ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Edgard Jan De Clercq and Others

(Case C-315/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU - Directive 96/71/EC - Article 3(1) and (10) - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 19 - National legislation requiring the person to whom posted employees or trainees are deployed to declare those who are unable to submit the acknowledgement of receipt of the declaration which should have been made to the host Member State by their employer established in another Member State - Criminal penalty))

(2015/C 046/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen

Parties in the main proceedings

Edgard Jan De Clercq, Emiel Amede Rosa De Clercq, Nancy Genevieve Wilhelmina Rottiers, Ermelinda Jozef Martha Tampère, Thermotec NV

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the recipient of services performed by workers posted by a service provider established in another Member State is required to declare to the competent authorities, before those workers begin to work, the data identifying those workers who are unable to submit proof of the declaration which their employer should have made to the competent authorities of that host Member State prior to the commencement of that provision of services, since such legislation is capable of being justified as safeguarding an overriding ground of public interest, such as the protection of workers or the combating of social security fraud, on condition that it is established that that legislation is appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the legitimate objective or objectives pursued and that it does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them, these being matters for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 December 2014 — Peter Schönberger v European Parliament

(Case C-261/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Decision to file the petition - Action for annulment - Concept of a ‘challengeable act’))

(2015/C 046/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Peter Schönberger (represented by: O. Mader, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and E. Waldherr, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Mr Peter Schönberger to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/10

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

(Case C-470/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Contracts falling below the threshold laid down in Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Applicability - Certain cross-border interest - Grounds for exclusion from a tendering procedure - Exclusion of an economic operator having committed an infringement of national competition rules, established by a judgment given not more than five years ago - Lawfulness - Proportionality))

(2015/C 065/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt

Defendant: Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU do not preclude the application of national legislation excluding the participation in a tendering procedure of an economic operator who has committed an infringement of competition law, established by a judicial decision having the force of res judicata, for which a fine was imposed.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
(3)

Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted to the effect that, although it does not preclude a creditor from providing the consumer with adequate explanations before assessing the financial situation and the needs of that consumer, it may be that the assessment of the consumer’s creditworthiness means that the adequate explanations provided need to be adapted, and that those explanations must be communicated to the consumer in good time before the credit agreement is signed, without this, however, requiring a specific document to be drawn up.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 February 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-172/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Article 31 of the EEA Agreement - Corporation tax - Groups of companies - Group relief - Transfer of losses sustained by a non-resident subsidiary - Conditions - Date to be used for determining whether the losses of the non-resident subsidiary are definitive))

(2015/C 107/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Kaye, S. Brighouse and A. Robinson, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Ewart QC and S. Ford, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3) Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
3)

Article 1(b) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a carrier protein conjugated with a polysaccharide antigen by means of a covalent binding may be categorised as an ‘active ingredient’ within the meaning of that provision only if it is established that it produces a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action of its own which is covered by the therapeutic indications of the marketing authorisation, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine, in the light of all the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/15

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion v European Commission

(Case C-564/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Article 340, first paragraph, TFEU - Contractual liability of the European Union - Article 272 TFEU - Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Contracts relating to the Ontogov, FIT and RACWeb projects - Eligible costs and amounts advanced by the Commission - Declaratory action - No vested and current interest in bringing proceedings))

(2015/C 138/18)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion (represented by: V. Khristianos and S. Paliou, dikigori)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Conte and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Drakakakis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Theodora Hendrika Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

(Case C-114/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Old age and survivors’ insurance - Article 46a(3)(c) - Award of benefits - National rules against overlapping - Derogation - Concept of ‘voluntary insurance or continued optional insurance’ - National pension under a compulsory insurance scheme - Possibility of requesting an exemption from affiliation for a certain period - Scope of the statement issued by the competent institution of another Member State - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 47))

(2015/C 118/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Theodora Hendrika Bouman

Respondent: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 46a(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as encompassing the part of the benefit resulting from a period of insurance during which the person concerned had the right to obtain an exemption from affiliation to the compulsory insurance scheme, in a situation where such affiliation, during the period in question, affects the extent of the social security benefit.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/4

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-577/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Supplementary protection certificate - Conditions for obtaining such a certificate - Medicinal products containing in whole or in part the same active ingredient - Medicinal products placed on the market in succession - Combination of active ingredients - Active ingredient previously marketed in the form of a medicinal product with a single active ingredient - Conditions for obtaining several certificates on the basis of the same patent - Modification of the active ingredients of a basic patent))

(2015/C 146/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd

Defendant: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, where a basic patent includes a claim to a product comprising an active ingredient which constitutes the sole subject-matter of the invention, for which the holder of that patent has already obtained a supplementary protection certificate, as well as a subsequent claim to a product comprising a combination of that active ingredient and another substance, that provision precludes the holder from obtaining a second supplementary protection certificate for that combination.

(1) OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — B. Martens v Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap

(Case C-359/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - National of a Member State - Residence in another Member State - Studies pursued in an overseas country or territory - Maintenance of the grant of funding for higher education - ‘Three-out-of-six-years’ residence rule - Restriction - Justification))

(2015/C 138/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: B. Martens

Respondent: Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the continued grant of funding for higher education outside that State subject to the rule that the student applying for such funding has resided in that Member State for a period of at least three out of the six years preceding his enrolment.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-540/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Setting of the date on which an earlier decision is to take effect - Determination of the legal basis - Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Secondary legal basis - Consultation of Parliament))

(2015/C 198/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak and A.F. Jensen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Annuls Council Decision 2013/392/EU of 22 July 2013 fixing the date of effect of Decision 2008/633/JHA concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences;

2) Declares that the effects of Decision 2013/392 are to be maintained until the entry into force of a new act intended to replace it;

3) Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Marian Macikowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

(Case C-499/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality - Taxation of a supply of immovable property in a procedure for compulsory sale by auction - National legislation requiring the court enforcement officer executing such a sale to calculate and pay VAT on the transaction - Payment of the purchase price to the competent court and need for the VAT to be paid to be transferred by that court to the court enforcement officer - Liability for damages and criminal liability of the court enforcement officer for non-payment of VAT - Difference between the general statutory time-limit for the payment of VAT by a taxable person and the time-limit imposed on the court enforcement officer - Impossibility of deducting the input VAT paid))

(2015/C 171/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marian Macikowski

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

Operative part of the judgment

1) Articles 9, 193 and 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, within the context of a sale of immovable property effected through enforcement, imposes on a person — namely the court enforcement officer who made the sale — obligations to calculate, collect and pay the value added tax on the proceeds of that transaction within the prescribed time-limits.

2) The principle of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a court enforcement officer must be liable with his entire assets for the amount of value added tax due on the proceeds of the sale of immovable property effected through enforcement where he does not discharge his obligation to collect and pay that tax, provided that the court enforcement officer concerned actually has all legal means to discharge that obligation, which it is for the referring court to determine.

3) Articles 206, 250 and 252 of Directive 2006/112 and the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the paying agent as referred to in that provision is required to calculate, collect and pay an amount of value added tax on a sale of goods effected through enforcement without being able to deduct the amount of value added tax paid as input tax from the beginning of the tax period to the date of the collection of that tax from the taxable person.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Finanzamt Ulm v Ingeborg Wagner-Raith

(Case C-560/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Derogation - Movement of capital involving the provision of financial services - National legislation providing for flat-rate taxation of investment income from holdings in foreign investment funds - Black funds))

(2015/C 236/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Finanzamt Ulm

Respondent: Ingeborg Wagner-Raith

Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 64 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for flat-rate taxation of the income of holders of units in a non-resident investment fund when the latter has not fulfilled certain statutory obligations constitutes a measure which relates to movement of capital involving the provision of financial services within the meaning of that article.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
2)

Annuls Commission Decisions C(2009) 9270 of 30 November 2009, C(2009) 10678 of 23 December 2009 and C(2010) 337 of 28 January 2010 reducing the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted respectively under the operational programme ‘Andalusia’ falling within Objective 1 (1994-1999) pursuant to Commission Decision C(94) 3456 of 9 December 1994, the operational programme ‘Basque Country’ falling within Objective 2 (1997-1999) pursuant to Commission Decision C(1998) 121 of 5 February 1998, and the operational programme ‘Comunidad Valenciana’ falling within Objective 1 (1994-1999) pursuant to Commission Decision C(1994) 3043/6 of 25 November 1994;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2015 — Philips Lighting Poland S.A., Philips Lighting BV v Council of the European Union, Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt.), Osram GmbH, European Commission

(Case C-511/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Articles 4(1), 5(4) and 9(1) - Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 - Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines - Injury to the Community industry - Major proportion of the total Community production of the like products))

(2015/C 363/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Philips Lighting Poland S.A., Philips Lighting BV (represented by: L. Catrain González, abogada, and E. Wright, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and by S. Gubel, avocat, and B. O’Connor, Solicitor), Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt.), Osram GmbH (represented by: R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Philips Lighting Poland SA and Philips Lighting BV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union and of Osram GmbH;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/2

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

(Case C-425/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations on linking the EU greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme with a greenhouse gas emissions trading system in Australia - Negotiating directives - Special committee - Articles 13(2) TEU, 218(2) to (4) TFEU and 295 TFEU - Institutional balance))

(2015/C 311/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by G. Valero Jordana and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by R. Passos and D. Warin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by K. Michoel, M. Moore and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and E. Ruffer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by C. Thorning, L. Volck Madsen and U. Melgaard, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze and B. Beutler, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by D. Colas, G. de Bergues, F. Fize and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by M. Bulterman and M. de Ree, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg and C. Hagerman, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by E. Jenkinson and M. Holt, acting as Agents, and J. Holmes and B. Kennelly, Barristers)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Annuls, in Section A, entitled ‘Procedure for negotiations’, of the Annex to the Council Decision of 13 May 2013 authorising the opening of negotiations on linking the EU emissions trading scheme with an emissions trading system in Australia: — the second sentence of paragraph 1 of that section, according to which, ‘where appropriate, detailed negotiating positions of the Union shall be established within the special committee referred to in Article 1(2) or within the Council’, and — the words ‘and establish negotiating positions’ in paragraph 3 of that section;

2) Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3) Orders the European Commission and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs, including those relating to the procedure that gave rise to the order in Commission v Council (C-425/13, EU:C:2014:91);

4) Orders the European Parliament and the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.