ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Constitucional Madrid — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Stefano Melloni

(Case C-399/11) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Surrender procedures between Member States - Decisions rendered at the end of proceedings in which the person concerned has not appeared in person - Execution of a sentence pronounced in absentia - Possibility of review of the judgment)

2013/C 114/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Constitucional Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Criminal proceedings against: Stefano Melloni

Other party: Ministerio Fiscal

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Constitucional Madrid (Spain) — Interpretation of Article 4a of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24) and of Articles 47, 48 and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Decisions handed down at the end of proceedings during which the person concerned was not present in person — Execution of a sentence handed down in absentia — Possibility for the judgment to be reviewed

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as precluding the executing judicial authorities, in the circumstances specified in that provision, from making the execution of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a sentence conditional upon the conviction rendered in absentia being open to review in the issuing Member State.

2. Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is compatible with the requirements under Articles 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3. Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not allowing a Member State to make the surrender of a person convicted in absentia conditional upon the conviction being open to review in the issuing Member State, in order to avoid an adverse effect on the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence guaranteed by its constitution.

(1) OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — H.I.D., B.A. v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-175/11) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Common European Asylum System - Application by a national of a third country seeking refugee status - Directive 2005/85/EC - Article 23 - Possibility of prioritising the processing of asylum applications - National procedure applying a prioritised procedure for the examination of applications by persons belonging to a certain category defined on the basis of nationality or country of origin - Right to an effective judicial remedy - Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 - Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of that article)

2013/C 86/04

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: H.I.D., B.A.

Defendants: Refugee Applications Commissioner, Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Articles 23 and 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13) — Application by a national of a non-member country for refugee status — Conformity with European Union law of a national procedure which provides for the application of an accelerated or prioritised procedure for examining asylum applications brought by persons belonging to a category defined on the basis of nationality or country of origin — Right to an effective remedy — Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 23(3) and (4) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from examining by way of prioritised or accelerated procedure, in compliance with the basic principles and guarantees set out in Chapter II of that directive, certain categories of asylum applications defined on the basis of the criterion of the nationality or country of origin of the applicant.

2. Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows an applicant for asylum either to lodge an appeal against the decision of the determining authority before a court or tribunal such as the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (Ireland), and to bring an appeal against the decision of that tribunal before a higher court such as the High Court (Ireland), or to contest the validity of that determining authority’s decision before the High Court, the judgments of which may be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court (Ireland).

(1) OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — European Commission v Systran SA, Systran Luxembourg SA

(Case C-103/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Articles 225(1) EC, 235 EC and 288, second paragraph, EC - Action in non-contractual liability against the European Community - Assessment of the non-contractual character of the dispute - Jurisdiction of the Community Courts)

2013/C 164/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, E. Montaguti and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Berenboom, avocaat, and M. Isgour, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Systran SA, Systran Luxembourg SA (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer and E. De Boissieu, avocats)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission, concerning an action for damages in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants at first instance as a result of unlawful conduct which occurred following a Commission invitation to tender concerning the maintenance and linguistic strengthening of its system of automatic translation — Erroneous assessment and contradictions concerning the non-contractual nature of the dispute — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Disregard of the rules concerning the taking of evidence — Manifest error of assessment regarding the sufficiently serious nature of the breach constituted by the Commission’s supposed fault — Failure to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission;

2. Dismisses the action of Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA in Case T-19/07;

3. Orders Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission before the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Ablessio SIA

(Case C-527/11) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 213, 214 and 273 - Identification of taxable persons subject to VAT - Refusal to assign a VAT identification number on the ground that the taxable person is not in possession of the material, technical and financial resources to carry out the declared economic activity - Legality - Countering tax evasion - Principle of proportionality)

2013/C 141/10

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant: Ablessio SIA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 214 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), read in conjunction with Article 273 of that directive — National legislation providing the possibility to refuse registration on the register of taxable persons identified for VAT purposes if the taxable person does not provide information or provides false information concerning his material, technical and financial capacity to carry out the declared economic activity — Refusal to register a company on the register of taxable persons identified for VAT purposes on the ground that it is not able to carry out the declared economic activity.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 213, 214 and 273 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 tax authority of a Member State may not refuse to assign a value added tax identification number to a company solely on the ground that, in the opinion of that authority, the company does not have at its disposal the material, technical and financial resources to carry out the economic activity declared, and that the owner of the shares in that company has already obtained, on various occasions, such an identification number for companies which never carried out any real economic activity, and the shares of which were transferred immediately after obtaining the individual number, where the tax authority concerned has not established, on the basis of objective factors, that there is sound evidence leading to the suspicion that the value added tax identification number assigned will be used fraudulently. It is for the referring court to assess whether that tax authority provided serious evidence of the existence of a risk of tax evasion in the case in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Karl Berger v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-636/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Consumer protection - Food safety - Public information - Placing on the market of food unfit for human consumption, but not constituting a health risk)

2013/C 156/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Karl Berger

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht München I — Interpretation of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1) — Scope ratione temporis — Rules of national law under which the public may be informed in cases where a foodstuff which is unfit for consumption and nauseating in appearance, but which does not constitute a specific risk to health, is placed on the market

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation allowing information to be issued to the public mentioning the name of a food and the name or trade name of the food manufacturer, processor or distributor, in a case where that food, though not injurious to health, is unfit for human consumption. The second subparagraph of Article 17(2) of that regulation must be interpreted as allowing, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, national authorities to issue such information to the public in accordance with the requirements of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules.

(1) OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/16

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2013 — Seven for all mankind LLC v Seven SpA — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-655/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier word mark - Element ‘SEVEN’ - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Relative ground for refusal)

2013/C 114/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Seven for all mankind LLC (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac and B. Guimberteau, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Seven SpA (represented by: L. Trevisan, avvocato), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 in Case T-176/10 SEVEN v OHIM — SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND, by which that Court annulled Decision R 1514/2008-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 January 2010 rejecting the action against the decision annulling the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected in part the opposition filed by the owner of the Community and international figurative marks containing the word element ‘Seven’ in respect of goods within Classes 3, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 25 and 28, against the registration of the word mark ‘SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND’ in respect of goods within Classes 14 and 18 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Factors to be taken into account when assessing the similarity of the signs

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Seven for all mankind LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Seven SpA;

3. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság — Hungary) — Erika Jőrös v Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.

(Case C-397/11) (1)

(Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Examination by the national court, of its own motion, as to whether a contractual term is unfair - Consequences to be drawn by the national court from a finding that the term is unfair)

2013/C 225/12

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly known as Fővárosi Bíróság)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Erika Jőrös

Defendant: Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — National legislation providing that a national court is limited in its examination of whether standard contract terms are unfair where the parties do not expressly seek a finding that such a term is unfair — Option for the national court of second instance to find of its own motion that a term of a contract before it is unfair even if that point was not raised at first instance and, under national rules, no account may be taken on appeal of new facts and evidence

Operative part of the judgment

1. Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that where a national court, dealing with an appeal concerning the validity of terms in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer on the basis of a form prepared in advance by that seller or supplier, has the power, under its internal procedural rules, to examine any grounds for invalidity clearly apparent from the elements submitted at first instance and, if necessary, to redefine, depending on the facts determined, the legal basis relied upon to establish that those terms are invalid, it must assess, of its own motion or by redefining the legal basis of the application, whether those terms are unfair in the light of the criteria in that directive.

2. Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which has established that a contractual term is unfair is required, first, without waiting for the consumer to make an application in that regard, to draw all the consequences which, under national law, result from that finding in order to satisfy itself that that consumer is not bound by that term and, secondly, to assess, in principle on the basis of objective criteria, whether the contract concerned can continue in existence without that term.

3. Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which has, of its own motion, established that a contractual term is unfair must, as far as possible, apply its internal procedural rules in such a way as to draw all the consequences which, under national law, result from a finding that the term at issue is unfair, in order to satisfy itself that the consumer is not bound by that term.

(1) OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-65/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation allowing the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons that may be regarded as a single taxable person for purposes of VAT - Consultation of the VAT Committee)

2013/C 171/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis, R. Lyal and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Ree and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Vang, subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan acting as Agent, and by G. Clohessy, SC and N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, acting as Agent, and M. Hall, QC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Inclusion of non-taxable persons in a VAT group — Failure to notify the VAT Committee of amendments to the implementation of the VAT group scheme

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Eni SpA v European Commission

(Case C-508/11 P P) (1)

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market manufactured by emulsion polymerisation - Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Gravity of the infringement - Multiplier for deterrence - Actual impact on the market - Aggravating circumstances - Repeated infringements)

2013/C 225/17

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Eni SpA (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and M.L. Malferrari, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2011 — Case T-39/07 Eni v Commission by which the General Court dismissed in part the action seeking the annulment, as regards Eni SpA, of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Articles 81 EC and 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber), or, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Eni — Evidence of infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Failure to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders Eni SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/12

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA v European Commission

(Case C-511/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber manufactured by emulsion polymerisation - Fixing price targets, sharing clients by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information - Evidence - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Amount of the fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstance - Repeated infringement)

2013/C 225/18

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Malferrari and G. Conte)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/05 Polimeri Europa v Commission by which that court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Articles 81 EC and 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber) or, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Polimeri Europa SpA — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Imputability of the infringement — Failure to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders Versalis SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.