ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/16

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Carmela Carratù v Poste Italiane SpA

(Case C-361/12) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work - Principle of non-discrimination - Employment conditions - National legislation establishing a system of compensation for the unlawful insertion of a fixed-term clause into an employment contract which is different from that applicable to the unlawful termination of an employment contract of indefinite duration)

2014/C 52/25

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Carmela Carratù

Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Napoli — Interpretation of Clause 4 of the framework agreement set out in Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p 43) — Scope — Concept of ‘working conditions’ — Horizontal applicability of that directive — Concept of ‘State body’ — Interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 6 ECHR — Principle of equivalence — National legislation establishing a system of compensation for the unlawful insertion of a fixed-term clause into an employment contract providing for comprehensive compensation ranging from 2.5 to 12 months’ actual full pay for the period from the interruption of the employment relations until the date of actual reinstatement — Compensation lower than either the compensation provided for under the ordinary civil law in the event of unjustified refusal to accept work or the compensation provided for in the event of unlawful termination of an employment contract of indefinite duration.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Clause 4(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on directly against a State body such as Poste Italiane SpA.

2. Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘employment conditions’ covers the compensation that the employer must pay to an employee on account of the unlawful insertion of a fixed-term clause into his employment contract.

3. While that framework agreement does not preclude Member States from granting fixed-term workers more favourable treatment than that provided for by the framework agreement, clause 4(1) of the framework agreement must be interpreted as not requiring the compensation paid in respect of the unlawful insertion of a fixed-term clause into an employment relationship to be treated in the same way as that paid in respect of the unlawful termination of a permanent employment relationship.

(1) OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retriever Sverige AB

(Case C-466/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Meaning - Internet links (‘clickable links’) giving access to protected works)

2014/C 93/18

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd

Defendant: Retriever Sverige AB

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Svea Hovrätt — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Research and monitoring website offering its subscribers a service of access to protected works, in return for payment — Provision by a person other than the author of the work or his assignees of a link on the former’s web page giving access to the work.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision on a website of clickable links to works freely available on another website does not constitute an ‘act of communication to the public’, as referred to in that provision;

2. Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from giving wider protection to copyright holders by laying down that the concept of communication to the public includes a wider range of activities than those referred to in that provision.

(1) OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden)) — Flora May Reyes v Migrationsverket

(Case C-423/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Right of residence in a Member State of a third-country national who is a direct descendant of a person having the right of residence in that Member State - Concept of ‘dependant’)

2014/C 85/12

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flora May Reyes

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Interpretation of Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Right of resident in a Member State of a national of a third country aged over 21 years, who is a direct descendant of a person having the right of residence in that Member State — Notion of ‘dependent’ — Obligation on the direct descendant to prove that he has tried unsuccessfully to obtain employment or applied to the authorities of the State of origin for financial support to meet his needs, or otherwise tried to support himself.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot require a direct descendant who is 21 years old or older, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in order to be regarded as dependent and thus come within the definition of a family member under Article 2(2)(c) of that provision, to have tried unsuccessfully to obtain employment or to obtain subsistence support from the authorities of his country of origin and/or otherwise to support himself.

2. Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a relative — due to personal circumstances such as age, education and health — is deemed to be well placed to obtain employment and in addition intends to start work in the Member State does not affect the interpretation of the requirement in that provision that he be a ‘dependant’.

(1) OJ C 355, 17.11.2012
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/12

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)

(Case C-601/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China - Market economy treatment - Time-limit for adoption of the related decision exceeded - Effect))

2014/C 112/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and S. Boelaert, Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents), and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (represented by: J. Bourgeois, avocat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of 10 October 2012 in Case T-150/09 Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd v Council, by which the General Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in the present proceedings;

3. Orders the European Commission and the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) each to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy)) — Loredana Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento dell’Amministrazione penitenziaria

(Case C-595/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Training course for acquiring the status of a public official - Exclusion on grounds of a prolonged absence - Absence attributable to maternity leave))

2014/C 129/05

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Loredana Napoli

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento dell’Amministrazione penitenziaria

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Interpretation of Articles 2(2)(c), 14(2) and 15 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23) — Direct effect — Course for acquiring the status of a public official — National legislation providing, in the event of justified absence exceeding 30 consecutive days, for exclusion from the course and enrolment on the next course — Absence attributable to maternity leave.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 15 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, on grounds relating to the public interest, excludes a woman on maternity leave from a vocational training course which forms an integral part of her employment and which is compulsory in order to be able to be appointed definitively to a post as a civil servant and in order to benefit from an improvement in her employment conditions, while guaranteeing her the right to participate in the next training course organised, the date of which is nevertheless uncertain.

2. Article 14(2) of Directive 2006/54 does not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not limit a specified activity solely to male workers but which delays access to that activity for female workers who have been unable to receive full vocational training as a result of compulsory maternity leave.

3. The provisions of Article 14(1)(c) and Article 15 of Directive 2006/54 are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to have direct effect.

(1) OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ehrmann AG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

(Case C-609/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer information and protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Nutrition and health claims made on foods - Labelling and presentation of those foods - Article 10(2) - Temporal application - Article 28(5) and (6) - Transitional measures))

2014/C 175/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ehrmann AG

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 10(1) and (2), 28(5) and 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010 (OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16) — Health claims — Specific conditions — Temporal application

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligations to provide information laid down in Article 10(2) of that regulation were already in force in 2010 as regards health claims that were not prohibited on the basis of Article 10(1), read in conjunction with Article 28(5) and (6) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
2.

The fundamental rights recognised by EU law must be interpreted as not precluding a court injunction prohibiting an internet service provider from allowing its customers access to a website placing protected subject-matter online without the agreement of the rightholders when that injunction does not specify the measures which that access provider must take and when that access provider can avoid incurring coercive penalties for breach of that injunction by showing that it has taken all reasonable measures, provided that (i) the measures taken do not unnecessarily deprive internet users of the possibility of lawfully accessing the information available and (ii) that those measures have the effect of preventing unauthorised access to the protected subject-matter or, at least, of making it difficult to achieve and of seriously discouraging internet users who are using the services of the addressee of that injunction from accessing the subject-matter that has been made available to them in breach of the intellectual property right, that being a matter for the national authorities and courts to establish.
4.

Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46 are to be interpreted as meaning that, when appraising the conditions for the application of those provisions, it should inter alia be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of his name, without it being necessary in order to find such a right that the inclusion of the information in question in that list causes prejudice to the data subject. As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject’s name. However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2014 — Bimbo SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Panrico SA

(Case C-591/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS - Earlier Spanish word mark DOGHNUTS - Relative grounds for refusal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Independent distinctive role of one element of a composite word mark))

2014/C 202/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bimbo SA (represented by: C. Prat, abogado, and R. Ciullo, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents), Panrico SA (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, abogado)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 in Case T-569/10 Bimbo SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘BIMBO DOUGHNUTS’ for goods in Class 30 against the decision R 838/2009-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 October 2010 dismissing the action against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the international and national word marks ‘DONUT’, ‘DOGHNUTS’ and ‘DONUTS’ and the international and national figurative marks containing the word ‘donuts’ for goods in Class 30 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Bimbo SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — European Commission v Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), Hellenic Republic

(Case C-554/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Article 86(3) EC - Maintenance of preferential rights granted by the Hellenic Republic in favour of a public undertaking for the exploration and exploitation of lignite deposits - Infringement - Decision - Incompatibility with EU law - Subsequent decision - Establishment of specific measures - Solution to the anti-competitive effects of the infringement - Action for annulment))

2014/C 315/09

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Oikonomou, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: P. Anestis, dikigoros), Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, M.-T. Marinos and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in DEI v Commission, T-421/09, EU:T:2012:450;

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
1)

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Joined Cases T-168/10 and T-572/10 Commission v SEMEA and Commune de Millau, in so far as it found, in the assessment of the counterclaim brought by the Commune de Millau and the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA), that there is no direct causal link between the conduct of the European Commission and the damage allegedly sustained as a result of the order for payment of default interest;
1.

Declares that, by failing to take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiary the State aid which was the subject of Commission Decision 2011/471/EU of 14 December 2010 on State aid granted by Germany to the Biria group (C 38/05 (ex NN 52/04)), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 108(2) TFEU, Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of [Article 108 TFEU], and Articles 1 to 3 of that decision;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-114/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - External action of the European Union - International agreements - Protection of neighbouring rights of broadcasting organisations - Negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe - Decision of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States authorising the joint participation of the Union and its Member States in the negotiations - Article 3(2) TFEU - Exclusive external competence of the Union))

(2014/C 395/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Hetsch, L. Gussetti and J. Samnadda, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos and D. Warin, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Legal, J.-P. Hix, F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer, D. Hadroušek and J. Králová, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, B. Beutler and N. Graf Vitzthum, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and J. Langer, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna, M. Drwięcki and E. Gromnicka initially, then by B. Majczyna, M. Drwięcki and E. Gromnicka, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell, acting as Agent, assisted by R. Palmer, Barrister)

Operative part

The Court:

1) Annuls the Decision of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on the participation of the European Union and its Member States in negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations, of 19 December 2011;

2) Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

3) Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.