ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Q

(Case C-133/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Tax legislation - Gift tax - Exemption in respect of an ‘estate’ - No exemption in respect of property situated in the territory of another Member State))

(2015/C 065/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Q

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an exemption from gift tax relating to certain properties that are protected on account of their forming part of the national cultural and historical heritage is limited to those properties situated in the territory of that Member State, provided that that exemption is not excluded in the case of properties that may form part of the cultural and historical heritage of that Member State despite being located in the territory of another State.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
1)

The second paragraph of the Specific Mechanism provided for in Chapter 2 of Annex IV to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be interpreted as not requiring the holder, or beneficiary, of a patent or supplementary protection certificate to give notification of his intention to oppose a proposed importation before invoking his rights under the first paragraph of that mechanism. However, if such a holder or beneficiary does not indicate such an intention during the one-month waiting period laid down in the second paragraph of the mechanism, the person proposing to import the pharmaceutical product in question may legitimately apply to the competent authorities for authorisation to import the product and, where appropriate, import and market it. The Specific Mechanism thus denies that holder or his beneficiary the possibility of relying on his rights under the first paragraph of the mechanism with regard to any importation and marketing of the pharmaceutical product carried out before such an intention was indicated.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena — Spain) — Unicaja Banco, SA v José Hidalgo Rueda and Others (C-482/13), Caixabank SA v Manuel María Rueda Ledesma (C-484/13), Rosario Mesa Mesa (C-484/13), José Labella Crespo (C-485/13), Rosario Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Rafael Gallardo Salvat (C-485/13), Manuela Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Alberto Galán Luna (C-487/13), Domingo Galán Luna (C-487/13)

(Joined Cases C-482/13, C-484/13, C-485/13 and C-487/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers - Mortgage contracts - Default interest clauses - Unfair terms - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Moderation of the amount of interest - Powers of the national court))

(2015/C 107/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Unicaja Banco, SA, Caixabank SA

Defendants: José Hidalgo Rueda, María del Carmen Vega Martín, Gestión Patrimonial Hive SL, Francisco Antonio López Reina, Rosa María Hidalgo Vega (C-482/13), Manuel María Rueda Ledesma (C-484/13), Rosario Mesa Mesa (C-484/13), José Labella Crespo (C-485/13), Rosario Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Rafael Gallardo Salvat (C-485/13), Manuela Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Alberto Galán Luna (C-487/13), Domingo Galán Luna (C-487/13)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision under which the national court hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings is required to adjust the amounts due under a term in a mortgage-loan contract providing for default interest at a rate more than three times greater than the statutory rate in order that the amount of that interest may not exceed that threshold, provided that the application of that national provision:

— is without prejudice to the assessment by that national court of the unfairness of such a term, and

— does not prevent that court removing that term if it were to find the latter to be ‘unfair’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
1)

Article 9(2)(e) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that: — it covers all military personnel, including logistical or support personnel; — it concerns the situation in which the military service performed would itself include, in a particular conflict, the commission of war crimes, including situations in which the applicant for refugee status would participate only indirectly in the commission of such crimes if it is reasonably likely that, by the performance of his tasks, he would provide indispensable support to the preparation or execution of those crimes; — it does not exclusively concern situations in which it is established that war crimes have already been committed or are such as to fall within the scope of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction, but also those in which the applicant for refugee status can establish that it is highly likely that such crimes will be committed; — the factual assessment which it is for the national authorities alone to carry out, under the supervision of the courts, in order to determine the situation of the military service concerned, must be based on a body of evidence capable of establishing, in view of all the circumstances of the case, particularly those concerning the relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application and to the individual position and personal circumstances of the applicant, that the situation in question makes it credible that the alleged war crimes would be committed; — the possibility that military intervention was engaged upon pursuant to a mandate of the United Nations Security Council or on the basis of a consensus on the part of the international community or that the State or States conducting the operations prosecute war crimes are circumstances which have to be taken into account in the assessment that must be carried out by the national authorities; and — the refusal to perform military service must constitute the only means by which the applicant for refugee status could avoid participating in the alleged war crimes, and, consequently, if he did not avail himself of a procedure for obtaining conscientious objector status, any protection under Article 9(2)(e) of Directive 2004/83 is excluded, unless that applicant proves that no procedure of that nature would have been available to him in his specific situation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/10

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — C.G. Sopora v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-512/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Equal treatment of non-resident workers - Tax advantage consisting in the exemption of reimbursements paid by the employer - Advantage granted on a flat-rate basis - Workers from a Member State other than that of the place of work - Requirement of residence at a certain distance from the border of the Member State of the place of work))

(2015/C 138/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C.G. Sopora

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which a Member State provides that workers who resided in another Member State prior to taking up employment in its territory are to be granted a tax advantage consisting in the flat-rate exemption of reimbursement of extraterritorial expenses in an amount up to 30 % of the taxable base, on condition that those workers resided at a distance of more than 150 kilometres from its border, unless — and this is a matter for the referring court to ascertain — those limits were set in such a way that that exemption systematically gives rise to a net overcompensation in respect of the extraterritorial expenses actually incurred.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA v Nersant — Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, Núcleo Inicial — Formação e Consultoria Lda

(Case C-601/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Public service contracts - Conduct of the procedure - Contract award criteria - Qualifications of the staff assigned to performance of the contract))

(2015/C 171/07)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA

Defendants: Nersant — Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, Núcleo Inicial — Formação e Consultoria Lda

Operative part of the judgment

With regard to procurement contracts for the provision of services of an intellectual nature, training and consultancy, Article 53(1)(a) 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 does not preclude the contracting authority from using a criterion enabling evaluation of the teams specifically put forward by the tenderers for the performance of the contract and which takes into consideration the composition of the team and the experience and academic and professional background of the team members.

(1) OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
3)

The first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools must be interpreted as not precluding an act carried out by the headteacher of a European school in the exercise of his powers from coming, in principle, within the scope of that provision. Points 1.3, 3.2 and 3.4 of the Conditions of Employment for Part-time Teachers recruited between 1 September 1994 and 31 August 2011 must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning the legality of an agreement on limiting the duration of the employment relationship included in the employment contract concluded between a part-time teacher and that headteacher comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Complaints Board of the European Schools.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/7

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — SC ALKA CO SRL v Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Galați, formerly Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Municipiul

(Case C-635/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common customs tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 1207 - Oilseeds - Heading 1209 - Seeds for sowing - Heading 1212 - Seeds principally used for human foodstuffs, not specified or included elsewhere - Import of raw shelled pumpkin seeds originating from China))

(2015/C 205/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC ALKA CO SRL

Defendants: Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Galați, formerly Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Municipiul

Operative part of the judgment

It is for the referring court, in order to make a tariff classification of the pumpkin seeds at issue in the main proceedings, to ascertain whether those seeds are normally used for the extraction of edible or industrial oils and fats, but are not covered by headings 1201 to 1206 of the Combined Nomenclature set out 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, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007. If that is the case, those seeds must be classified under heading 1207 of the Combined Nomenclature because they are oilseeds, whether or not they are actually used for the extraction of edible or industrial oils and fats or for sowing or human consumption. If that is not the case, those seeds will come under heading 1209 of the Combined Nomenclature if they could still be germinated when they were imported, whether or not they are actually used for the extraction of edible or industrial oils and fats or for sowing or human consumption, or under heading 1212 of the Combined Nomenclature if they could not still be germinated.

(1) OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 April 2015 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

(Case C-409/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Macro-financial assistance to third countries - Decision of the Commission to withdraw a proposal for a framework regulation - Articles 13(2) TEU and 17 TEU - Article 293 TFEU - Principle of conferral of powers - Principle of institutional balance - Principle of sincere cooperation - Article 296 TFEU - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 198/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza, A. de Gregorio Merino and I. Gurov, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Van Nuffel and M. Clausen, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and J. Škeřic, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and J. Langer, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: U. Persson and A. Falk, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Kaye, Agent, and R. Palmer, Barrister).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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 Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
1)

Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as meaning that a national court before which an action relating to a contract which may be covered by that directive has been brought, is required to determine whether the purchaser may be classified as a consumer within the meaning of that directive, even if the purchaser has not relied on that status, as soon as that court has at its disposal the matters of law and of fact that are necessary for that purpose or may have them at its disposal simply by making a request for clarification.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v E. Fischer-Lintjens

(Case C-543/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 27 - Annex VI, section R, point 1(a) and (b) - Concept of pensions payable under the legislation of two or more Member States - Benefits in kind - Retroactive award of a pension under the legislation of the Member State of residence - Enjoyment of health care benefits conditional on the taking out of compulsory health care insurance - Certificate of non-insurance under the legislation on compulsory health care insurance of the Member State of residence - No subsequent obligation to pay contributions to that Member State - Retroactive withdrawal of the certificate - No possibility of retroactive affiliation to compulsory health care insurance - Interruption of cover against the risk of sickness by such insurance - Effectiveness of Regulation No 1408/71))

(2015/C 236/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Defendant: E. Fischer-Lintjens

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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, as 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, in conjunction with section R, point 1(a) and (b), of Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71, must be interpreted as meaning that the pension of a person entitled must, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, be regarded as payable from the commencement of the period in respect of which that pension was actually paid to that person, whatever the date on which the entitlement to that pension was formally confirmed, including, if appropriate, where the period commences before the date of the decision awarding the pension.

Articles 27 and 84a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, in conjunction with section R, point 1(a) and (b) of Annex VI to that regulation, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, legislation of a Member State which does not allow the recipient of a pension awarded by that Member State with retroactive effect of one year to become affiliated to compulsory health care insurance with the same retroactive effect, and which has the effect of depriving that person of all social security cover without all the relevant circumstances, in particular those relating to that person’s personal situation, being taken into account.

(1) OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg

(Case C-580/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 8(3)(e) - Sale of counterfeit goods - Right to information in the context of proceedings for infringement of an intellectual property right - Legislation of a Member State which allows banking institutions to refuse a request for information relating to a bank account (banking secrecy)))

(2015/C 302/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

Defendant: Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(3)(e) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows, in an unlimited and unconditional manner, a banking institution to invoke banking secrecy in order to refuse to provide, pursuant to Article 8(1)(c) of that directive, information concerning the name and address of an account holder.

(1) OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.