ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/3

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-261/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - International air freight forwarding services - Tariff agreement affecting the final price of services))

(2018/C 112/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz and C. Klöppner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge (United Kingdom)), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Shanghai (China)) and Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Hong-Kong (China)) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trapani — Italy) — Giuseppa Santoro v Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-494/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Fixed-term work - Contracts concluded with a public sector employer - Measures to penalise the misuse of fixed-term contracts - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness))

(2018/C 161/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Trapani

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Giuseppa Santoro

Defendants: Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 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 not precluding national legislation which, on the one hand, does not punish the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts by a public sector employer through the payment of compensation to the worker concerned for the lack of conversion of the fixed-term employment relationship into an employment relationship of indefinite duration, but, on the other hand, provides for the grant of compensation of between 2,5 and 12 times the last monthly salary of that worker together with the possibility for him to obtain full compensation for the harm by demonstrating, by way of presumption, the loss of opportunities to find employment or that, if a recruitment competition had been duly organised, he would have been successful, provided that such legislation is accompanied by an effective and dissuasive penalty mechanism, a matter which is for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Western Sahara Campaign UK v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(Case C-266/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco - Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities provided for by the agreement - Acts approving the conclusion of the agreement and of the protocol - Regulations allocating among the Member States the fishing opportunities set out by the protocol - Jurisdiction - Interpretation - Validity having regard to Article 3(5) TEU and international law - Applicability of that agreement and that protocol to the territory of Western Sahara and the waters adjacent thereto))

(2018/C 142/03)

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: The Queen, on the application of: Western Sahara Campaign UK

Defendants: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Intervener: Confédération marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader)

Operative part of the judgment

Since neither the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco nor the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco are applicable to the waters adjacent to the territory of Western Sahara, consideration of the first question referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 764/2006 of 22 May 2006 on the conclusion of that agreement, Council Decision 2013/785/EU of 16 December 2013 on the conclusion of that protocol, and Council Regulation (EU) No 1270/2013 of 15 November 2013 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under that protocol, in the light of Article 3(5) TEU.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/14

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürtingen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Faiz Rasool

(Case C-568/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Payment services - Directive 2007/64/EC - Article 3(e) and (o) - Article 4(3) - Annex - Point 2 - Scope - Operation of multifunctional terminals enabling cash withdrawals in gaming arcades - Consistency of the practice of the national authorities in bringing prosecutions - Confiscation of sums obtained by means of an unlawful activity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 17))

(2018/C 166/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürtingen

Party to the main proceedings

Faiz Rasool

Other party to the proceedings: Rasool Entertainment GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, read in conjunction with point 2 of the annex to the directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a cash withdrawal service offered by a gaming arcade operator to his customers by means of multifunctional terminals in those arcades is not a ‘payment service’ within the meaning of that directive, where the operator does not carry out any operation on those customers’ payment accounts and the activities he performs on that occasion are confined to making the terminals available and loading them with cash.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Volkswagen AG v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-533/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167 to 171 - Right to deduct VAT - Right to refunds of VAT for taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund - Article 178(a) - Rules governing the exercise of the right to deduct VAT - Directive 2008/9/EC - Detailed rules for the refund of VAT - Limitation period - Principle of fiscal neutrality - VAT charged and paid several years after delivery of the goods in question - Refusal to allow the exercise of the right to a refund due to the expiry of the time limit which should have started to run from the date of supply of the goods))

(2018/C 166/13)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Volkswagen AG

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings in which the value added tax (VAT) was charged to the taxable person and paid by it several years after delivery of the goods in question, the benefit of the right to claim a refund of VAT is denied on the grounds that the limitation period provided for by that legislation for the exercise of that right began to run from the date of supply and expired before the application for a refund was submitted.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
2.

A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings imposed on large retail establishments according, in essence, to their sales area does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU to the extent that it exempts establishments whose sales area is less than 2500 m2. Nor, in so far as that tax exempts establishments which pursue the business of a garden centre or of selling vehicles, construction materials, machinery or industrial supplies or reduces by 60 % the tax base of establishments selling furniture, sanitary ware and doors and windows and those that are do-it-yourself stores, does it constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, provided that those establishments do not have as significant an adverse effect on the environment and on town and country planning as the others, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. Such a tax does, however, constitute State aid within the meaning of that provision, to the extent that it exempts collective large retail establishments with a surface area equal to or greater than 2500 m2.
Case C-478/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Group OOD, Kosta Iliev (Appeal — EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Examination by the Board of Appeal — New or supplementary evidence — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Third subparagraph of Rule 50(1))

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Group OOD, Kosta Iliev

(Case C-478/16 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Examination by the Board of Appeal — New or supplementary evidence — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Third subparagraph of Rule 50(1))’

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, P. Ivanov and D. Stoyanova- Valchanova, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Group OOD (represented by: D. Dragiev and A. Andreev, advokati), Kosta Iliev (represented by: S. Ganeva, advokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs

( 1 ) OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Case C-426/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen VZW and Others v Vlaams Gewest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of animals at the time of killing — Particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites — Muslim Feast of Sacrifice — Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 — Article 2(k) — Article 4(4) — Obligation for ritual slaughtering without stunning to be carried out in approved slaughterhouses which satisfy the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 10 — Freedom of religion — Article 13 TFEU — Respect for national customs with regard to religious rites)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen VZW and Others v Vlaams Gewest

(Case C-426/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of animals at the time of killing — Particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites — Muslim Feast of Sacrifice — Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 — Article 2(k) — Article 4(4) — Obligation for ritual slaughtering without stunning to be carried out in approved slaughterhouses which satisfy the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 10 — Freedom of religion — Article 13 TFEU — Respect for national customs with regard to religious rites)’

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen VZW, Unie van Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van Limburg VZW, Unie van Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen Oost-Vlaanderen VZW, Unie der Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van West-Vlaanderen VZW, Unie der Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van Vlaams-Brabant VZW, Association Internationale Diyanet de Belgique IVZW, lslamitische Federatie van België VZW, Rassemblement des Musulmans de Belgique VZW, Erkan Konak, Chaibi El Hassan

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Intervening parties: Global Action in the Interest of Animals (GAIA) VZW

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question has not disclosed any issues capable of affecting the validity of Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, read together with Article 2(k) thereof, having regard to Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 13 TFEU.

( 1 ) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Joined Cases C-85/16 P and C-86/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 — Kenzo Tsujimoto v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Kenzo (Appeal — EU trade mark — Applications for registration of the word mark KENZO ESTATE — Earlier EU word mark KENZO — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) — Relative ground for refusal of registration — Reputation — Due cause)

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 — Kenzo Tsujimoto v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Kenzo

(Joined Cases C-85/16 P and C-86/16 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — EU trade mark — Applications for registration of the word mark KENZO ESTATE — Earlier EU word mark KENZO — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) — Relative ground for refusal of registration — Reputation — Due cause)’

Parties

Appellant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, M. Ring and W. von der Osten-Sacken, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Kenzo (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzaretti, F. Rossi and N. Parotta, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
Case C-564/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Puma SE (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) — Article 76 — Opposition proceedings — Relative grounds for refusal — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 19 — Rule 50(1) — Earlier decisions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark — Principle of sound administration — Taking account of those decisions in subsequent opposition proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Procedural obligations of the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Puma SE

(Case C-564/16 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) — Article 76 — Opposition proceedings — Relative grounds for refusal — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 19 — Rule 50(1) — Earlier decisions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark — Principle of sound administration — Taking account of those decisions in subsequent opposition proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Procedural obligations of the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO)’

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Puma SE (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Case C-650/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Corporation tax — Freedom of establishment — Resident company — Taxable profits — Tax relief — Deduction of losses incurred by resident permanent establishments — Authorised — Deduction of losses incurred by non-resident permanent establishments — Excluded — Exception — Optional scheme of international joint taxation)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-650/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Corporation tax — Freedom of establishment — Resident company — Taxable profits — Tax relief — Deduction of losses incurred by resident permanent establishments — Authorised — Deduction of losses incurred by non-resident permanent establishments — Excluded — Exception — Optional scheme of international joint taxation)’

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it is not possible for a resident company which has not opted for an international joint taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to deduct from its taxable profits losses incurred by a permanent establishment in another Member State, where, first, that company has exhausted the possibilities of deducting those losses available under the law of the Member State in which the establishment is situated and, second, it has ceased to receive any income from that establishment, so that there is no longer any possibility of the losses being taken into account in that Member State, which is for the national court to ascertain.

( 1 ) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
1.

Articles 7 and 20 of Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which lays down, as the principal method of fulfilling energy efficiency obligations, a mechanism of annual contribution to an Energy Efficiency National Fund, provided, on the one hand, that that legislation ensures the achievement of energy savings to an extent equivalent to the energy efficiency obligation schemes which may be implemented under Article 7(1) of that directive, and, on the other, that the requirements of Article 7(10) and (11) of that directive, are satisfied, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — proceedings brought by CX

(Case C-629/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - International road transport - Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey - Article 9 - Additional Protocol - Articles 41 and 42 - Freedom to provide services - Standstill clause - Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council - Articles 5 and 7 - Free movement of goods - National legislation restricting the right of road haulage undertakings with their seat in Turkey to operate their vehicles in the territory of the Member State concerned - Obligation to obtain an authorisation issued within the limits of a quota determined on the basis of a bilateral agreement concluded between that Member State and Turkey or a permit granted for a single transport of substantial public interest))

(2018/C 319/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

CX

Other party: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Schärding

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed on 12 September 1963 at Ankara by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part, concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, the Additional Protocol signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels, concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, and Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which road haulage undertakings with their seat in Turkey can transport goods by road to that Member State or through its territory only if they have passes issued within the limits of a quota determined for such transport on the basis of the bilateral agreement concluded between that Member State and the Republic of Turkey or if a permit has been granted to them on the ground of substantial public interest, provided that that legislation is not a new restriction on the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
2.

Where it is impossible to interpret a national rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings in a manner consistent with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the national court, before which a dispute between the legal heir of a deceased worker and the former employer of that worker has been brought, must disapply that national legislation and ensure that the legal heir receives payment from the employer of an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave acquired under those provisions and not taken by the worker before his death. That obligation on the national court is dictated by Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights where the dispute is between the legal heir and an employer which has the status of a public authority, and under the second of those provisions where the dispute is between the legal heir and an employer who is a private individual.