ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada, Audiencia Provincial de Alicante — Spain) — Francisco Gutiérrez Naranjo v Cajasur Banco SAU (C-154/15), Ana María Palacios Martínez v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (BBVA) (C-307/15), Banco Popular Español, SA v Emilio Irles López, Teresa Torres Andreu (C-308/15)

(Joined Cases C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumer contracts - Mortgage loans - Unfair terms - Article 4(2) - Article 6(1) - Declaration of nullity - Limitation by the national court of the temporal effects of the declaration of nullity of an unfair term))

(2017/C 053/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada, Audiencia Provincial de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Francisco Gutiérrez Naranjo (C-154/15), Ana María Palacios Martínez (C-307/15), Banco Popular Español, SA (C-308/15)

Defendants: Cajasur Banco SAU (C-154/15), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (BBVA) (C-307/15), Emilio Irles López, Teresa Torres Andreu (C-308/15)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national case-law that temporally limits the restitutory effects connected with a finding of unfairness by a court, in accordance with Article 3(1) of that directive, in respect of a clause contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, to amounts overpaid under such a clause after the delivery of the decision in which the finding of unfairness is made.

(1) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/16

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sidika Ucar (C-508/15), Recep Kilic (C-509/15) v Land Berlin

(Joined Cases C-508/15 and C-509/15) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Article 7, first paragraph - Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State - Conditions - No need for the Turkish worker to be duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State for the first three years of the residence of a family member))

(2017/C 053/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sidika Ucar (C-508/15), Recep Kilic (C-509/15)

Defendant: Land Berlin

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7, first paragraph, first indent, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association must be interpreted as meaning that that provision confers a right of residence in the host Member State on a family member of a Turkish worker, who has been authorised to enter that Member State, for the purposes of family reunification, and who, from his entry into the territory of that Member State, has lived with that Turkish worker, even if the period of at least three years during which the latter is duly registered as belonging to the labour force does not immediately follow the arrival of the family member concerned in the host Member State, but is subsequent to it.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — European arrest warrant in respect of Tomas Vilkas

(Case C-640/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 23 - Time limit for surrender of the requested person - Possibility of agreeing on a new surrender date on a number of occasions - Resistance of the requested person to his surrender - Force majeure))

(2017/C 078/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Party to the main proceedings

Tomas Vilkas

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the executing and issuing judicial authorities agree on a new surrender date under that provision where the surrender of the requested person within 10 days of a first new surrender date agreed on pursuant to that provision proves impossible on account of the repeated resistance of that person, in so far as, on account of exceptional circumstances, that resistance could not have been foreseen by those authorities and the consequences of the resistance for the surrender could not have been avoided in spite of the exercise of all due care by those authorities, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

Articles 15(1) and 23 of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that those authorities remain obliged to agree on a new surrender date if the time limits prescribed in Article 23 have expired.

(1) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-365/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Reimbursement of import duties - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) - Article 241, first paragraph, first indent - Obligation of a Member State to provide for the payment of default interest even where no action has been brought before the national courts))

(2017/C 070/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Operative part of the judgment

Where import duties, including anti-dumping duties, are reimbursed on the ground that they have been levied in breach of EU law, this being a matter for the referring court to determine, there is an obligation on Member States, arising from EU law, to pay to individuals with a right to reimbursement the corresponding interest which runs from the date of payment by those individuals of the duties reimbursed.

(1) OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas — Lithuania) — W, V v X

(Case C-499/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Articles 8 to 15 - Jurisdiction concerning maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 3(d) - Conflicting judgments given in the courts of different Member States - Child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother - The courts of the father’s Member State of residence without jurisdiction to vary a decision that has become final which they adopted earlier concerning the residence of the child, maintenance obligations and contact arrangements))

(2017/C 112/10)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: W, V

Defendant: X

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8 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, and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, the courts of the Member State which made a decision that has become final concerning parental responsibility and maintenance obligations with regard to a minor child no longer have jurisdiction to decide on an application for variation of the provisions ordered in that decision, inasmuch as the habitual residence of the child is in another Member State. It is the courts of the Member State of habitual residence that have jurisdiction to decide on that application.

(1) OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/14

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Maxcom Ltd, City Cycle Industries, Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Joined Cases C-248/15 P, C-254/15 P and C-260/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 - Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia - Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Article 18 - Lack of cooperation - Evidence - Body of consistent evidence - Contradictory reasoning - Inadequate statement of reasons - Breach of procedural rights))

(2017/C 104/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-248/15 P)

Appellant: Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), Council of the European Union (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)

(Case C-254/15 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), Council of the European Union (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

(Case C-260/15 P)

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents), Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-248/15 P, C-254/15 P and C-260/15 P;

2. Orders Maxcom Ltd, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by City Cycle Industries in relation to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-413/13 and the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer

(Case C-342/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of lawyers to provide services - Possibility for Member States to reserve to prescribed categories of lawyers the drafting of formal documents for creating or transferring interests in land - Legislation of a Member State requiring that the authenticity of the signature on a request for entry in the land register be certified by a notary))

(2017/C 144/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer

Operative part of the judgment

1. The second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which authentication of signatures appended to the instruments necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to notaries, and as consequently excluding the possibility of recognising in that Member State such authentication carried out by a lawyer established in another Member State.

2. Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which authentication of signatures appended to the instruments necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to notaries, and as consequently excluding the possibility of recognition in that Member State of such authentication carried out, in accordance with his or her national law, by a lawyer established in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
2.

Article 28(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 173/2011 of 23 February 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that frozen or quick-frozen chickens with a water content exceeding the limits set by Regulation No 543/2008, as amended by Implementing Regulation No 1239/2012, are not marketable in normal conditions on the territory of the European Union and do not satisfy the requirement of sound and fair marketable quality, even if they are accompanied by a health certificate issued by the competent authority.
1.

Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement set out therein of proportionality of the penalties which it covers precludes a system of penalties, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the imposition of a flat-rate fine for all offences, whatever their nature and gravity, under the rules on the obligation to make prior payment of the toll for use of a road infrastructure;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie v Salah Al Chodor, Ajlin Al Chodor, Ajvar Al Chodor,

(Case C-528/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) - Article 28(2) - Detention for the purpose of transfer - Article 2(n) - Significant risk of absconding - Objective criteria - Absence of a legal definition))

(2017/C 151/11)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

Defendants: Salah Al Chodor, Ajlin Al Chodor, Ajvar Al Chodor

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(n) and Article 28(2) 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 conjunction, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to establish, in a binding provision of general application, objective criteria underlying the reasons for believing that an applicant for international protection who is subject to a transfer procedure may abscond. The absence of such a provision leads to the inapplicability of Article 28(2) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
1.

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which protects public health and the dignity of the profession of dentist, first, by imposing a general and absolute prohibition of any advertising relating to the provision of oral and dental care services and, secondly, by establishing certain requirements of discretion with regard to signs of dental practices;
2.

The provisions of Directive 2002/46 and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as meaning that the maximum amounts referred to in Article 5 of that directive must be set on a case-by-case basis and taking into account all of the elements in Article 5(1) and (2) of that directive, in particular of the upper safe levels established, with respect to the nutrients at issue, after a comprehensive scientific assessment of the risks for public health, based not on general or hypothetical considerations, but on relevant scientific data. It is for the referring court to assess whether the method for the setting of those amounts at issue in the main proceedings complies with those requirements.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Her Majesty’s Treasury

(Case C-591/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 355(3) TFEU - Status of Gibraltar - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Purely internal situation - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 277/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen, on the application of: The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Her Majesty’s Treasury

Operative part of the judgment

Article 355(3) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 56 TFEU, is to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of services by operators established in Gibraltar to persons established in the United Kingdom constitutes, as a matter of EU law, a situation confined in all respects within a single Member State.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
1.

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of assessing whether a child who is a citizen of the European Union would be compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole and thereby deprived of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on him by that article if the child’s third-country national parent were refused a right of residence in the Member State concerned, the fact that the other parent, who is a Union citizen, is actually able and willing to assume sole responsibility for the primary day-to-day care of the child is a relevant factor, but it is not in itself a sufficient ground for a conclusion that there is not, between the third-country national parent and the child, such a relationship of dependency that the child would indeed be so compelled were there to be such a refusal of a right of residence. Such an assessment must take into account, in the best interests of the child concerned, all the specific circumstances, including the age of the child, the child’s physical and emotional development, the extent of his emotional ties both to the Union citizen parent and to the third-country national parent, and the risks which separation from the latter might entail for the child’s equilibrium.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Hamas, European Commission

(Case C-79/15 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 309/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate), European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Konstantinidis and R. Tricot, Agents)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1 Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2014, Hamas v Council (T-400/10, EU:T:2014:1095);

2 Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3 Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
1.

Declares that, by providing that cigarettes released for consumption in a given year may no longer be marketed or sold to the public after the expiry of the time limit laid down in Article 27(a) of the Portaria No 1295/2007 do Ministério das Finanças e da Administração Pública (Decree No 1295/2007 of the Ministry for Finance and Public Administration) of 1 October 2007, in the version applicable to the present action, where there is no increase in the excise duty on those products taking effect the following year, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9, first paragraph of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and the principle of proportionality.
1.

Declares that by restricting the VAT exemption to IGPs whose members exercise a limited number of professions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;