ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Petra Würker v Familienkasse Nürnberg

(Case C-32/13) (1)

((Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Family allowances - Articles 77 and 78 - Benefits for dependent children of pensioners and for orphans - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Family benefits - Article 67 - Family members residing in another Member State - Concept of ‘pension’ - Recipient of a pension granted, pursuant to German legislation, for bringing up children following the death of the person from whom that recipient was divorced (‘Erziehungsrente’)))

2014/C 112/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Petra Würker

Defendant: Familienkasse Nürnberg

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Nürnberg — Interpretation of Articles 77 and 78 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) and of Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1) — Right of a pensioner to family benefits — Concept of ‘pension’ — Pension granted for bringing up children following the death of the former spouse (‘Erziehungsrente’).

Operative part of the judgment

1) On a proper construction of Article 77(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, a benefit such as the pension for bringing up children provided for in Paragraph 47(1) of Book VI of the Social Security Code (Sozialgesetzbuch, Sechstes Buch), which is granted, in the event of death, to the former spouse of the deceased for the purposes of bringing up the children of that former spouse, cannot be treated in the same way as ‘pensions for old age, invalidity or an accident at work or occupational disease’ within the meaning of Article 77 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71;

2) On a proper construction of Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, a benefit such as the pension for bringing up children provided for in Paragraph 47(1) of Book VI of the Social Security Code is covered by the concept of ‘pension’ within the meaning of Article 67.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/8

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Nutricia NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-267/13) (1)

((Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings - Medicaments within the meaning of heading 3004 - Notion - Nutritional preparations intended to be administered only enterally under medical supervision to persons undergoing medical treatment - Beverages within the meaning of heading 2202 - Notion - Nutritional liquids intended to be administered enterally and not to be drunk))

2014/C 194/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Nutricia NV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Medicaments within the meaning of heading 3004 — Notion — Food preparations intended exclusively to be administered enterally, under medical supervision, to persons undergoing medical treatment as a result of a disease or ailment — Beverages within the meaning of heading 2202 — Notion — Liquid foodstuffs for enteral administration, not intended to be drunk

Operative part of the judgment

Tariff heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘medicaments’ within the meaning of that heading includes food preparations intended exclusively to be administered enterally (by means of a stomach tube) under medical supervision to persons who are receiving medical care, provided that that product is administered, as part of the control of the disease or ailment affecting them, in order to prevent or control their malnutrition.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Ville d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Michel Tillieut, Willy Gregoire, Marc Lacroix v Région Wallonne

(Case C-225/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 75/442/EEC - Article 7(1) - Management plan - Suitable sites or installations for the disposal of waste - Concept of waste management plan - Directive 1999/31/EC - Articles 8 and 14 - Landfills which have been granted a permit, or which are already in operation at the time of transposition of that directive))

2014/C 175/15

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ville d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Michel Tillieut, Willy Gregoire, Marc Lacroix

Defendant: Région wallonne

Intervening party: Shanks SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) and Article 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 (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) — Disposal of waste — Concept of waste management plan — National rule that no landfills may be authorised except on the sites provided for in the waste management plan — Derogating rule that authorises landfill permits issued before the entry into force of the waste management plan to be renewed — Concept of plan and programme

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that a national legislative provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, in derogation from the rule that no landfills may be authorised except on the sites provided for in the waste management plan required by that article, landfills authorised before that waste management plan entered into force may, after such entry into force, be granted new permits in respect of the plots covered by the authorisation, does not constitute a ‘waste management plan’ within the meaning of that provision of Directive 2001/42, as amended by Decision 96/350.

Article 8 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, as amended by Council Directive 2011/97/EU of 5 December 2011, does not, however, preclude such a national legislative provision which may be based on Article 14 of that directive and apply to landfills which have been granted a permit or which are already in operation at the date of the transposition thereof, provided that the other conditions set out in Article 14 are met, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht- Germany) — Bayer CropScience AG v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-11/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Patent law - Plant protection products - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 - Articles 1 and 3 - Terms ‘product’ and ‘active substances’ - Safener))

2014/C 282/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bayer CropScience AG

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘product’ in Article 1.8 and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, and the term ‘active substances’ in Article 1.3 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that those terms may cover a substance intended to be used as a safener, where that substance has a toxic, phytotoxic or plant protection action of its own.

(1) OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/12

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-339/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/74/EC - Articles 3 and 5(2) - Ban on rearing laying hens in unenriched cage systems - Rearing of laying hens in cages which do not conform to the requirements of that directive))

2014/C 253/15

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, agent, F Urbani Neri, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3 and 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53)

Operative part of the judgment

1. By having failed to ensure, from 1 January 2012, that laying hens are no longer reared in unenriched cage systems, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens.

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/16

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale per la Toscana — Italy) — Equoland Soc. coop. arl v Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

(Case C-272/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption of imported goods which are intended to be placed under warehousing arrangements other than customs - Obligation to physically place the goods in the warehouse - Non-compliance - Obligation to pay VAT notwithstanding the fact that it has already been settled under the reverse charge mechanism))

2014/C 315/23

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale per la Toscana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Equoland Soc. coop. arl

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 16(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2006/18/EC of 14 February 2006, in the version resulting from Article 28c of the Sixth Directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes the grant of an exemption from the payment of the value added tax on importation provided for by that legislation subject to the condition that goods which are imported and destined for a tax warehouse for the purposes of value added tax be physically placed in that warehouse;

2. Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2006/18, must be interpreted, in accordance with the principle of neutrality of value added tax, as precluding national legislation under which a Member State requires the payment of value added tax on importation even though that tax has been settled already under the reverse charge mechanism through self-invoicing and entry in the sales and purchases register of the taxable person.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
3)

The conditions under which observance of the rights of the defence is to be ensured and the consequences of the infringement of those rights are governed by national law, provided that the rules adopted to that effect are the same as those to which individuals in comparable situations under national law are subject (principle of equivalence) and that they do not make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights of defence conferred by the European Union legal order (principle of effectiveness). The national court, which is under an obligation to ensure that EU law is fully effective, may, when assessing the consequences of an infringement of the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard, consider that such an infringement entails the annulment of the decision taken at the end of the administrative procedure at issue only if, had it not been for such an irregularity, the outcome of the procedure might have been different.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Germanwings GmbH v Ronny Henning

(Case C-452/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 2, 5 and 7 - Right to compensation in the event of a long delay to a flight - Length of delay - Concept of ‘arrival time’))

(2014/C 395/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Germanwings GmbH

Respondent: Ronny Henning

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 5 and 7 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 ‘arrival time’, which is used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, refers to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-126/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(c) - Descriptive character - Refusal to register the word mark ecoDoor - Characteristic of a part of a product))

2014/C 315/14

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.
5)

Articles 12 to 14 of Directive 2000/31 do not allow information society service providers to oppose the bringing of legal proceedings for civil liability against them and, consequently, the adoption of a prohibitory injunction by a national court. The limitations of liability provided for in those articles may be invoked by the provider in accordance with the provisions of national law transposing them or, failing that, for the purpose of an interpretation of that law in conformity with the directive. By contrast, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, Directive 2000/31 cannot, in itself, create obligations on the part of individuals and therefore cannot be relied on against those individuals.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH v Kintra UAB

(Case C-157/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 3(1) - Concept of an ‘action related to insolvency proceedings and closely connected with those proceedings’ - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 1(2)(b) - Concept of ‘bankruptcy’ - Action for payment of a debt brought by the insolvency administrator - Debt arising out of the international carriage of goods - Relationship between Regulations No 1346/2000 and No 44/2001 and the Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR)))

(2014/C 395/13)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH

Defendant: Kintra UAB

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for the payment of a debt based on the provision of carriage services taken by the insolvency administrator of an insolvent undertaking in the course of insolvency proceedings opened in one Member State and taken against a service recipient established in another Member State comes under the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 71 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where a dispute falls within the scope of both that regulation and the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed in Geneva on 19 May 1956, as amended by the Protocol signed in Geneva on 5 July 1978, a Member State may, in accordance with Article 71(1) of that regulation, apply the rules concerning jurisdiction laid down in Article 31(1) of that convention.

(1) OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Hauck GmbH & Co. KG v Stokke A/S and Others

(Case C-205/13) (1)

((Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 3(1)(e) - Refusal or invalidation of registration - Three-dimensional trade mark - Adjustable ‘Tripp Trapp’ children’s chair - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods - Sign consisting of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods))

2014/C 421/13

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Hauck GmbH & Co. KG

Respondents: Stokke A/S, Stokke Nederland BV, Peter Opsvik, Peter Opsvik A/S

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first indent of Article 3(1)(e) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the ground for refusal of registration set out in that provision may apply to a sign which consists exclusively of the shape of a product with one or more essential characteristics which are inherent to the generic function or functions of that product and which consumers may be looking for in the products of competitors.

2. The third indent of Article 3(1)(e) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that the ground for refusal of registration set out in that provision may apply to a sign which consists exclusively of the shape of a product with several characteristics each of which may give that product substantial value. The target public’s perception of the shape of that product is only one of the assessment criteria which may be used to determine whether that ground for refusal is applicable.

3. Article 3(1)(e) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that the grounds for refusal of registration set out in the first and third indents of that provision may not be applied in combination.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Holger Forstmann Transporte GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Münster

(Case C-152/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Exceptions - Energy products contained in the standard tanks of commercial motor vehicles and intended to be used as fuel by those vehicles - Definition of ‘standard tanks’ within the meaning of Article 24(2) of that directive - Tanks fitted by a coachbuilder or a manufacturer’s dealer))

2014/C 409/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Holger Forstmann Transporte GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Münster

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘standard tanks’, referred to in the first indent of Article 24(2) 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 not excluding tanks fixed permanently to commercial motor vehicles intended for the direct supply of fuel to those vehicles when the tanks have been fitted by a person other than the manufacturer, in so far as the tanks enable fuel to be used directly, both for the purpose of propulsion of the vehicles and, where appropriate, for the operation, during transport, of refrigeration systems and other systems.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 439/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Cristiano Blanco (C-344/13), Pier Paolo Fabretti (C-367/13) v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Roma — Ufficio Controlli

(Joined Cases C-344/13 and C-367/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Income from winnings from games of chance - Difference in taxation between winnings obtained abroad and those from national casinos))

(2014/C 439/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Cristiano Blanco (C-344/13), Pier Paolo Fabretti (C-367/13)

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Roma — Ufficio Controlli

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 52 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which subjects winnings from games of chance obtained in casinos in other Member States to income tax and exempts similar income from that tax if it is obtained from casinos in its national territory.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.