ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-554/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — EP Agrarhandel GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Support for farmers — Suckler-cow premium — Second paragraph of Article 117 — Transmission of information — Decision 2001/672/EC, as amended by Decision 2010/300/EU — Movements of bovine animals to summer grazing in mountain areas — Article 2(4) — Time limit for notification of the movement — Calculation — Notifications out of time — Eligibility for the payment of premiums — Condition — Taking account of the time limit for dispatch)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — EP Agrarhandel GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

(Case C-554/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Support for farmers — Suckler-cow premium — Second paragraph of Article 117 — Transmission of information — Decision 2001/672/EC, as amended by Decision 2010/300/EU — Movements of bovine animals to summer grazing in mountain areas — Article 2(4) — Time limit for notification of the movement — Calculation — Notifications out of time — Eligibility for the payment of premiums — Condition — Taking account of the time limit for dispatch)’

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EP Agrarhandel GmbH

Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(4) of Commission Decision 2001/672/EC of 20 August 2001 laying down special rules applicable to movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in mountain areas, as amended by Commission Decision 2010/300/EU of 25 May 2010, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which, for the purpose of compliance with the time limit for notification of movements to summer grazing, the date of receipt of the notification is regarded as the determining factor.

( 1 ) OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.
Case C-209/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — Federal Republic of Germany v Lowell Financial Services GmbH, formerly GFKL Financial Services AG, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying certain losses forward to future tax years (‘restructuring clause’) — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Person individually concerned — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Determination of the reference framework — Legal classification of the facts)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — Federal Republic of Germany v Lowell Financial Services GmbH, formerly GFKL Financial Services AG, European Commission

(Case C-209/16 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying certain losses forward to future tax years (‘restructuring clause’) — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Person individually concerned — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Determination of the reference framework — Legal classification of the facts)’

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Lowell Financial Services GmbH, formerly GFKL Financial Services AG (represented by: M. Schweda, M. Knebelsberger and F. Loose, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck-Putz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the cross-appeal;

2. Sets aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 February 2016, GFKL Financial Services v Commission (T-620/11, EU:T:2016:59);

3. Annuls Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel);

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal, to pay the costs incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to the appeal proceedings, and to pay the costs incurred by Lowell Financial Services GmbH in relation to the proceedings at first instance;

5. Orders Lowell Financial Services GmbH to bear its own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings.

( 1 ) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Case C-683/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Fisheries Policy — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Article 11 — Conservation of marine biological resources — Protection of the environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Exclusive competence of the European Union)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-683/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Fisheries Policy — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Article 11 — Conservation of marine biological resources — Protection of the environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Exclusive competence of the European Union)’

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände eV

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from adopting, with respect to the waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, the measures which are necessary in order for it to meet its obligations under Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and which completely prohibit, in Natura 2000 areas, commercial fishing using gear which touches the sea bed and fixed nets, since such measures affect fishing vessels flying the flag of other Member States.

2. Article 11(1) of Regulation No 1380/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the adoption, by a Member State, of measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings, with respect to the waters under its sovereignty or its jurisdiction, which are necessary in order for it to meet its obligations deriving from Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage.

( 1 ) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-430/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) - Combating of nuclear proliferation - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Sector-specific measures - Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions - Strengthening of restrictions - Regime at issue adopted under the provisions of Decision 2012/635/CFSP and of Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 - Implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear issue - Lifting of all restrictive measures of the European Union related to this issue - Repeal of regime at issue in the course of proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Effect on interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court - No continuation of interest in bringing proceedings))

(2018/C 399/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bank Mellat (represented by: M. Brindle QC and T. Otty QC, J. MacLeod and R. Blakeley, Barristers, and S. Zaiwalla and Z. Burbeza, A. Meskarian and P. Reddy, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and J. Norris-Usher and by M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, acting as Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 June 2016, Bank Mellat v Council (T-160/13, EU:T:2016:331);

2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action brought by Bank Mellat in Case T-160/13, seeking the annulment of Article 1, point 15, of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, or of that provision in so far as it does not provide for an exception applicable in respect of Bank Mellat, and its application for a declaration by the General Court of the European Union that Article 1, point 6, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran is not applicable to it;

3. Orders Bank Mellat and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs both in the appeal proceedings and in the proceedings at first instance;

4. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Orange Polska SA v European Commission, Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA), formerly the European Competitive Telecommunications Association

(Case C-123/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Polish wholesale market for fixed broadband internet access - Refusal to give access to the network and to supply wholesale products - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 7(1) - Article 23(2)(a) - Legitimate interest in finding an infringement which has come to an end - Calculation of the fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 - Gravity - Mitigating circumstances - Investments made by the infringing undertaking - Review of legality - Review exercising powers of unlimited jurisdiction - Substitution of grounds))

(2018/C 328/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Orange Polska SA (represented by: S. Hautbourg, avocat, P. Paśnik and M. Modzelewska de Raad, adwokaci, A. Howard, Barrister, and D. Beard QC,)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, L. Malferrari and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents), Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, (represented by P. Litwiński, adwokat), European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA), formerly the European Competitive Telecommunications Association, (represented by G.I. Moir and J. MacKenzie, Solicitors)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Orange Polska SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji and the European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA) to bear their own costs

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Lucreţiu Hadrian Vădan v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Alba

(Case C-664/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168, 178 and 273 - Scope of the right of deduction - Absence of invoices - Recourse to a court-commissioned expert report - Burden of proof of the right of deduction - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality))

(2019/C 25/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lucreţiu Hadrian Vădan

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Alba

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Articles 167, 168, 178(a) and 179, and the principles of the neutrality of value added tax (VAT) and proportionality, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a taxable person who is unable to provide evidence of the amount of input VAT he has paid, by producing invoices or any other document, cannot benefit from a right to deduct VAT solely on the basis of an assessment resulting from an expert report commissioned by a national court.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
1.

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows contracting authorities to lay down, in the documents governing an open procurement procedure, minimum requirements as regards the technical evaluation, so that the tenders submitted which do not reach a predetermined minimum score threshold at the end of that evaluation are excluded from the subsequent evaluation based on both technical criteria and price.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Generics (UK) Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-588/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Pharmaceutical products - Market for antidepressants (citalopram) - Settlement agreements relating to disputes concerning process patents concluded by a manufacturer of originator medicines who is the holder of those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines - Article 101 TFEU - Potential competition - Restriction by object - Characterisation - Calculation of the amount of the fine)

(2021/C 206/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Generics (UK) Ltd (represented by: I. Vandenborre, advocaat, T. Goetz, Rechtsanwalt, and M. Brealey QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, B. Rayment and D. Bailey, Barristers, G. Peretz QC, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel)

Intervener in support of the defendent: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and J. Holmes QC, and subsequently D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and J. Holmes QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Generics (UK) Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
1.

Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany, by having, at the 25th session of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF) Revision Committee, voted against the position laid down in Council Decision 2014/699/EU of 24 June 2014 establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union at the 25th session of the OTIF Revision Committee as regards certain amendments to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) and the Appendices thereto, and having publicly opposed that position and the arrangements for the exercise of voting rights provided for therein, failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision and Article 4(3) TEU;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/13

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu — Poland) — Grzegorz Chudaś, Irena Chudaś v DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft AG

(Case C-66/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - Scope - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Enforcement orders capable of being certified as European Enforcement Orders - Decision on the amount of costs related to the court proceedings in a judgment not concerning an uncontested claim - Excluded))

(2018/C 052/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Grzegorz Chudaś, Irena Chudaś

Defendant: DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that an enforceable decision on the amount of costs related to court proceedings, contained in a judgment which does not relate to an uncontested claim, cannot be certified as a European Enforcement Order.

(1) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/13

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa

(Case C-159/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Revocation of identification for VAT purposes - Obligation to pay VAT collected in the period during which the VAT identification number is revoked - Non-recognition of the right to deduct VAT relating to purchases made during that period))

(2018/C 161/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius

Respondents: Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167 to 169 and 179, Articles 213(1) and 214(1), and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows tax authorities to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax when it is established that, on account of the alleged infringements committed by that person, the tax authorities could not have access to the information necessary to establish that the substantive requirements giving rise to the right to deduct input value added tax paid by that taxable person have been satisfied or that that person acted fraudulently in order to enjoy that right, a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
1.

Declares that, by requiring undertakings to have at least three vehicles in order to obtain a public transport licence, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 5(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC;
Joined Cases C-91/17 P and C-92/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 April 2018 — Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Telecom Castilla-La Mancha SA v European Commission, SES Astra (Appeal — State Aid — Digital television — Aid for the extension of digital terrestrial television to the remote and less urbanised areas of the Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain) — Grant in favour of operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid measures to be partially incompatible with the internal market — Concept of ‘State Aid’ — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Margin of discretion of the Member States)

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 April 2018 — Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Telecom Castilla-La Mancha SA v European Commission, SES Astra

(Joined Cases C-91/17 P and C-92/17 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — State Aid — Digital television — Aid for the extension of digital terrestrial television to the remote and less urbanised areas of the Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain) — Grant in favour of operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid measures to be partially incompatible with the internal market — Concept of ‘State Aid’ — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Margin of discretion of the Member States)’

Parties

Appellants: Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Telecom Castilla-La Mancha SA (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents), SES Astra (represented by: F. González Díaz and V. Romero Algarra, abogados)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Cellnex Telecom SA and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha SA to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.