ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/19

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sibiu — Romania) — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP) v Vasile Toma, Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horațiu-Vasile Cruduleci

(Case C-205/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right of access to a court - Principle of equality of arms - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Proceedings for the enforcement of a judicial decision ordering the repayment of a tax levied in breach of EU law - Exemption of public authorities from certain legal costs - Jurisdiction of the Court))

(2016/C 335/25)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP)

Defendants: Vasile Toma, Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horațiu-Vasile Cruduleci

Operative part of the judgment

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which exempts legal persons governed by public law from judicial stamping fees when they lodge an objection to the enforcement of a judicial decision relating to the repayment of taxes levied in breach of EU law and exempts those persons from the obligation to lodge a security at the time of bringing an application for a stay of such enforcement proceedings, while the applications submitted by legal and natural persons governed by private law in the context of such procedures remain, in principle, subject to court costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Città Metropolitana di Bari, formerly Provincia di Bari v Edilizia Mastrodonato Srl

(Case C-147/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the environment - Waste management - Directive 2006/21/EC - Article 10(2) - Backfilling of excavation voids using waste other than extractive waste - Landfill or recovery of such waste))

(2016/C 350/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Città Metropolitana di Bari, formerly Provincia di Bari

Defendant: Edilizia Mastrodonato Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC must be interpreted as not having the effect of making an operation entailing the backfilling of a quarry using waste other than extractive waste subject to the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, where that operation amounts to a recovery of waste, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
2.

Article 71(3) of Regulation No 1698/2005, read in conjunction with Article 30 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the rejection in its entirety of a payment claim relating to an operation selected for European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development co-financing where certain expenditure incurred in respect of that operation was incurred prior to the adoption of the decision granting such support, where the beneficiary of the support did not intentionally make a false declaration in its payment claim.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/24

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 — Trafilerie Meridionali SpA v European Commission

(Case C-519/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Fines - Setting of the fines - 2006 Guidelines for the setting of fines - Point 35 - Unlimited jurisdiction - Obligation to state reasons - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy within a reasonable time))

(2016/C 419/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Trafilerie Meridionali SpA (represented by: P. M. Ferrari and G. Lamicela, 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 appeal;

2. Orders Trafilerie Meridionali SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Geertruida Dekker

(Case C-160/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition - Internet - Hyperlinks giving access to protected works, made accessible on another website without the rightholder’s consent - Works not yet published by the rightholder - Posting of such links for a profit))

(2016/C 402/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GS Media BV

Defendants: Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Geertruida Dekker

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether the fact of posting, on a website, hyperlinks to protected works, which are freely available on another website without the consent of the copyright holder, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, it is to be determined whether those links are provided without the pursuit of financial gain by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website or whether, on the contrary, those links are provided for such a purpose, a situation in which that knowledge must be presumed.

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Campobasso — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Gianpaolo Paoletti and Others

(Case C-218/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 6 TEU - Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principle of retroactivity of the more lenient criminal law - Italian nationals having organised the illegal entry into Italy of Romanian nationals - Acts carried out before the accession of Romania to the European Union - Effect of Romania’s accession on the criminal offence of facilitation of illegal immigration - Implementation of EU law - Jurisdiction of the Court))

(2016/C 441/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Campobasso

Parties in the main proceedings

Gianpaolo Paoletti, Umberto Castaldi, Domenico Faricelli, Antonio Angelucci, Mauro Angelucci, Antonio D’Ovidio, Camillo Volpe, Giampaolo Canzano, Raffaele Di Giovanni, Antonio Della Valle

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 TEU and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the accession of a State to the European Union does not preclude another Member State imposing a criminal penalty on persons who committed, before the accession, the offence of facilitation of illegal immigration for nationals of the first State.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/10

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 September 2016 — Ledra Advertising Ltd (C-8/15 P), Andreas Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Eleni Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Lilia Papachristofi (C-9/15 P), Christos Theophilou (C-10/15 P), Eleni Theophilou (C-10/15 P) v European Commission, European Central Bank

(Joined Cases C-8/15 P to C-10/15 P) (1)

((Appeals - Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) - Duties of the European Commission and the European Central Bank - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Conditions - Obligation to ensure that the Memorandum of Understanding is consistent with EU law))

(2016/C 419/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ledra Advertising Ltd (C-8/15 P), Andreas Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Eleni Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Lilia Papachristofi (C-9/15 P), Christos Theophilou (C-10/15 P), Eleni Theophilou (C-10/15 P) (represented by: A. Paschalides, dikigoros, A. Paschalidou, Barrister, and A. Riza QC, instructed by C. Paschalides, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (represented by: K. Laurinavičius and O. Heinz, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 10 November 2014, Ledra Advertising v Commission and ECB (T-289/13, EU:T:2014:981), of 10 November 2014, Eleftheriou and Papachristofi v Commission and ECB (T-291/13, not published, EU:T:2014:978), and of 10 November 2014, Theophilou v Commission and ECB (T-293/13, not published, EU:T:2014:979);

2. Dismisses the actions brought before the General Court in Cases T-289/13, T-291/13 and T-293/13;

3. Orders Ledra Advertising Ltd, Andreas Eleftheriou, Eleni Eleftheriou, Lilia Papachristofi, Christos Theophilou, Eleni Theophilou, the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) each to bear their own costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
1.

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), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, is to be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation which entails the merger of a national regulatory authority, within the meaning of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, with other national regulatory authorities, such as the authorities responsible for competition, the postal sector and the energy sector, in order to create a multisectoral regulatory body responsible, inter alia, for the tasks entrusted to national regulatory authorities, within the meaning of that directive, as amended, provided that, in performing those tasks, that body meets the requirements of competence, independence, impartiality and transparency laid down by that directive and that an effective right of appeal is available against its decisions to a body independent of the parties involved, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 — Land Hessen v Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG, European Commission

(Case C-242/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in the Land of Hessen - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Calculation of the aid element of State guarantees - Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees))

(2016/C 462/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Land Hessen (represented by: U. Soltész and A. Richter, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Heithecker and J. Ylinen, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Land Hessen to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/13

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Stadt Wiener Neustadt v Niederösterreichische Landesregierung

(Case C-348/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Directive 2011/92/EU - Scope - Concept of ‘specific act of national legislation’ - No environmental impact assessment - Definitive authorisation - Legislative regularisation a posteriori of the lack of environmental impact assessment - Principle of cooperation - Article 4 TEU))

(2017/C 014/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stadt Wiener Neustadt

Defendant: Niederösterreichische Landesregierung

Intervening party: .A.S.A. Abfall Service AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(5) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers a project subject to a legislative provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a project which has been the subject of a decision taken in breach of the obligation to assess its effects on the environment, in respect of which the time limit for an action for annulment has expired, must be regarded as lawfully authorised. EU law precludes such a legislative provision insofar as it provides that a prior environmental impact assessment must be deemed to have been carried out for such a project.

(1) OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
1.

Declares that, by providing, over and above the requirements of Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles, and notwithstanding a previous conformity assessment of pyrotechnic articles, that (i) those articles are to be subject to the procedure laid down in Paragraph 6(4) of the Erste Verordnung zum Sprengstoffgesetz (First Regulation relating to the Law on Explosives), as amended by the Law of 25 July 2013, before being placed on the market; and that (ii) pursuant to that paragraph, the Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und-prüfung (Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing, Germany) is to have the power to review and, where required, to modify their instructions for use, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 2007/23/EC;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/12

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 2016 — European Commission v French Republic, Orange, Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-486/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Financial measures for France Télécom - Shareholder loan offer - Public statements by representatives of the French State - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Definition of ‘aid’ - Concept of ‘economic advantage’ - Prudent private investor criterion - Obligation of the General Court to state reasons - Limits of judicial review - Distortion of the decision at issue))

(2017/C 030/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, B. Stromsky, D. Grespan and T. Rusche, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and D. Colas and by J. Bousin, acting as Agents), Orange, formerly France Télécom (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, avocats), Federal Republic of Germany

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marc Soulier, Sara Doke v Premier ministre, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication

(Case C-301/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Copyright and related rights - Articles 2 and 3 - Rights of reproduction and communication to the public - Scope - ‘Out-of-print’ books which are not or no longer published - National legislation giving a collecting society rights to exploit out-of-print books for commercial purposes - Legal presumption of the authors’ consent - Lack of a mechanism ensuring authors are actually and individually informed))

(2017/C 014/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marc Soulier, Sara Doke

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication

Intervening parties: Société française des intérêts des auteurs de l’écrit (SOFIA), Joëlle Wintrebert and Others

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) and Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that gives an approved collecting society the right to authorise the reproduction and communication to the public in digital form of ‘out-of-print’ books, namely, books published in France before 1 January 2001 which are no longer commercially distributed by a publisher and are not currently published in print or in digital form, while allowing the authors of those books, or their successors in title, to oppose or put an end to that practice, on the conditions that that legislation lays down.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
1.

Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person holding a licence to carry on an activity as a self-employed craftsman must be regarded as an ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of that provision, and a transaction concluded by him as a ‘commercial transaction’ within the meaning of that provision, where that transaction, although not part of the activities covered by the licence, forms part of the exercise of an independent economic or professional activity that is structured and stable, which is for the referring court to ascertain in the light of all the circumstances of the case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against A, B

(Case C-453/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 56 - Place where services are supplied - Concept of ‘similar rights’ - Transfer of greenhouse gas emission allowances))

(2017/C 038/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

A, B

Intervener: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘similar rights’ mentioned in that provision include the greenhouse gas emission allowances defined in Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC.

(1) OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-128/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Fisheries - Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 - Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 - Validity - Fishing opportunities - Precautionary approach - Principle of relative stability of fishing activities - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment - Roundnose grenadier and roughhead grenadier))

(2017/C 063/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, A. de Gregorio Merino and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, I. Galindo Martín and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — Club Hotel Loutraki v European Commission, Hellenic Republic, Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP)

(Case C-131/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Operation of Video Lottery Terminals - Grant by a Member State of an exclusive licence - Decision finding no State aid - Article 108(3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 4, 7 and 13 - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Concept of ‘serious difficulties’ - Date of the assessment - Article 296 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘economic advantage’ - Joint assessment of the measures notified))

(2017/C 053/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE, Kazino Aigaiou AE (represented by: I. Ioannidis, dikigoros, and S. Pappas, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Hellenic Republic, Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) (represented by: A. Tomtsis, dikigoros, and M. Petite, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE and Kazino Aigaiou AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.