ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 203 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006 must be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt is not incurred on the basis of the sole fact that the goods placed under an External Community transit procedure are, after an unsuccessful delivery attempt, brought back to the free port of departure without having been presented to either the customs office of destination or the customs of the free port if it is established that the same goods were subsequently transported again to their destination under a second correctly discharged External Community transit procedure. However, if it is not possible to establish that the goods covered by the first and second External Community transit procedures are the same goods, a customs debt is incurred under that provision;
Case C-58/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hannover v Amazon EU Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 8543 70 — Electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8543 70 10 and 8543 70 90 — Reading devices for electronic books with translation or dictionary functions)

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hannover v Amazon EU Sàrl

(Case C-58/14) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 8543 70 — Electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8543 70 10 and 8543 70 90 — Reading devices for electronic books with translation or dictionary functions)’

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Defendant: Amazon EU Sàrl

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 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a reading device for electronic books which has a translation or dictionary function must, where that function is not its principal function, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain, be classified under subheading 8543 70 90 and not under subheading 8543 70 10.

( 1 ) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-88/14) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 - Article 1(1) and (4) - Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 - Article 1(4)(f) - Article 290 TFEU - Suspension of exemption from the visa requirement - Insertion of a footnote - Amendment of the legislative act))

(2015/C 302/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, B. Martenczuk and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, A. Troupiotis and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, acting as Agents)

Council of the European Union (represented by K. Pleśniak and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Škeřík, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-87/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Organisation of working time of doctors in training))

(2015/C 294/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and E. Mc Phillips and by A. Joyce and B. Counihan, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Fennelly, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-463/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 24(1), 25(b), 62(2), 63 and 64(1) - Meaning of ‘supply of services’ - Subscription contract for the supply of consulting services - Chargeable event - Need for proof of the actual supply of services - Chargeability of the tax))

(2015/C 354/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘supply of services’ includes subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services to an undertaking, in particular those of a legal, commercial or financial nature, under which a supplier has agreed to be available to the customer during the term of the contract.

2. As regards subscription contracts for consulting services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 62(2), 63 and 64(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the chargeable event and the chargeability of the tax occur upon the expiry of the period in respect of which the payment has been agreed, irrespective of whether and how often the customer has actually made use of the supplier’s services.

(1) OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.
1)

declares that, by having continued to authorise the sale of loose ‘snus’ (oral tobacco), the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/11

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Corina van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

(Case C-257/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Passengers’ rights in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Denied boarding and cancellation - Long flight delay - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Extraordinary circumstances))

(2015/C 371/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corina van der Lans

Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which occurred unexpectedly, which is not attributable to poor maintenance and which was also not detected during routine maintenance checks, does not fall within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Christophe Bohez v Ingrid Wiertz

(Case C-4/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 1(2) and 49 - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Matters excluded - Family law - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 47(1) - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility - Judgment concerning rights of access which imposes a periodic penalty payment - Enforcement of that penalty payment))

(2015/C 363/07)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Christophe Bohez

Respondent: Ingrid Wiertz

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1 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 that regulation does not apply to the enforcement in a Member State of a penalty payment which is imposed in a judgment, given in another Member State, concerning rights of custody and rights of access in order to ensure that the holder of the rights of custody complies with those rights of access.

2. Recovery of a penalty payment — a penalty which the court of the Member State of origin that gave judgment on the merits with regard to rights of access has imposed in order to ensure the effectiveness of those rights — forms part of the same scheme of enforcement as the judgment concerning the rights of access that the penalty safeguards and the latter must therefore be declared enforceable in accordance with the rules laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.

3. In the context of Regulation No 2201/2003, a foreign judgment which orders a periodic penalty payment is enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the courts of the Member State of origin.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
1.

Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the charge for supplying a particular type of environmental information may not include any part of the cost of maintaining a database, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, used for that purpose by the public authority, but may include the overheads attributable to the time spent by the staff of the public authority on answering individual requests for information, properly taken into account in fixing the charge, provided that the total amount of the charge does not exceed a reasonable amount.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/10

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud’hommes de Paris — France) — O v Bio Philippe Auguste SARL

(Case C-432/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and 2(2)(a) - Difference in treatment on grounds of age - Whether situations comparable - Grant of a payment, on the expiry of a fixed-term employment contract, intended to compensate for insecurity - Exclusion of young people working during their school holidays or university vacations))

(2015/C 381/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil de prud’hommes de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: O

Defendant: Bio Philippe Auguste SARL

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and given specific expression by 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 national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an end-of-contract payment, paid in addition to an employee’s salary on the expiry of a fixed-term employment contract where the contractual relationship is not continued in the form of a contract for an indefinite period, is not payable in the event that the contract is concluded with a young person for a period during his school holidays or university vacation.

(1) OJ C 431, 1.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v Biovet AD

(Case C-306/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/83/EEC - Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Article 27(1)(d) - Exemption from the harmonised excise duty - Ethyl alcohol - Use for cleaning and disinfection of equipment and facilities used for the production of medicines))

(2015/C 406/09)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Defendant: Biovet AD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to exempt laid down in that provision applies to ethyl alcohol used by an undertaking for cleaning or disinfecting equipment and facilities used in the production of medicines.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/6

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Seattle Genetics Inc. v Österreichisches Patentamt

(Case C-471/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Proprietary medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 13(1) - Supplementary protection certificate - Duration - Concept of the ‘date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the European Union’ - Whether account is to be taken of the date of the decision granting authorisation or the date on which notification was given of that decision))

(2015/C 398/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Seattle Genetics Inc.

Defendant: Österreichisches Patentamt

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the [European Union]’ is determined by EU law;

2. Article 13(1) of Regulation No 469/2009 is to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the [European Union]’ within the meaning of that provision is the date on which notification of the decision granting marketing authorisation was given to the addressee of the decision.

(1) OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Roman Bukovansky v Finanzamt Lörrach

(Case C-241/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Relationship between that agreement and bilateral agreements on double taxation - Equal treatment - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - National of a Member State of the European Union - Frontier workers - Income tax - Allocation of fiscal sovereignty - Connecting factor for tax purposes - Nationality))

(2016/C 016/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Roman Bukovansky

Defendant: Finanzamt Lörrach

Operative part of the judgment

The principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment, set out in Article 2 of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, and in Article 9 of Annex I to that agreement, must be interpreted as not precluding a bilateral agreement on double taxation, such as the Agreement of 11 August 1971 between the Swiss Confederation and the Federal Republic of Germany, as amended by the revising Protocol of 12 March 2002, under which the power to tax the employment income of a German taxpayer who does not have Swiss nationality, although he has transferred his residence from Germany to Switzerland, whilst retaining his place of employment in the first of those States, is vested in the State in which that income originates, namely the Federal Republic of Germany, whereas the power to tax the employment income of a Swiss national who is in an analogous situation is vested in the new State of residence, in this case the Swiss Confederation.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Sachsen v Tomislaw Trapkowski

(Case C-378/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 67 - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 60(1) - Payment of family benefits where parents are divorced - Definition of the ‘person concerned’ - Law of a Member State providing for the payment of family benefits to the parent who has taken the child into his household - Residence of that parent in another Member State - Failure of that parent to claim family benefits - Possibility of entitlement of the other parent to claim those family benefits))

(2015/C 414/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Sachsen

Defendant: Tomislaw Trapkowski

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 60(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that the deeming provision included there may lead to the grant of entitlement to family benefits for a person who does not reside in the Member State responsible for paying those benefits where all the other conditions for the grant of those benefits laid down by national law are met, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.

2. Article 60(1), third sentence, of Regulation No 987/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that there is no requirement that the parent of the child for whom child benefits are paid, who resides in the Member State obliged to pay those benefits, must be granted entitlement to those benefits on the ground that the other parent, who resides in another Member State, has not applied for them.

(1) OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/6

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-603/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for the word mark The English Cut - Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word and figurative marks including the word elements ‘El Corte Inglés’ - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(5) - Risk that the relevant public will make a connection with a trade mark which has a reputation - Degree of similarity required))

(2016/C 048/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: El Corte Inglés, SA (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 October 2014 in El Corte Inglés v OHIM — English Cut (The English Cut) (T-515/12, EU:T:2014:882) in so far as it was held in that judgment that it was apparent from the fact that the degree of similarity between the signs at issue was not sufficient to result in the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark that the conditions for the application of Article 8(5) of that regulation were therefore also not satisfied in the present case;

2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

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

4. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
1.

The concept of ‘economic activity’ within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers an activity, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to the transport of stray dogs from one Member State to another by a charitable association in order to hand over those dogs to persons who have undertaken to adopt them after payment by those persons of a sum covering, in principle, the costs incurred for that purpose by that association.