ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Article 5(1) of Regulation No 987/2009, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, read together with Article 19(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that an A1 certificate issued by the competent institution of a Member State under Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, is binding on both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the activity is carried out and the courts of that Member State so long as the certificate has not been withdrawn or declared invalid by the Member State in which was issued, even though the competent authorities of the latter Member State and the Member State in which the activity is carried out have brought the matter before the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems which held that that certificate was incorrectly issued and should be withdrawn. Article 5(1) of Regulation No 987/2009, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, read together with Article 19(2) thereof, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that an A1 certificate issued by the competent institution of a Member State under Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, binds both social security institutions of the Member State in which the activity is carried out and the courts of that Member State, if appropriate with retroactive effect, even though that certificate was issued only after that Member State determined that the worker concerned was subject to compulsory insurance under its legislation.
1.

Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute genetically modified organisms within the meaning of that provision. Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18, read in conjunction with point 1 of Annex I B to that directive and in the light of recital 17 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that only organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record are excluded from the scope of that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council of the European Union

(Case C-600/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Annulment of a listing by the General Court - Re-listing - Evidence dating from before the first listing - Facts known before the first listing - Res judicata - Scope - Legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations - Effective judicial protection - Reasons for the listing relating to logistical support to the Government of Iran - Scope - Activity of transporting crude oil))

(2019/C 35/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: National Iranian Tanker Company (represented by: T. de la Mare QC, M. Lester QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, and by R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley and C. Murphy, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders National Iranian Tanker Company to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
1.

Declares that, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations: — under Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC, and Articles 12 and 30 of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 371/2010 of 16 April 2010, by failing to take the measures necessary, within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, to re-establish conformity to their approved types of 133 713 vehicles of types 246, 176 and 117, sold by Daimler between 1 January and 26 June 2013, when they were fitted not with the refrigerant R1234yf declared for those approved types, but a refrigerant having a global warming potential which was greater than 150, contrary to the limit laid down in Article 5(4) of Directive 2006/40, and — under Directive 2006/40 and the combined provisions of Articles 46, 5 and 18 of Directive 2007/46, by failing to take the measures necessary to apply the penalties referred to in Article 46 of Directive 2007/46 within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, in order to ensure that manufacturers comply with Articles 5 and 18 of that directive, relating to the conformity of production and the issue of a certificate of conformity;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC v European Commission

(Case C-611/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Pharmaceutical products - Market for antidepressants (citalopram) - Settlement agreements relating to disputes concerning process patents concluded by a manufacturer of originator medicines who is the holder of those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines - Article 101 TFEU - Potential competition - Restriction by object - Characterisation - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Rights of the defence - Reasonable time - Loss of documents due to the passage of time - General duty of care - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Second subparagraph of Article 23(2) - Maximum amount of the fine - Taking into account the business year preceding that in which the European Commission’s decision was adopted - Last full year of normal economic activity)

(2021/C 206/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC (represented by: D.W. Hull, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, B. Rayment and D. Bailey, Barristers, G. Peretz QC, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and J. Holmes QC, and subsequently D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and J. Holmes QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS and Alpharma LLC to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament

(Case C-377/16) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Rules on languages - Selection procedure for contract staff - Call for expressions of interest - Drivers - Function group I - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the selection procedure to English, French and German - Language of communication - Regulation No 1 - Staff Regulations - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Discrimination based on language - Justification - Interests of the service)

(2019/C 187/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and M.A. Sampol Pucurull, Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Nessaf, C. Burgos and M. Rantala, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the Call for Expressions of Interest Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016;

2. Declares the database established pursuant to Call for Expressions of Interest Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016 void;

3. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs

(1) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
2.

Article 25(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the return decision accompanied by an entry ban issued by a Contracting State to a third-country national who is the holder of a valid residence permit issued by another Contracting State being enforced even though the consultation procedure laid down in that provision is ongoing, if that third-country national is regarded by the Contracting State issuing the alert as representing a threat to public order or national security, without prejudice to that third-country national’s entitlement to rely on the rights he derives from that residence permit by going subsequently to the territory of the second Contracting State. However, after a reasonable time from the initiation of the consultation procedure and in the absence of a response from the Contracting State consulted, the Contracting State issuing the alert for the purposes of refusing entry must withdraw it and, if necessary, put the third-country national on its national list of alerts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Cristal Union, the legal successor to Sucrerie de Toury SA v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-31/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(a) - Energy products used for the generation of electricity - Obligation to exempt - Article 15(1)(c) - Energy products used for combined heat and power generation - Option to exempt or reduce the level of taxation - Natural gas intended for use in the cogeneration of heat and electricity))

(2018/C 161/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cristal Union, the legal successor to Sucrerie de Toury SA

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the compulsory exemption provided for in that provision applies to energy products used for electricity generation, when such products are used for the combined generation of electricity and heat within the meaning of Article 15(1)(c) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/11

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Mitnitsa Varna v SAKSA ООD

(Case C-185/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Classification of goods - Harmonised European standard EN 590:2013 - Subheading 2710 19 43 of the Combined Nomenclature - Relevant criteria for the classification of goods as gas oil))

(2018/C 134/15)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mitnitsa Varna

Respondent: SAKSA ООD

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature contained 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 version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014 must be interpreted as meaning that a mineral oil, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may not, on account of its distillation characteristics, be classified as gas oil under subheading 2710 19 43 of that nomenclature, even when that oil meets the requirements referred to in harmonised standard EN 590:2013, in the version of the month of September 2013, relating to gas oil for arctic or severe winter climates.

(1) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Case C-229/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Evonik Degussa GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Free allocation — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Annex I — Decision 2011/278/EU — Annex I, Part 2 — Determination of product benchmarks — Production of hydrogen — System boundaries of the product benchmark for hydrogen — Process element of separation of hydrogen in a rich gas stream which already contains hydrogen)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Evonik Degussa GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-229/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Free allocation — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Annex I — Decision 2011/278/EU — Annex I, Part 2 — Determination of product benchmarks — Production of hydrogen — System boundaries of the product benchmark for hydrogen — Process element of separation of hydrogen in a rich gas stream which already contains hydrogen)’

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Evonik Degussa GmbH

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Operative part of the judgment

Annex I, Part 2, to Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that a process, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not produce hydrogen by chemical synthesis, but only isolates hydrogen already contained in a gas mixture, does not fall within the system boundaries of the product benchmark for hydrogen. It would be otherwise only if that process, first, is associated with ‘production of hydrogen’ within the meaning of Annex I to 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, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 and, second, have a technical connection with it.

( 1 ) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Case C-110/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax on the income of Belgian residents — Calculation of income from immovable property — Application of two different calculation methods depending on the place in which the immovable property is situated — Calculation on the basis of the cadastral value for immovable property located in Belgium — Calculation based on the actual rental value for immovable property located in another Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA) — Difference in treatment — Restriction on the free movement of capital)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-110/17) ( 1 )

‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax on the income of Belgian residents — Calculation of income from immovable property — Application of two different calculation methods depending on the place in which the immovable property is situated — Calculation on the basis of the cadastral value for immovable property located in Belgium — Calculation based on the actual rental value for immovable property located in another Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA) — Difference in treatment — Restriction on the free movement of capital)’

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and N. Gossement, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: P. Cottin, M. Jacobs and L. Cornelis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by retaining provisions under which, in respect of the estimation of income relating to unrented immovable property or immovable property rented either to natural persons who do not use them for professional purposes or to legal persons which make such property available to natural persons for private purposes, the tax base is calculated on the basis of the cadastral value so far as immovable property on national territory is concerned, and on the actual rental value so far as immovable property located outside Belgium is concerned, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case C-169/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Productores de Ganado Porcino v Administración del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 35 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Protection of pigs — Products processed or marketed in Spain — Quality standards for meat, ham, shoulder ham and loin derived from Iberian pigs — Conditions for using the ‘de cebo’ designation — Improvement of the quality of products — Directive 2008/120/EC — Scope)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Productores de Ganado Porcino v Administración del Estado

(Case C-169/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 35 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Protection of pigs — Products processed or marketed in Spain — Quality standards for meat, ham, shoulder ham and loin derived from Iberian pigs — Conditions for using the ‘de cebo’ designation — Improvement of the quality of products — Directive 2008/120/EC — Scope)’

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Productores de Ganado Porcino

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 34 and 35 TFEU must be interpreted as follows: — Article 34 TFEU does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the sales designation ‘ibérico de cebo’ may be granted only to products that comply with certain conditions imposed by that legislation, since that legislation permits the importation and marketing of products from Member States other than the State that adopted the legislation at issue, under the designations they bear pursuant to the rules of the Member State of origin, even if they are similar, comparable or identical to the designations provided for in the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings. — Article 35 TFEU does not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

2. Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, read in conjunction with Article 12 of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, providing that the use of certain sales designations for Iberian pig products processed or marketed in Spain is subject to producers complying with conditions for the rearing of Iberian pigs that are more stringent than those laid down in Article 3(1)(a) as well as a condition imposing a minimum slaughter age of 10 months.

( 1 ) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Case C-160/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Raoul Thybaut, Johnny De Coster, Frédéric Romain v Région wallonne (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of ‘plans and programmes’ — Article 3 — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Urban land consolidation area — Possibility of derogating from town planning requirements — Modification of the ‘plans and programmes’)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Raoul Thybaut, Johnny De Coster, Frédéric Romain v Région wallonne

(Case C-160/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of ‘plans and programmes’ — Article 3 — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Urban land consolidation area — Possibility of derogating from town planning requirements — Modification of the ‘plans and programmes’)’

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Raoul Thybaut, Johnny De Coster, Frédéric Romain

Defendant: Région wallonne

Interveners: Commune d’Orp-Jauche, Bodymat SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a), Article 3(1) and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that an order adopting an urban land consolidation area, the sole purpose of which is to determine a geographical area within which an urban development plan may be carried out with the objective of renovating and developing urban functions and requiring the creation, modification, removal or overhang of roads and public spaces in carrying out that plan, in respect of which it will be permissible to derogate from certain planning requirements, comes, because of that possibility of derogation, within the concept of ‘plans and programmes’ likely to have significant effects on the environment within the meaning of that directive, thereby necessitating an environmental assessment.

( 1 ) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.