ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1832/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that modules such as those at issue in the main proceedings incorporated in devices for the mechanical or electrical functioning of which they are not necessary, do not constitute parts for the purposes of subheading 8543 90 80 of that nomenclature, but do come under subheading 8543 89 95 of that nomenclature, relating to other electrical machines and apparatus having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85 of that nomenclature.
2.

Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be considered that the jurisdiction of the court seised by one party of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility has been ‘accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings’ within the meaning of that provision where the defendant in those first proceedings subsequently brings a second set of proceedings before the same court and, on taking the first step required of him in the first proceedings, pleads the lack of jurisdiction of that court.
3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Spain and declares that the Commission is to bear its own costs both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present appeal.
2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, from the day on which the present judgment is delivered until the judgment in Commission v Italy (EU:C:2007:250) has been complied with, a six-monthly penalty payment to be calculated, as regards the first six-month period following delivery of the present judgment, at the end of that period, on the basis of an initial amount set at EUR 4 2 8 00 000, from which the sum of EUR 4 00 000 is to be deducted in respect of each of the sites containing hazardous waste that has by then been brought into conformity with the judgment in Commission v Italy (EU:C:2007:250) and the sum of EUR 2 00 000 is to be deducted in respect of every other site that has by then been brought into conformity with that judgment. The penalty payment due in respect of every six-month period thereafter is to be calculated, at the end of each such period, on the basis of an initial amount — being the amount of the penalty payment set for the preceding six-month period — from which the same deductions are to be made in respect of sites, covered by the finding of a failure to fulfil obligations, that have been brought into conformity during the six-month period under consideration;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao) v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-599/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 4 - General budget of the European Union - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Article 53b(2) - Decision 2004/904/EC - European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010 - Article 25(2) - Legal basis of the obligation to recover funds in the event of an irregularity))

(2015/C 065/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 53(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 of 13 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that, failing a legal basis in national law, that provision provides a legal basis for a decision of the national authorities to alter, to the detriment of the beneficiary, the amount of the grant paid out of the European Refugee Fund, where management is shared between the Commission and the Member States, and to order the recovery from the beneficiary of part of that amount. It is for the national court to determine whether, taking into account the conduct of both the beneficiary of the funds and of the national administrative authorities, the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, as understood in EU law, have been observed as regards the demand for repayment.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
2.

The principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation (EC) No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the recognition in a Member State of participation in a part-time work scheme for older employees which took place in accordance with the legislation of another Member State, it is necessary to undertake a comparative examination of the conditions for the application of such schemes under the legislation of those two Member States, in order to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the differences identified are liable to compromise attainment of the social policy objectives pursued by the legislation at issue in the former Member State.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — T-Mobile Austria GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission

(Case C-282/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 5(6) - Rights of use for radio frequencies and numbers - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 4(1) - Right of appeal against a decision of a national regulatory authority - Meaning of ‘undertaking affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority’ - Article 9b - Transfer of individual rights to use radio frequencies - Reallocation of rights to use radio frequencies following the merger of two undertakings))

(2015/C 107/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: T-Mobile Austria GmbH

Respondent: Telekom-Control-Kommission

Intervening parties: Hutchison Drei Austria Holdings GmbH, formerly Hutchison 3G Austria Holdings GmbH, Hutchison Drei Austria GmbH, formerly Hutchison 3G Austria GmbH and Orange Austria Telecommunication GmbH, Stubai SCA, Orange Belgium SA, A1 Telekom Austria AG, Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4(1) and 9b of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Article 5(6) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, may be regarded as a person ‘affected’, for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, where that undertaking, which provides electronic communications networks or services, is a competitor of the undertaking or undertakings party to a procedure for the authorisation of a transfer of rights to use radio frequencies provided for in Article 5(6) and the addressees of the decision of the national regulatory authority, and where that decision is likely to have an impact on that first undertaking’s position on the market.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH

(Case C-441/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(3) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Copyright - Dematerialised content - Placing online - Determination of the place of the event giving rise to the damage - Criteria))

(2015/C 107/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pez Hejduk

Defendant: EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of infringement of copyright and rights related to copyright guaranteed by the Member State of the court seised, that court has jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the damage occurred, to hear an action for damages in respect of an infringement of those rights resulting from the placing of protected photographs online on a website accessible in its territorial jurisdiction. That court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the Member State within which the court is situated.

(1) OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/11

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin v Tekniq, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS

(Case C-515/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Difference of treatment on grounds of age - National legislation providing for severance allowance to be paid to workers entitled on the date of termination of the employment relationship to a State retirement pension))

(2015/C 138/13)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin

Defendant: Tekniq, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) 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 they do not preclude national legislation, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, from providing that an employer must, upon termination of the employment relationship of a salaried employee who has been continuously employed in the same undertaking for 12, 15 or 18 years, pay an amount equivalent to one, two or three months’ salary respectively, unless the salaried employee is entitled to receive a State retirement pension upon termination of employment to the extent that that legislation is both objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment and labour market policy as well as constituting an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim. It is for the national court to satisfy itself that this is the case.

(1) OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — bpost SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

(Case C-340/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Postal services - Directive 97/67/EC - Article 12 - Universal service provider - Quantitative discounts - Application to intermediaries who consolidate postal items - Requirement of non-discrimination))

(2015/C 118/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: bpost SA

Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of non-discrimination in postal tariffs laid down in Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding a system of quantitative discounts per sender, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG v European Commission

(Case C-286/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European banana market - Coordination in the setting of quotation prices - Obligation to state reasons - Belated statement of reasons - Belated submission of evidence - Rights of defence - Principle of equality of arms - Principles governing the establishment of the facts - Distortion of the facts - Assessment of the evidence - Market structure - Requirement for the Commission to specify those aspects of the exchange of information which constitute a restriction of competition by object - Burden of proof - Calculation of the fine - Whether sales made by subsidiaries not involved in the infringement are to be taken into account - Sales of the same bananas counted twice))

(2015/C 155/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Dole Food Company, Inc., and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG, to bear the costs jointly and severally.

(1) OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v AOK Sachsen-Anhalt (C-503/13), Betriebskrankenkasse RWE (C-504/13)

(Joined Cases C-503/13 and C-504/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Liability for damage caused by defective products - Directive 85/374/EEC - Articles 1, 6(1) and section (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 - Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators - Risk of product failure - Personal injury - Removal of the allegedly defective product and replacement with another product - Reimbursement of the costs of the operation))

(2015/C 138/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH

Defendants: AOK Sachsen-Anhalt (C-503/13), Betriebskrankenkasse RWE (C-504/13)

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 6(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is found that products belonging to the same group or forming part of the same production series, such as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators, have a potential defect, such a product may be classified as defective without there being any need to establish that that product has such a defect.

2) Article 1 and section (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of Directive 85/374 are to be interpreted as meaning that the damage caused by a surgical operation for the replacement of a defective product, such as a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, constitutes ‘damage caused by death or personal injuries’ for which the producer is liable, if such an operation is necessary to overcome the defect in the product in question. It is for the national court to verify whether that condition is satisfied in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
1)

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force the tax scheme provided for in Paragraph 6b of the Law on Income Tax (Einkommensteuergesetz), which makes the benefit of the deferral of taxation of the capital gains realised on the sale of a capital asset forming part of the assets of a permanent establishment of the taxable person located within German territory subject to the condition that those capital gains are reinvested in the acquisition of replacement assets forming part of the assets of a permanent establishment of the taxable person located within that territory, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/2

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg

(Case C-279/13) (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(2) - Direct broadcast of a sporting fixture on an internet site))

(2015/C 171/02)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C More Entertainment AB

Defendant: Linus Sandberg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) 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 not precluding national legislation extending the exclusive right of the broadcasting organisations referred to in Article 3(2)(d) as regards acts of communication to the public which broadcasts of sporting fixtures made live on internet, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, may constitute, provided that such an extension does not undermine the protection of copyright.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
1.

Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to supplies: — of medical equipment, aids and other appliances which are not reserved for the exclusive personal use of the disabled or which are not normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, and — of products which are not pharmaceutical products of a kind normally used for health care, prevention of illnesses and as treatment for medical and veterinary purposes, including products used for contraception and sanitary protection, under headings 82, 92 and 103 of annex No 3 of the Law on tax on goods and services (Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług) of 11 March 2004 the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III of that Directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administrative, Strasbourg — France) — Geoffrey Léger v Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes, Établissement français du sang

(Case C-528/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public health - Directive 2004/33/EC - Technical requirements relating to blood and blood components - Blood donation - Eligibility criteria for blood donors - Criteria for permanent or temporary deferral - Persons whose sexual behaviour puts them at a high risk of acquiring severe infectious diseases that can be transmitted by blood - Man who has had sexual relations with another man - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 21(1) and 52(1) - Sexual orientation - Discrimination - Justification - Proportionality))

(2015/C 213/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administrative, Strasbourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Geoffrey Léger

Defendants: Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes, Établissement français du sang

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2.1 of Annex III to Commission Directive 2004/33/EC of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components must be interpreted as meaning that the criterion for permanent deferral from blood donation in that provision relating to sexual behaviour covers the situation in which a Member State, having regard to the prevailing situation there, provides for a permanent contraindication to blood donation for men who have had sexual relations with other men where it is established, on the basis of current medical, scientific and epidemiological knowledge and data, that such sexual behaviour puts those persons at a high risk of acquiring severe infectious diseases and that, with due regard to the principle of proportionality, there are no effective techniques for detecting those infectious diseases or, in the absence of such techniques, any less onerous methods than such a counter indication for ensuring a high level of health protection of the recipients. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the Member State concerned, those conditions are met.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
2.

In order to determine whether a contractual relationship, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified as a hiring-out of workers, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, it is necessary to take into consideration each element indicating whether the movement of workers in the host Member State is the very purpose of the supply of services on which the contractual relationship is based. In principle, evidence that such a movement is not the very purpose of the supply of services at issue are, inter alia, the fact that the service provider is liable for the failure to perform the service in accordance with the contract and the fact that that service provider is free to determine the number of workers he deems necessary to send to the host Member State. By contrast, the fact that the undertaking which receives those services checks the performance of the service for compliance with the contract or that it may give general instructions to the workers employed by the service provider does not, as such, lead to the finding that there is a hiring-out of workers.
2)

Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted to the effect that, in the case of a third-country national who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State and is suspected, or has been criminally convicted, of an act punishable as a criminal offence under national law, other factors, such as the nature and seriousness of that act, the time which has elapsed since it was committed and the fact that that national was in the process of leaving the territory of that Member State when he was detained by the national authorities, may be relevant in the assessment of whether he poses a risk to public policy within the meaning of that provision. Any matter which relates to the reliability of the suspicion that the third-country national concerned committed the alleged criminal offence, as the case may be, is also relevant to that assessment.