ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft — KABEG v Mutuelles du Mans assurances — MMA IARD SA

(Case C-340/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 9(1) - Article 11(2) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance - Direct action by the injured party against the insurer - Action brought by the employer, a public-law institution, statutory assignee of the rights of its employee, against the insurer of the vehicle involved - Subrogation))

(2017/C 300/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft — KABEG

Defendant: Mutuelles du Mans assurances — MMA IARD SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read together with Article 11(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an employer, established in one Member State, which continued to pay the salary of its employee absent as the result of a road traffic accident and to which have passed the employee’s rights with regard to the company insuring the civil liability resulting from the vehicle involved in that accident, which is established in a second Member State, may, in the capacity of ‘injured party’, within the meaning of Article 11(2), sue the insurance company before the courts of the first Member State, where a direct action is permitted.

(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
1)

Clause 4.1 and 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended, and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in calculating the amount of an occupational pension, distinguishes between employment income falling below the ceiling for the calculation of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income above that ceiling, and which does not treat income from part-time employment by calculating first the income payable in respect of corresponding full-time employment, then determining the proportion above and below the contribution assessment ceiling and finally applying that proportion to the reduced income from part-time employment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/8

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Birgit Bossen, Anja Bossen, Gudula Gräßmann v Brussels Airlines SA/NV

(Case C-559/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 7(1) - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Flight consisting of several legs - Concept of ‘distance’ to be taken into account))

(2017/C 374/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Birgit Bossen, Anja Bossen, Gudula Gräßmann

Defendant: Brussels Airlines SA/NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘distance’ relates, in the case of air routes with connecting flights, only to the distance calculated between the first point of departure and the final destination on the basis of the ‘great circle’ method, regardless of the distance actually flown.

(1) OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
2.

The principles of non-discrimination and proportionality must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude a national provision which, on the basis of the same conversion criterion, leads to a proportionately larger reduction in the number of digital networks assigned compared with the number of analogue channels operated to the detriment of one operator compared to its competitors, unless it is objectively justified and proportionate to its objective. The continuity of television output constitutes a legitimate objective capable of justifying such a difference in treatment. However, a provision which would lead to operators already present on the market being assigned a number of digital radio frequencies which is greater than the number that is sufficient to ensure the continuity of their television output would go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective and would, thus, be disproportionate.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/10

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi — Poland) — Małgorzata Ciupa and Others v II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im. dr L. Rydygiera sp. z o.o. w Łodzi

(Case C-429/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) and Article 2 - Concept of ‘redundancies’ - Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ - Unilateral amendment by the employer of working and pay conditions - Determination of the employer’s ‘intention’ to effect redundancies))

(2017/C 392/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Małgorzata Ciupa, Jolanta Deszczka, Ewa Kowalska, Anna Stańczyk, Marta Krzesińska, Marzena Musielak, Halina Kaźmierska, Joanna Siedlecka, Szymon Wiaderek, Izabela Grzegora

Defendant: II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im. dr L. Rydygiera sp. z o.o. w Łodzi

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that a unilateral amendment of conditions of pay by the employer, to the detriment of the employees, which, in the event of an employee’s refusal, entails the termination of the contract of employment is capable of being regarded as a ‘redundancy’ within the meaning of that provision, and Article 2 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that an employer is required to carry out the consultations provided for in Article 2 where he contemplates effecting such a unilateral amendment of the conditions of pay, in so far as the conditions laid down in Article 1 of the directive are satisfied, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
1.

Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, read in conjunction with Article 53 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 meaning that the European Commission is not required to adopt emergency measures within the meaning of Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002 when a Member State officially informs the Commission, in accordance with Article 54(1) of that regulation, of the need to take such measures, as long as it is not evident that products authorised by Regulation No 1829/2003 or in accordance with that regulation are likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment.
2.

Article 201(3) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘debtor’ of the customs debt, within the meaning of that article, covers the natural person who has been closely and knowingly involved in the design and artificial construction of a structure of commercial transactions, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, which had the effect of reducing the amount of the import duties legally owed, although that natural person has not himself communicated the false information which had served as the basis for drawing up the customs declaration, where it appears from the facts that that person had or ought reasonably to have known that the transactions concerned by that structure had been carried out not in the ordinary course of trade, but solely for the purpose of improperly benefiting from the advantages provided for by Union law. In that regard it is irrelevant that the person concerned designed and artificially constructed that structure only after he had obtained the guarantee of its lawfulness from customs experts.
1)

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, which makes the exercise of a judicial remedy by a person stating that his right to protection of personal data guaranteed by Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, has been infringed, subject to the prior exhaustion of the remedies available to him before the national administrative authorities, provided that the practical arrangements for the exercise of such remedies do not disproportionately affect the right to an effective remedy before a court referred to in that article. It is important, in particular, that the prior exhaustion of the available remedies before the national administrative authorities does not lead to a substantial delay in bringing a legal action, that it involves the suspension of the limitation period of the rights concerned and that it does not involve excessive costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Balgarska energiyna borsa AD (BEB) v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)

(Case C-347/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 101 and 102 TFEU - Directive 2009/72/EC - Articles 9, 10, 13 and 14 - Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 - Article 3 - Regulation (EU) No 1227/2011 - Article 2(3) - Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 - Article 1(3) - Certification and designation of an independent transmission system operator - Limitation of the number of holders of electricity transmission licences in national territory))

(2017/C 437/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Balgarska energiyna borsa AD (BEB)

Defendant: Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 9, 10, 13 and 14 of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003, Article 2(3) in conjunction with recital 3 of Regulation (EU) No 1227/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on wholesale energy market integrity and transparency, and Article 1(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management do not preclude, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, national legislation limiting the number of holders of electricity transmission licences for a particular territory.

(1) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/13

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Air Berlin plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-573/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Indirect taxes - Raising of capital - Imposition of a duty of 1,5 % on the transfer into a clearance service of newly issued shares or shares intended to be listed on a stock exchange of a Member State))

(2017/C 424/17)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Air Berlin plc

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 10 and 11 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as precluding the taxation of a transfer of shares such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby the legal title to all the shares of a company has been transferred to a clearance service for the sole purpose of listing those shares on a stock exchange, without there being any change in the beneficial ownership of those shares.

2. Article 5(1)(c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as precluding the taxation of a transfer of shares such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby the legal title to shares that have been newly issued on an increase in capital has been transferred to a clearance service for the sole purpose of offering those new shares for purchase.

3. The answer to the first and second questions does not differ where legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, enables an operator of a clearance service, when it receives approval from the taxation authority, to elect that no stamp duty is payable on the initial transfer of shares into the clearance service but that a stamp duty reserve tax is instead charged on each subsequent sale of shares.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
1.

Article 101(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, first, does not allow a lawyer and his client to agree remuneration in an amount below the minimum amount laid down in a regulation issued by a lawyers’ professional organisation, such as the Vissh advokatski savet (Supreme Council of the Legal Profession, Bulgaria), without that lawyer being subject to a disciplinary procedure, and, secondly, which does not authorise the courts to order reimbursement of fees in an amount less than that minimum amount, is capable of restricting competition in the internal market within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. It is for the referring court to confirm whether such legislation, in the light of the specific detailed rules for the application thereof, actually meets legitimate objectives and whether the restrictions thus imposed are limited to what is necessary to ensure that those legitimate objectives are given effect.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/7

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — SolarWorld AG v Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)

(Case C-204/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 - Article 3 - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking - Severability))

(2018/C 005/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and M. J. Beck, Solicitor), Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and N. Tuominen, Avocată), European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix, T. Maxian Rusche and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents), China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and A. Scalini, avocats, F. Di Gianni, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders SolarWorld AG to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3) Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 232, 27.06.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 30 de Barcelona — Spain) — Antonio Miravitlles Ciurana and Others v Contimark SA, Jordi Socías Gispert

(Case C-243/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 2009/101/EC - Articles 2 and 6 to 8 - Directive 2012/30/EU - Articles 19 and 36 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 20, 21 and 51 - Recovery of claims arising under an employment contract - Right to bring, before the same court, an action against the company and its director, as a person having joint and several liability for the company’s debts))

(2018/C 052/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 30 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Antonio Miravitlles Ciurana, Alberto Marina Lorente, Jorge Benito García, Juan Gregorio Benito García

Defendants: Contimark SA, Jordi Socías Gispert

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 [EC], with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, in particular Articles 2 and 6 to 8 thereof, and Directive 2012/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 [TFEU], in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, in particular Articles 19 and 36 thereof, must be interpreted as not conferring on employees, who are creditors of a public limited liability company as a result of the termination of their employment contract, a right to bring, before the same social court as that having jurisdiction over their action for recognition of their wage claims, an action to establish the liability of the director of that company, on the ground that he has failed to convene a general meeting of the company despite the heavy losses sustained by it, with a view to obtaining a declaration that he is jointly and severally liable for those wage claims.

(1) OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino — Italy) — VCAST Limited v R.T.I. SpA

(Case C-265/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(2)(b) - Private copying exception - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Specific technical means - Provision of a cloud computing service for the remote video recording of copies of works protected by copyright, without the consent of the author concerned - Active involvement of the service provider in the recording))

(2018/C 032/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VCAST Limited

Defendant: R.T.I. SpA

Operative part of the judgment

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, in particular Article 5(2)(b) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits a commercial undertaking to provide private individuals with a cloud service for the remote recording of private copies of works protected by copyright, by means of a computer system, by actively involving itself in the recording, without the rightholder’s consent.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/23

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o.

(Case C-500/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(a) - Exemptions - Taxes levied in breach of EU law - Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT - Article 4(3) TUE - Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation - Rights conferred on individuals - Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability - Effects of a judgment of the Court - Principle of legal certainty))

(2018/C 072/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o.

In the presence of: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

The principles of equivalence and effectiveness, read in the light of Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a request for a refund of an overpayment of value added tax to be refused where that request was submitted by the taxable person after the expiry of the five-year limitation period, although it follows from a judgment of the Court, delivered after the expiry of that period, that the payment of the VAT which is the subject of that request for a refund was not payable.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.