ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 475/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — EL-EM-2001 Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

(Case C-501/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 10(3) - Articles 18 and 19 - Fine imposed on the driver - Measures necessary to the execution of the penalty taken against the transport company - Immobilisation of the vehicle))

(2016/C 475/02)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EL-EM-2001 Ltd

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises, as a precautionary measure, the immobilisation of a vehicle owned by a transport undertaking in a situation where, firstly, the driver of that vehicle, employed by the undertaking, drove it in breach of the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport and, secondly, the competent national authority did not establish the liability of that undertaking, since such a precautionary measure does not meet the requirements of the principle of proportionality.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission

(Case C-599/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Fight against terrorism - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Conditions - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Decision taken by a competent authority - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 309/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan, B. Driessen and G. Étienne, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (represented by: T. Buruma and A.M. van Eik, advocaten), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, C. Crane, J. Kraehling and V. Kaye, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, F. Fize, D. Colas and B. Fodda, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE);

3. Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — M v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-560/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees - Application for subsidiary protection - Lawfulness of the national procedure for examining an application for subsidiary protection made after the rejection of an application for refugee status - Right to be heard - Scope - Right to an interview - Right to call and cross-examine witnesses))

(2017/C 104/17)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M

Defendants: Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

The right to be heard, as applicable in the context of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, does not require, as a rule, that, where national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, provides for two separate procedures, one after the other, for examining applications for refugee status and applications for subsidiary protection respectively, the applicant for subsidiary protection is to have the right to an interview relating to his application and the right to call or cross-examine witnesses when that interview takes place.

An interview must nonetheless be arranged where specific circumstances, relating to the elements available to the competent authority or to the personal or general circumstances in which the application for subsidiary protection has been made, render it necessary in order to examine that application with full knowledge of the facts, a matter which is for the referring court to establish.

(1) OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/6

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — TSI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen

(Case C-183/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Sub-heading 9027 10 10 - Ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers - Handheld particle counters))

(2016/C 048/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TSI GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Operative part of the judgment

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 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 must be interpreted as meaning that ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers and handheld particle counters, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, do not fall under subheading 9027 10 10 thereof.

(1) OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/18

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v État belge

(Case C-161/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Decision withdrawing residence authorisation - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Admissibility of grounds of appeal on a point of law - Plea based on public policy))

(2016/C 156/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that where, in accordance with the applicable national law, a plea alleging infringement of national law raised for the first time before the national court hearing an appeal on a point of law is admissible only if that plea is based on public policy, a plea alleging infringement of the right to be heard, as guaranteed by EU law, raised for the first time before that same court, must be held to be admissible if that right, as guaranteed by national law, satisfies the conditions required by national law for it to be classified as a plea based on public policy, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/13

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — J. N. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-601/15 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection - Directive 2008/115/EC - Lawful residence - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 9 - Right to remain in a Member State - Directive 2013/33/EU - Point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) - Detention - Protection of national security or public order - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 52 - Limitation - Proportionality))

(2016/C 145/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: J. N.

Respondent: Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of that provision in the light of Articles 6 and 52(1) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/12

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes

(Case C-300/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 21 and 45 TFEU - Freedom of movement and of residence of persons and workers - Income tax - Retirement pension - Pensioners’ tax credit - Conditions for granting - Possession of a tax deduction form issued by national authorities))

(2016/C 260/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser

Defendant: Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 21 and 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national tax law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts the eligibility for the pensioners’ tax credit to taxpayers in possession of a tax deduction form.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union

(Case C-266/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Criterion relating to the provision of material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran - Financial services of a central bank))

(2016/C 211/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Central Bank of Iran (represented by: M. Lester and Z. Al-Rikabi, Barristers)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Central Bank of Iran to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/10

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Jan Mateusiak

(Case C-229/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 18(c), 184 and 187 - Taxable transactions - Cessation of the taxable economic activity - Retention of goods on which VAT became deductible - Adjustment of deductions - Adjustment period - Taxation pursuant to Article 18(c) of Directive 2006/112 on expiry of the adjustment period))

(2016/C 305/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Jan Mateusiak

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, when a taxable person ceases to carry out a taxable economic activity, the retention of goods by that taxable person, where valued added tax on such goods became deductible upon their acquisition, can be treated as a supply of goods for consideration and be subject to value added tax if the adjustment period laid down in Article 187 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/162, has passed.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-63/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 12 - Issue of residence documents or visas - Article 27 - Remedies - Extent of judicial scrutiny))

(2016/C 296/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mehrdad Ghezelbash

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 of the regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an asylum seeker is entitled to plead, in an appeal against a decision to transfer him, the incorrect application of one of the criteria for determining responsibility laid down in Chapter III of the regulation, in particular the criterion relating to the grant of a visa set out in Article 12 of the regulation.

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/24

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Selena România SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) București

(Case C-416/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 - Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China - Anti-dumping duties - Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 437/2012 - Consignment from Taiwan - Initiation of an investigation - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 21/2013 - Extension of the anti-dumping duty - Temporal scope - Principle of non-retroactivity - Community Customs Code - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties))

(2016/C 335/32)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Selena România SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) București

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 21/2013 of 10 January 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of those same goods consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not, is to be interpreted as meaning that the definitive anti-dumping duty extended by that provision is not applicable retroactively to goods consigned from Taiwan, released for free circulation in the Union after the date of entry into force of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 of 3 August 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China, but before that of Commission Regulation (EU) No 437/2012 of 23 May 2012 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation No 791/2011, and making such imports subject to registration. Nevertheless, the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1(1) of Regulation No 791/2011 applies to imports of such goods, if it is established that, despite being consigned from Taiwan and declared as originating in that country, those goods in fact originate in the People’s Republic of China.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl

(Case C-15/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports - Article 35 TFEU - Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium - Legislation requiring invoices to be drawn up in Dutch, failing which they are null and void - Cross-border concession agreement - Restriction - Justification - Disproportionate))

(2016/C 314/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van koophandel te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: New Valmar BVBA

Defendant: Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 35 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a federated entity of a Member State, such as the Flemish Community of the Kingdom of Belgium, which requires every undertaking that has its place of establishment within the territory of that entity to draw up all the details on invoices relating to cross-border transactions exclusively in the official language of that entity, failing which those invoices are to be declared null and void by the national courts of their own motion.

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/7

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — Hans Maschek v Magistratsdirektion der Stadt Wien — Personalstelle Wiener Stadtwerke

(Case C-341/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual - Retirement at the request of the party concerned - Worker failing to use up all his entitlement to annual paid leave before the termination of his work relations - National legislation excluding allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken - Sick leave - Public servants))

(2016/C 343/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Hans Maschek

Respondent: Magistratsdirektion der Stadt Wien — Personalstelle Wiener Stadtwerke

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, must be interpreted:

— as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which deprives the worker, whose employment relationship was terminated following his request for retirement, of an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken and who has not been able to use up his rights to paid annual leave before the end of that employment relationship;

— as meaning that a worker is entitled, on retirement, to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken because he was prevented from working by sickness;

— as meaning that a worker whose employment relationship has ended and who, pursuant to an agreement with his employer, while continuing to receive his salary, was required not to report to his place of work during a specified period preceding his retirement, is not entitled to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken during this period, unless he was not able to use up that entitlement due to illness;

— as meaning that it is, on the one hand, for the Member States to decide whether to grant workers additional paid leave in addition to the minimum annual paid leave of four weeks provided for in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88. In that case, the Member States may grant to a worker who, because of illness, could not use up all of his additional paid annual leave before the end of his employment relationship, an entitlement to an allowance in lieu of that additional period. It is, on the other hand, for the Member States to determine the conditions for granting that entitlement.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/22

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission

(Case C-270/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Aid granted by the Belgian authorities to finance screening tests of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in bovine animals - Selective advantage - Decision declaring that aid incompatible in part with the internal market))

(2016/C 335/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, assisted by L. Van den Hende, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 — Johannes Tomana and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-330/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities forming part of the Government of Zimbabwe or linked to it - List of persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellants’ names))

(2016/C 350/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Johannes Tomana and Others (represented by: M. O’Kane, Solicitor, M. Lester and Z. Al-Rikabi, Barristers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, Agents), European Commission (represented by: E. Georgieva, M. Konstantinidis and T. Scharf, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt, Agent, and S. Lee, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Johannes Tomana and the 120 other appellants whose names are listed in the annex to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.