ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH v Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

(Case C-216/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Scope - Concept of ‘worker’ - Concept of ‘economic activities’ - Nursing staff who do not have a contract of employment assigned to a health care institution by a not-for-profit association))

(2017/C 014/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

Respondent: Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of that directive covers the assignment by a not-for-profit association, in return for financial compensation, of one of its members to a user undertaking for the purposes of that member carrying out, as his main occupation and under the direction of that user undertaking, work in return for remuneration, where that member is protected on that basis in the Member State concerned, this being a matter for the referring court to determine, even if that member does not have the status of worker under national law on the ground that he has not concluded a contract of employment with that association.

(1) OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.
1.

Heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that goods which fall within the definition of ‘medicinal product’, within the meaning of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011, are not automatically required to be classified under that heading.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/5

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Lemnis Lighting BV

(Case C-600/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8539, 8541, 8543, 8548 and 9405 - Light-emitting diode bulbs (LED)))

(2017/C 038/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Lemnis Lighting BV

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 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that goods such as the LED bulbs at issue in the main proceedings fall, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all the facts before it, under heading 8543 of that nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — European Commission v World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (C-20/15 P), Banco Santander SA, Santusa Holding SL (C-21/15 P)

(Joined Cases C-20/15 P and C-21/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporation tax - Deduction - Amortisation of goodwill resulting from acquisitions by undertakings resident for tax purposes in Spain of shareholdings of at least 5 % in undertakings resident for tax purposes outside Spain - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity))

(2017/C 053/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (C-20/15 P), Banco Santander SA, Santusa Holding SL (C-21/15 P) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and R. Calvo Salinero, abogados)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents) Ireland (represented by: G. Hodge and E. Creedon, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister, and A. Goodman, Barrister), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 7 November 2014, Autogrill España v Commission (T-219/10, EU:T:2014:939), and of 7 November 2014, Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission (T-399/11, EU:T:2014:938);

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

3. Reserves the costs;

4. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/16

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Daniel Bowman v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

(Case C-539/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and (2) - Discrimination on grounds of age - Collective labour agreement - Extension of the period of advancement from the first to the second step in the salary scale - Indirect unequal treatment on grounds of age))

(2017/C 053/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Daniel Bowman

Defendant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a national collective labour agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which an employee who benefits from account being taken of periods of school education for the purpose of his classification in the salary steps is subject to a longer period of advancement between the first and second salary step, as long as that extension applies to every employee benefiting from the inclusion of those periods, including retroactively to those having already reached the next steps.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

(Case C-375/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2007/64/EC - Payment services in the internal market - Framework contracts - Prior general information - Obligation to provide that information on paper or on another durable medium - Information transmitted by means of the electronic mailbox of an online banking website))

(2017/C 078/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG

Defendant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 41(1) and 44(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, read in conjunction with Article 4(25) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that changes to the information and conditions, provided for under Article 42 of that directive, and changes to the framework contract as well, which are transmitted by the payment service provider to the user of those services through the electronic mailbox of an online banking website, may not be considered to have been provided on a durable medium within the meaning of those provisions, unless these two conditions are met:

— that that website allows the user to store information addressed to him personally in such a way that he may access it and reproduce it unchanged for an adequate period, without any unilateral modification of its content by that service provider or by another professional being possible; and

— if the payment service user is obliged to consult that internet website in order to become aware of that information, the transmission of that information is accompanied by active behaviour on the part of the provider aimed at drawing the user’s attention to the existence and availability of that information on that website.

In the event of the payment service user being obliged to consult such a website in order to become aware of the relevant information, that information is merely made available to that user within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 36(1) of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, when the transmission of that information is not accompanied by such active behaviour on the part of the payment service provider.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig — Germany) — Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-282/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Articles 34 to 36 TFEU - Purely domestic situation - Food safety - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 6 - Principle of risk analysis - Article 7 - Precautionary principle - Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 - Member State legislation prohibiting the manufacture and sale of food supplements containing amino acids - Situation in which a temporary derogation to that prohibition is at the discretion of the national authority))

(2017/C 070/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits the manufacture, processing or marketing of any food supplement containing amino acids, unless a derogation has been issued by a national authority with discretion in that respect, where that legislation is based on a risk analysis which concerns only certain amino acids, which it is for the referring court to verify. In any event, those articles must be interpreted as precluding such national legislation, where that legislation lays down that the derogations to the prohibition covered by it may only be granted for a specific period even in cases where the safety of a substance is established.

(1) OJ 2015 C 294, p. 30.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — H&R ChemPharm GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-95/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of the evidence - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(3) - Calculation of the amount of the fine - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of proportionality))

(2017/C 112/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: H&R ChemPharm GmbH (represented by: M. Klusmann, lawyer and S. Thomas, Professor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dimsisses the appeal;

2. Orders H&R ChemPharm GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/18

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-506/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005, (EC) No 1975/2006 and (EC) No 796/2004 - Rural development support measures - Areas with natural handicaps - On-the-spot controls - Coefficient density of livestock - Counting of animals))

(2017/C 104/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and A. Daly, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
1.

Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009, and in conjunction with the general principle of equal treatment enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be construed as allowing legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on employees with certain disabilities specific advance protection in the event of dismissal, without conferring such protection on civil servants with the same disabilities, unless it has been established that there has been an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, that being a matter for the referring court to determine. When making that determination, the comparison of the situations must be based on an analysis focusing on all the relevant rules of national law governing the positions of employees with a particular disability, on the one hand, and the positions of civil servants with the same disability, on the other, having regard, in particular, to the purpose of the protection against dismissal at issue in the main proceedings;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Trybunał Konstytucyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — proceedings brought by the Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)

(Case C-390/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Point 6 of Annex III - Validity - Procedure - Amendment of a proposal for a Council directive after the Parliament has given an opinion - No fresh consultation of the Parliament - Article 98(2) - Validity - Reduced rate of VAT precluded from being applied to the supply of digital books electronically - Principle of equal treatment - Comparability of two situations - Supply of digital books electronically and on all physical means of support))

(2017/C 144/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Trybunał Konstytucyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)

Other parties: Marszałek Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Prokurator Generalny

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of point 6 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009, or of Article 98(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with point 6 of Annex III thereto.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Eko-Tabak s. r. o. v Generální ředitelství cel

(Case C-638/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/64/EU - Article 2(1)(c) - Article 5(1)(a) - Definitions of ‘smoking tobacco’, ‘tobacco which has been cut or otherwise split’ and ‘industrial processing’))

(2017/C 168/15)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eko-Tabak s. r. o.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as meaning that dried, flat, irregular, partly stripped leaf tobacco and/or parts thereof which have undergone primary drying and controlled dampening, which contain glycerine and which are capable of being smoked after simple processing by means of crushing or hand-cutting, fall within the definition of ‘smoking tobacco’ for the purpose of those provisions.

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Samira Achbita, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV

(Case C-157/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment - Discrimination based on religion or belief - Workplace regulations of an undertaking prohibiting workers from wearing visible political, philosophical or religious signs in the workplace - Direct discrimination - None - Indirect discrimination - Female worker prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf))

(2017/C 151/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Samira Achbita, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding

Defendant: G4S Secure Solutions NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on wearing an Islamic headscarf, which arises from an internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign in the workplace, does not constitute direct discrimination based on religion or belief within the meaning of that directive.

By contrast, such an internal rule of a private undertaking may constitute indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 if it is established that the apparently neutral obligation it imposes results, in fact, in persons adhering to a particular religion or belief being put at a particular disadvantage, unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, such as the pursuit by the employer, in its relations with its customers, of a policy of political, philosophical and religious neutrality, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/9

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-502/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3 to 5 and 10 - Annex I, Sections A, B and D - Urban waste-water treatment - Collecting systems - Secondary or equivalent treatment - More stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas))

(2017/C 213/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling, Agent, and by S. Ford, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations are retained and conducted for treatment, in compliance with the requirements of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and 10 of, and Sections A and B of Annex I to, that directive;

2. Declares that, by not putting in place secondary treatment for the urban waste water in the Ballycastle agglomeration and by not subjecting the urban waste water in the Gibraltar agglomeration to any treatment, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of, and Section B of Annex I to, Directive 91/271;

3. Declares that, by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from the Tiverton, Durham (Barkers Haugh), Chester-le-Street, Islip, Broughton Astley, Chilton, Witham and Chelmsford agglomerations, before discharge into sensitive areas, be subject to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4 of Directive 91/271, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of, and Section B of Annex I to, that directive;

4. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

5. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
2.

The provisions of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, and the principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality must be interpreted to the effect that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, they do not preclude the purchaser of an item of property from being deprived of the right to deduct the value added tax which he paid to the seller when that tax was not due, on the basis of an invoice drawn up in accordance with the rules of the ordinary value added tax regime, where the relevant transaction came under the reverse charge mechanism, and the seller paid that tax to the Treasury. However, to the extent that reimbursement of the unduly invoiced value added tax by the seller to the purchaser becomes impossible or excessively difficult, in particular in the case of the insolvency of the seller, those principles require that the purchaser be able to address his application for reimbursement to the tax authority directly.