and C-505/15 P;

2. Orders Ori Martin SA to pay the costs in Case C-490/15 P;

3. Orders Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) to pay the costs in Case C-505/15 P.

(1) OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
1.

Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 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, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from being applied by the national courts of the Member State concerned in such a manner that, in the event of abuse resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts, a right to maintain the employment relationship is granted to persons employed by the authorities under an employment contract governed by the rules of employment law, but that right is not conferred, in general, on staff employed by those authorities under administrative law, unless there is another effective measure in the national law to penalise such abuses with regard to the latter staff, which it is for the national court to determine.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Servoprax GmbH v Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-277/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - In vitro diagnostic medical devices - Directive 98/79/EC - Parallel imports - Translation by the importer of the information and instructions for use provided by the manufacturer - Supplementary conformity assessment procedure))

(2016/C 462/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Servoprax GmbH

Defendant: Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9 of Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a parallel importer of a device for self-diagnosis for measuring blood sugar that bears a CE marking and that was the subject of a conformity assessment by a notified body to undertake a further assessment in order to certify the conformity of the labelling of that device and the instructions for its use as a result of their translation into the official language of the Member State of importation.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Jean-Michel Adrien and Others v Prime Minister, Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre de la Décentralisation et de la Fonction publique

(Case C-466/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - National detached officials within an EU institution or body - Old-age pension - Right to opt - Suspension or maintenance of the affiliation to the national pension scheme - Limitation on the aggregation of the pension acquired under the national pension scheme with that acquired under the EU pension scheme))

(2016/C 441/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jean-Michel Adrien, Frédéric Baron, Catherine Blanchin, Marc Bouillaguet, Anne-Sophie Chalhoub, Denis d’Ersu, Laurent Gravière, Vincent Cador, Roland Moustache, Jean-Richard de la Tour, Anne Schneider, Bernard Stamm, Éléonore von Bardeleben

Defendants: Prime Minister, Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre de la Décentralisation et de la Fonction publique

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has the effect that a national official seconded to an EU institution or body who chooses to remain affiliated to the national pension scheme for the duration of his secondment loses all or part of the advantages accruing from his affiliation to that scheme if he completes 10 years’ service with the European Union entitling him to a pension under the European Union pension scheme.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/18

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hecht-Pharma GmbH v Hohenzollern Apotheke, owned by Winfried Ertelt

(Case C-276/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Scope - Article 2(1) - Medicinal products prepared industrially or manufactured by a method involving an industrial process - Point 2 of Article 3 - Officinal formula))

(2017/C 006/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hecht-Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Hohenzollern Apotheke, owned by Winfried Ertelt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that a medicinal product for human use, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, under national legislation, does not require a marketing authorisation by reason of the proven frequency with which it is the subject of medical and dental prescriptions, the essential manufacturing steps for such products are carried out in a pharmacy as part of the normal pharmacy business producing in the course of one day up to 100 packages ready for dispensation and intended for supply under the existing pharmacy operating licence, cannot be regarded as having been prepared industrially or manufactured by a method involving an industrial process, within the meaning of that provision, and consequently does not come within the scope of that directive, subject to the findings of fact which it is for the referring court to make.

However, should those findings lead the referring court to take the view that the medicinal product at issue in the main proceedings has been prepared industrially or manufactured by a method involving an industrial process, the answer must also be that point 2 of Article 3 of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2011/62, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude provisions such as those laid down in Paragraph 21(2), point 1, of the Law on the marketing of medicinal products, read in conjunction with Paragraph 6(1) of the Regulation on the operation of pharmacies, in so far as those provisions, in essence, require pharmacists to comply with the pharmacopoeia when manufacturing officinal formulae. It is, however, for the referring court to determine whether, on the facts of the case before it, the medicinal product at issue in the main proceedings has been prepared in accordance with the prescriptions of a pharmacopoeia.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/17

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v Willem Hoogstad

(Case C-269/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 4 - Material scope - Deductions from statutory old-age pensions and all other supplementary benefits - Article 13 - Determination of the applicable legislation - Residence in another Member State))

(2017/C 006/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Defendant: Willem Hoogstad

Intervener: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) of 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 Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, precludes a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes levies of contributions that have a direct and sufficiently relevant link with the legislation governing the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of that regulation on payments made under supplementary pension schemes even though the beneficiary of that supplementary pension scheme does not reside in that Member State and is subject, in accordance with Article 13(2)(f) of that regulation, to the social security legislation of the Member State in which he resides.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten — Denmark) — Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring BV v Orifarm A/S

(Case C-297/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 7(2) - Medicinal products - Parallel import - Partitioning of the markets - Need for the repackaging of the product bearing the mark - Medicinal product placed on the exporting market and importing market by the trade mark proprietor with the same kind of packaging))

(2017/C 014/12)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Sø- og Handelsretten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring BV

Defendant: Orifarm A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may object to the continued marketing of a medicinal product by a parallel importer, where that importer has repackaged that medicinal product in a new, outer packaging and reaffixed the trade mark, where, first, the medicinal product at issue can be marketed in the importing State party to the EEA Agreement, of 2 May 1992, in the same packaging as that in which it is marketed in the exporting State party to the EEA Agreement and, second, the importer has not demonstrated that the imported product can only be marketed in a limited part of the importing State’s market, and those are matters which it is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.