ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Digibet Ltd, Gert Albers v Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG

(Case C-156/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Betting and gaming - Federal legislation banning games of chance via the internet which was not applied for a limited period in a federal entity of a Member State - Consistency - Proportionality))

2014/C 282/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Digibet Ltd, Gert Albers

Defendant: Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation common to the majority of the federal entities of a Member State having a federal structure which prohibits, in principle, the organisation and facilitation of games of chance via the internet, where, for a limited period, a single federal entity has maintained in force more liberal legislation coexisting with the restrictive legislation of the other federal entities, provided that such legislation is able to satisfy the conditions of proportionality laid down by the case-law of the Court, which is for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
3.

Article 28(1)(a) of Regulation No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, the adoption of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, introducing support for the adding of value to agricultural products, which, as regards milling undertakings, can be granted only for operations intended to modernise the existing capacity of those mills and not for those involving the creation of new capacity. However, when considering a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which one or more milling facilities are closed in order to be replaced with a new milling facility, but with no increase in existing capacity, it is for the national court to ensure that such legislation is applied in such a way as to ensure observance of the principle of equal treatment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/18

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Marjan Noorzia v Bundesministerin für Inneres

(Case C-338/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 4(5) - Provision of national law under which the sponsor and his/her spouse must have reached the age of 21 by the date on which the application for family reunification is lodged - Interpretation in conformity with EU law))

2014/C 315/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marjan Noorzia

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Inneres

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(5) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that that provision does not preclude a rule of national law requiring that spouses and registered partners must have reached the age of 21 by the date when the application seeking to be considered family members entitled to reunification is lodged.

(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Stanislav Gross v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

(Case C-165/13) (1)

((Taxation - Directive 92/12/EEC - Articles 7, 8 and 9 - General arrangements for products subject to excise duty - Products released for consumption in one Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State - Whether excise duty is chargeable to a person holding those products who has acquired them in the Member State of destination - Acquisition at the end of the entry process))

2014/C 292/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stanislav Gross

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, read in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, must be interpreted as allowing a Member State to designate as liable to excise duty a person who holds for commercial purposes, on the fiscal territory of that State, products subject to excise duty that have been released for consumption in another Member State, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, even though that person was not the first holder of those products in the Member State of destination.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/19

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Markus D. (C 358/13) and G. (C-181/14)

(Joined Cases C-358/13 and C 181/14) (1)

(((Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Scope - Interpretation of the concept of ‘medicinal product’ - Scope of the criterion based on the capacity to modify physiological functions - Herb and cannabinoid-based products - Not included))

2014/C 315/27

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Criminal proceedings against

Markus D. (C-358/13) and G. (C-181/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as not covering substances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which produce effects that merely modify physiological functions but which are not such as to have any beneficial effects, either immediately or in the long term, on human health, are consumed solely to induce a state of intoxication and are, as such, harmful to human health.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.
2.

To the extent that it is authorised to do so by the applicable domestic rules of procedure, a national court — such as the referring court — which has given a ruling at last instance, without a reference having first been made to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU, that has led to a situation which is incompatible with the EU legislation on public works contracts must either supplement or go back on that definitive ruling so as to take into account any interpretation of that legislation provided by the Court subsequently.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/18

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-491/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2004/114/EC - Articles 6, 7 and 12 - Conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies - Refusal to admit a person who meets the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/114 - Discretion enjoyed by the competent authorities))

2014/C 409/25

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State concerned is obliged to admit to its territory a third-country national who wishes to stay for more than three months in that territory for study purposes, where that national meets the conditions for admission exhaustively listed in Articles 6 and 7 of that directive and provided that that Member State does not invoke against that person one of the grounds expressly listed by the directive as justification for refusing a residence permit.

(1) OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — E v B

(Case C-436/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Articles 8, 12 and 15 - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Proceedings relating to the custody of a child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother - Prorogation of jurisdiction in favour of a court of the Member State of residence of the father - Scope))

2014/C 421/19

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E

Defendant: B

Operative part of the judgment

Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility which has been prorogued, under Article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, in favour of a court of a Member State before which proceedings have been brought by mutual agreement by the holders of parental responsibility ceases following a final judgment in those proceedings.

(1) OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.
1)

EU law and, in particular, Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which ordinary courts hearing an appeal or adjudicating at final instance are under a duty, if they consider a national statute to be contrary to Article 47 of the Charter, to apply, in the course of the proceedings, to the constitutional court for that statute to be generally struck down, and may not simply refrain from applying that statute in the case before them, to the extent that the priority nature of that procedure prevents — both before the submission of a question on constitutionality to the national court responsible for reviewing the constitutionality of laws and, as the case may be, after the decision of that court on that question — all the other national courts or tribunals from exercising their right or fulfilling their obligation to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. On the other hand, EU law and, in particular, Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such national legislation to the extent that those ordinary courts remain free: — to make a reference to the Court at whatever stage of the proceedings they consider appropriate, and even at the end of the interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality, in respect of any question which they consider necessary, — to adopt any measure necessary to ensure interim judicial protection of rights conferred under the EU legal order, and — to disapply, at the end of such an interlocutory procedure, the national legislative provision at issue if they consider it to be contrary to EU law. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the national legislation at issue before it can be construed in such a way as to meet those requirements of EU law.
1)

Articles 138(1) and 139(1), second subparagraph, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the tax authorities of a Member State from refusing to grant an exemption from value added tax in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods on the ground that the purchaser was not registered for value added tax purposes in another Member State and the supplier has proven neither the authenticity of the signature on the documents submitted in support of its declaration in respect of a supply it claims to be exempt from value added tax nor that the person who signed those documents on behalf of the purchaser had the authority to represent the purchaser, where the evidence establishing entitlement to the exemption submitted by the supplier in support of its declaration is consistent with the list of documents to be submitted to those authorities under national law and has been accepted by them, initially, as supporting evidence, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2014 — Guido Strack v European Commission

(Case C-127/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Right to be heard - Right to be heard by a court or tribunal established in accordance with the law - Access to documents held by the institutions - Partial refusal to grant the appellant access to the documents concerned - Initial refusal - Implied decision deemed to exist - Replacement of an implied refusal by express decisions - Interest in bringing proceedings after the adoption of the express refusals - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Safeguarding the interests of good administration - Protection of personal data and commercial interests))

2014/C 421/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Guido Strack (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Conte and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Strack v Commission, T-392/07, EU:T:2013:8 in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court annulled the decision of the European Commission of 24 July 2007;

2. Dismisses the cross-appeal for the remainder;

3. Dismisses the appeal;

4. Dismisses the action for annulment in so far as it is directed against the decision of the European Commission refusing access to the extract of the register concerning refusals of confirmatory applications for access to documents;

5. Orders Mr Guido Strack to bear his own costs in the present proceedings and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

6. Orders the European Commission to pay two thirds of the costs relating to the present proceedings;

7. Orders the costs relating to the proceedings at first instance which gave rise to the judgment in Strack v Commission (T-392/07, EU:T:2013:8) to be paid in accordance with the arrangements laid down in paragraph 7 of the operative part thereof.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Snezhana Somova v Glaven direktor na Stolichno upravlenie ‘Sotsialno osiguryavane’

(Case C-103/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 12, 45, 46 and 94 - National legislation making the grant of a pension subject to a condition that old-age insurance contributions be discontinued - Purchase of missing periods of insurance in return for the payment of contributions - Overlapping of periods of insurance in several Member States - Possibility for the insured person to waive the rule relating to the aggregation of periods of contribution and insurance - Cancellation of the pension granted and recovery of any overpayment - Requirement to pay interest))

(2015/C 007/05)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Snezhana Somova

Defendant: Glaven direktor na Stolichno upravlenie ‘Sotsialno osiguryavane’

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 49 TFEU precludes legislation of a Member State, such as Article 94(1) of the Social Insurance Code (Kodeks za sotsialnoto osiguryavane), which makes the award of an old-age pension subject to the prior condition of discontinuing the payment of social security contributions relating to activities carried out in another Member State.

2. Articles 45, 46(2) and 94(2) 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 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as not permitting insured persons to choose that, for the purposes of determining rights acquired in a Member State, periods of insurance completed in another Member State prior to the date of application of that regulation in the first Member State are not taken into account.

(1) OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — Gérard Buono and Others (C-12/13 P) and Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others (C-13/13 P) v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-12/13 P and C-13/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Common fisheries policy - Fishing quotas - Emergency measures adopted by the Commission - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Conditions - Actual and certain harm))

(2014/C 462/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Gérard Buono, Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Louis Paul Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin, Robert Marin (represented by: A. Arnaud and P.-O. Koubi-Flotte, avocats) (C-12/13 P), Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin, Jean-Marc Penniello, Serge Antoine José Perez (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, avocate) (C-13/13 P)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals brought in Cases C-12/13 P and C-13/13 P;

2. Orders Gérard Buono, Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin and Robert Marin to pay the costs in Case C-12/13 P and the Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean-Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin and Serge Antoine José Perez to pay the costs in Case C-13/13 P.

(1) OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH v S.

(Case C-310/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 85/374/EEC - Consumer protection - Liability for defective products - Material scope of the directive - Special liability system existing on the date of notification of that directive - Permissibility of a national liability system enabling information on the adverse effects of pharmaceutical products to be obtained))

(2015/C 026/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH

Defendant: S.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings, establishing a special liability system for the purposes of Article 13 of that directive — under which, in consequence of an amendment to that legislation made after the directive had been notified to the Member State concerned, the consumer has the right to require the manufacturer of the medicinal product to provide him with information on the adverse effects of that product.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/3

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Cartiera dell’Adda SpA v CEM Ambiente SpA

(Case C-42/13) (1)

((Public procurement - Principles of equal treatment and transparency - Directive 2004/18/EC - Grounds for excluding a tenderer from participating - Article 45 - The personal situation of the candidate or tenderer - Compulsory statement concerning the person designated as ‘technical director’ - Statement not included with the tender - Exclusion from the contract without any possibility of remedying that omission))

(2015/C 007/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cartiera dell’Adda SpA

Defendant: CEM Ambiente SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1177/2009 of 30 November 2009, read in conjunction with Article 2 of the directive, and the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as not precluding the exclusion of an economic operator from a procurement procedure on the ground that the operator has failed to comply with the requirement laid down in the contract documentation to annex to his bid, on pain of exclusion, a statement to the effect that the person designated in the bid as the operator’s technical director has not been the subject of criminal proceedings or a conviction, even where, at a date after the expiry of the deadline for submitting bids, such a statement has been provided to the contracting authority or it is shown that the person in question was identified as the technical director in error.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.