ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Flughafen Frankfurt-Hahn GmbH

(Case C-284/12) (1)

(State aid - Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU - Benefits granted by a public airport operator to a low-cost airline - Decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure in respect of that measure - Obligation of Member States’ courts to abide by the Commission’s assessment in that decision concerning the existence of aid)

2014/C 39/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: Flughafen Frankfurt-Hahn GmbH

Intervener in support of the defendant: Ryanair Ltd

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Interpretation of Articles 107(1) TFEU and 108(3) TFEU and Article 2(b)(i) of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ 2006 L 318, p. 17) — State aid — Benefits granted by a public airport operator to a low-cost airline — Commission decision to carry out a formal investigation in respect of that aid — Possible obligation of Member States’ courts to abide by the Commission’s assessment concerning the selective nature of that aid

Operative part of the judgment

Where, in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU, the European Commission has initiated the formal examination procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU with regard to a measure which has not been notified and is being implemented, a national court hearing an application for the cessation of the implementation of that measure and the recovery of payments already made is required to adopt all the necessary measures with a view to drawing the appropriate conclusions from an infringement of the obligation to suspend the implementation of that measure.

To that end, the national court may decide to suspend the implementation of the measure in question and order the recovery of payments already made. It may also decide to order provisional measures in order to safeguard both the interests of the parties concerned and the effectiveness of the European Commission’s decision to initiate the formal examination procedure.

Where the national court entertains doubts as to whether the measure at issue constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU or as to the validity or interpretation of the decision to initiate the formal examination procedure, it may seek clarification from the European Commission and, in accordance with the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU, it may or must refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.

(1) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/14

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Ragn-Sells AS v Sillamäe Linnavalitsus

(Case C-292/12) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/98/EC - Waste management - Article 16(3) - Principle of proximity - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Shipment of waste - Mixed municipal waste - Industrial waste and construction waste - Procedure for awarding a service concession for the collection and transport of waste produced on the territory of a municipality - Obligation for the future concessionaire to transport waste collected in the treatment facilities designated by the concession-granting authority - Nearest appropriate treatment facilities)

2014/C 52/22

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ragn-Sells AS

Defendant: Sillamäe Linnavalitsus

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Interpretation of Articles 102 TFEU and 106(1) TFEU and Article 16(3) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3) — Award procedure for public contracts for the organised transport of municipal waste — Condition in the contract documents that the future concessionaire must transport the waste solely to two specified waste management centres operating in the municipality in question despite the presence in the market of other service providers fulfilling the requirements — Exclusive right to treat municipal waste — Abuse of dominant position.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, read in conjunction with Article 16 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, must be interpreted as: — permitting a local authority to require the undertaking responsible for the collection of waste on its territory to transport mixed municipal waste collected from private households and, as applicable, from other producers, to the nearest appropriate treatment facility established in the same Member State as that authority; — not permitting a local authority to require the undertaking responsible for the collection of waste on its territory to transport industrial and building waste produced on its territory to the nearest appropriate treatment facility established in the same Member State as that authority, where that waste is intended for recovery, it the producers of that waste are themselves required to deliver the waste either to that undertaking or directly to that facility.

2. Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU do not apply to a situation such as that in the main proceedings, which is confined in all respects within a single Member State.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/16

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Ivan Jurašinović v Council of the European Union

(Case C-576/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to the documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Exceptions to the right of access - Article 4(1)(a), first and third indents - Public security - International relations)

2014/C 45/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ivan Jurašinović (represented by: N. Amara-Lebret, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pellinghelli and B. Driessen, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended composition) of 3 October 2012 in Case T-465/09 Jurašinović v Council by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of the Council decision of 21 September 2009 granting access to some of the reports drawn up by the European Union observers present in Croatia, in the Knin region, between 1 and 31 August 1995 — Application for access to documents held by the Council — Infringement of the right to a fair trial — Infringement of Articles 4(1) and 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) — Reports of observers posted by the European Union in Croatia — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Sensitive documents — Risk of prejudice to the protection of international relations — Previous disclosure of those documents to a defendant in the context of criminal proceedings pending before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia — Proper conduct of the criminal proceedings adversely affected.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Mr Ivan Jurašinović to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/20

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum

(Case C-484/12) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining such a certificate - Whether it is possible to obtain a number of supplementary protection certificates on the basis of just one patent)

2014/C 52/33

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georgetown University

Defendant: Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Articles 3(c) and 14(b) 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 (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions under which a certificate may be obtained — Basic patent in force covering several products — Whether or not there is a right to a certificate for each product.

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where, on the basis of a basic patent and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product consisting of a combination of several active ingredients, the patent holder has already obtained a supplementary protection certificate for that combination of active ingredients, protected by that patent within the meaning of Article 3(a) 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, Article 3(c) of that regulation must be interpreted as not precluding the proprietor from also obtaining a supplementary protection certificate for one of those active ingredients which, individually, is also protected as such by that patent.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.01.13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Trento Sviluppo srl, Centrale Adriatica Soc. coop. arl v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

(Case C-281/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices - Directive 2005/29/EC - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘misleading action’ - Cumulative nature of the conditions set out in the provision in question)

2014/C 52/21

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Trento Sviluppo srl, Centrale Adriatica Soc. coop. arl

Respondent: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — Concept of ‘misleading action’ — Cumulative nature of the conditions listed under the provision in question.

Operative part of the judgment

A commercial practice must be classified as ‘misleading’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) where that practice contains false information, or is likely to deceive the average consumer, and is likely to cause the consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise. Article 2(k) of the directive must be interpreted as meaning that any decision directly related to the decision whether or not to purchase a product is covered by the concept of ‘transactional decision’.

(1) OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.
1.

The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2001, approved by Council Decision 2004/635/EC of 21 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the Egyptian origin of goods, within the meaning of the preferential customs arrangement established by that agreement, can be proved even in the case where the goods were divided up when they arrived in a first Member State in order that a portion of them could be sent to a second Member State and where the replacement movement certificate EUR.1 issued by the customs authorities of the first Member State for the portion of those goods sent to the second Member State does not satisfy the conditions for the issuance of such a certificate set out in Article 20 of Protocol 4 to that agreement concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation, as amended by Decision No 1/2006 of the EU Egypt Association Council of 17 February 2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/9

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG (formerly Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG), Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG

(Case C-558/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark WESTERN GOLD - Opposition by the proprietor of the national, international and Community word marks WeserGold, Wesergold and WESERGOLD)

2014/C 85/15

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG (formerly Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG) (represented by: T. Melchert, Rechtsanwalt), Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wolter and A.K. Marx, Rechtsanwälte)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 21 September 2012 in Case T-278/10 Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung, by which the General Court (First Chamber) annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG — Application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign ‘WESTERN GOLD’ — Likelihood of confusion with the national, international and Community word marks ‘WeserGold’, ‘Wesergold’ and ‘WESERGOLD’ — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2012 in Case T-278/10 Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (WESTERN GOLD);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Lyreco Belgium NV v Sophie Rogiers

(Case C-588/12) (1)

((Social policy - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework agreement on parental leave - Clauses 1 and 2.4 - Part-time parental leave - Dismissal of a worker without compelling or sufficient reason - Fixed-sum protective award on account of the taking of parental leave - Method of calculating the amount of award))

2014/C 112/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lyreco Belgium NV

Defendant: Sophie Rogiers

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium — Interpretation of clauses 1 and 2.4, of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC, contained in the Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4) — Part-time parental leave — Reduction of benefits — Termination of a worker’s contract before the end of the period of parental leave without compelling reason — Method of calculating the amount of redundancy compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of clause 2.4 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997 read in the light both of the objectives of that Framework Agreement and of clause 2.6 thereof, it is contrary to that provision for the fixed-sum protective award payable to a worker on part-time parental leave, where the employer unilaterally and without compelling or sufficient reason terminates that worker’s full-time contract of indefinite duration, to be determined on the basis of the reduced salary earned by that worker at the date of the dismissal.

(1) OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria)) — Proceedings initiated by Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher

(Case C-367/12) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Public health - Article 49 TFEU - Pharmacies - Adequate supply of medicinal products to the public - Operating authorisation - Territorial distribution of pharmacies - Establishment of limits essentially based on a demographic criterion - Minimum distance between pharmacies)

2014/C 93/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher

Third party: Agnes Hemetsberger, successor to Susanna Zehetner

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU and Articles 16 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Member State's rules which make the award of a concession to operate a pharmacy subject to an assessment of the needs of the market based on a number of complex and almost unforeseeable criteria.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU, in particular the requirement that the desired objective be achieved in a consistent manner, must be interpreted as precluding legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down, as an essential criterion for determining whether a need for the establishment of a new pharmacy exists, a rigid limit on the ‘people remaining to be served’, where the competent authorities cannot depart from that limit to take account of particular local geographical conditions.

(1) OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 March 2014 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-427/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - Choice of legal basis - Articles 290 TFEU and 291 TFEU - Delegated act and implementing act - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Article 80(1) - Biocidal products - European Chemicals Agency - Setting of fees by the Commission))

2014/C 142/08

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, C. Zadra and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and A. Troupiotis, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and I. Šulce, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and D. Hadroušek, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Thorning, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and M. Noort, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and J. Leppo, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell and M. Holt, Agents, and by B. Kennelly, Barrister)

Re:

Action for annulment — Article 80(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1), in so far as it provides for the adoption of measures setting the fees payable to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) by an implementing act under Article 291 TFEU and not by a delegated act in accordance with Article 290 TFEU — Choice of legal basis — Attribution of the regulatory powers which the EU legislature may confer on the Commission.

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, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/3

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

(Case C-222/12) (1)

((Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Obligation to use a tachograph - Derogation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance - Vehicle transporting gravel from the loading site to the road maintenance works site))

2014/C 135/03

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A. Karuse AS

Defendant: Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Interpretation of Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) — Obligation to use a tachograph — Exception to the obligation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance — Tipping lorry with a maximum weight of 25,5 tonnes carrying gravel along the public highway from a quarry to a site of road repair and maintenance works.

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘vehicles used in connection with road maintenance’, in Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, which vehicles can be exempted from the use of a tachograph, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers vehicles transporting material to a road maintenance works site, provided that the transport is wholly and exclusively connected with those works and constitutes an ancillary activity to them. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case, taking account of all the relevant factors in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.