ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG v Kreis Düren

(Case C-386/11) (1)

(Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Definition of ‘public contract’ - Article 1(2)(a) - Contract concluded between two local authorities - Transfer by one entity of the responsibility for cleaning certain of its buildings to another entity in return for financial compensation)

2013/C 225/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent: Kreis Düren

Intervening party: Stadt Düren

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Agreement under which, in return for the reimbursement of costs incurred, a regional authority transfers responsibility for the cleaning of the public buildings which it owns to the local authority responsible for the area in which the buildings are situated — Classification of that agreement as a public service contract or as an agreement on cooperation between local authorities that is not subject to the European Union rules on public procurement

Operative part of the judgment

A contract such as that at issue in the main proceedings — whereby, without establishing cooperation between the contracting public entities with a view to carrying out a public service task that both of them have to perform, one public entity assigns to another the task of cleaning certain office, administrative and school buildings, while reserving the power to supervise the proper execution of that task, in return for financial compensation intended to correspond to the costs incurred in the performance of the task, the second entity being, moreover, authorised to avail of the services of third parties which might be capable of competing on the market for the accomplishment of that task — constitutes a public service contract within the meaning of Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-74/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes and restricting the possibility of forming such a group to the financial and insurance sector)

2013/C 171/05

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, J. Heliskoski and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent); Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, and G. Clohessy, SC, and N. Travers, BL); Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, acting as Agent, and M. Hall, QC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of Value Added Tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation permitting non-taxable persons to be included in a VAT group and restricting the VAT group system to providers of financial services and insurance services.

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, Ireland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/18

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV

(Case C-651/11) (1)

(VAT - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 5(8) - Concept of ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’ - Disposal of 30 % of the shares in a company to which the transferor supplies services that are subject to VAT)

2013/C 225/30

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: X BV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 5(8) and 6(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Taxable transactions — Transfer of a totality of assets and/or of services (or part thereof) — Disposal of 30 % of the shares in a company by a shareholder who, until the date of disposal, supplied services subject to VAT to that company

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5(8) and/or 6(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the disposal of 30 % of the shares in a company to which the transferor supplies services that are subject to VAT does not amount to the transfer of a totality of assets or services or part thereof within the meaning of those provisions, irrespective of the fact that the other shareholders transfer all the other shares in that company to the same person at practically the same time and that that disposal is closely linked to management activities carried out for that company.

(1) OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon — Greece) — Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon

(Case C-414/11) (1)

(Common commercial policy - Article 207 TFEU - Commercial aspects of intellectual property - Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) - Article 27 - Patentable subject-matter - Article 70 - Protection of existing subject-matter)

2013/C 260/09

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polimeles Protodikio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Defendants: DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Polimeles Protodikio Athinon — Interpretation of Articles 27 and 70 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) annexed to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 214) — Distinction between fields covered by Community law and those within the competence of the Member States — Patents — Chemical and pharmaceutical products

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 27 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, constituting Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), falls within the field of the common commercial policy.

2. Article 27 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights must be interpreted as meaning that the invention of a pharmaceutical product such as the active chemical compound of a medicinal product is, in the absence of a derogation in accordance with Article 27(2) or (3), capable of being the subject-matter of a patent, under the conditions set out in Article 27(1).

3. A patent obtained following an application claiming the invention both of the process of manufacture of a pharmaceutical product and of the pharmaceutical product as such, but granted solely in relation to the process of manufacture, does not, by reason of the rules set out in Articles 27 and 70 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, have to be regarded from the entry into force of that agreement as covering the invention of that pharmaceutical product.

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers, Visys NV

(Case C-657/11) (1)

(Directives 84/450/EEC and 2006/114/EC - Misleading and comparative advertising - Definition of ‘advertising’ - Registration and use of a domain name - Use of metatags in a website’s metadata)

2013/C 252/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV

Defendants: Bert Peelaers, Visys NV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 2 of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), and Article 2 of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21) — Definition of advertising — Registration and use of a domain name — Use of metatags in a website’s metadata

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 and Article 2(a) of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘advertising’, as defined by those provisions, covers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the use of a domain name and that of metatags in a website’s metadata. By contrast, the registration of a domain name, as such, is not encompassed by that term.

(1) OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/18

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Alliance One International Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-679/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Whether unlawful conduct of a subsidiary attributable to its parent company - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation - Unlimited jurisdiction - Ne ultra petita - Right to a fair hearing)

2013/C 344/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alliance One International Inc. (represented by: M. Odriozola and A. Vide, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier, J. Bourke and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-41/05 Alliance One International v Commission reducing the part of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión, for the payment of which Alliance One International, Inc. was held jointly and severally liable with Agroexpansión, and dismissing as to the remainder an application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco sector in Spain) concerning a cartel aimed at fixing the prices paid to producers and the quantities purchased from them in the Spanish raw tobacco market.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders Alliance One International Inc. to pay the costs of the appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Mark Alemo-Herron and Others v Parkwood Leisure Ltd

(Case C-426/11) (1)

(Transfer of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Collective agreement applicable to the transferor and to the employee at the time of the transfer)

2013/C 260/10

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mark Alemo-Herron, Sandra Tipping, Christopher Anderson, Stacey Aris, Audrey Beckford, Lee Bennett, Delroy Carby, Vishnu Chetty, Deborah Cimitan, Victoria Clifton, Claudette Cummings, David Curtis, Stephen Flin, Patience Ijelekhai, Rosemarie Lee, Roxanne Lee, Vivian Ling, Michelle Nicholas, Lansdail Nugent, Anne O’Connor, Shirley Page, Alan Peel, Mathew Pennington, Laura Steward

Defendant: Parkwood Leisure Ltd

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Alemo-Herron and Others v Parkwood Leisure Ltd — Interpretation of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 March 2001 in Case C-499/04 Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems — Extent of the transferee's obligations to comply with conditions relating to salaries under a collective agreement applicable to the transferor and the employee at the time of the transfer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking, that dynamic clauses referring to collective agreements negotiated and adopted after the date of transfer are enforceable against the transferee, where that transferee does not have the possibility of participating in the negotiation process of such collective agreements concluded after the date of the transfer.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-450/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’)

2013/C 344/17

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing for the application of the special travel agency taxation scheme to transactions that travel agencies make in favour of recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Portuguese Republic;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Solvay SA v European Commission

(Case C-455/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Leniency Notice - Obligation to state reasons - Reduction of the fine)

2014/C 45/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Solvay SA (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, and M. O’Regan, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, A. Biolan and J. Bourke, Agents, and by M. Gray, BL)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-186/06 Solvay v European Commission by which the General Court upheld in part an action for (i) partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/903/EC of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate) (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 54), concerning a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting in exchanges of information on prices and sales volumes, agreements on prices and on the reduction of production capacities in the EEA, and in the monitoring of the implementation of those agreements in the European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate, and (ii) annulment or a reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant — Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders Solvay SA to pay the costs of the main appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/2

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH, Kone BV v European Commission

(C-510/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators - Fines - Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases - Effective judicial remedy)

2013/C 367/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH, Kone BV (represented by: T. Vinje, Solicitor, D. Paemen, avocat, and A. Tomtsis, dikigoros,)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Case T-151/07 Kone and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E 1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators), concerning a cartel in the market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, concerning bid-rigging, market-sharing, price-fixing, the awarding of projects and contracts related thereto and exchange of information

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH and Kone BV to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-658/11) (1)

((Action for annulment - Decision 2011/640/CFSP - Legal basis - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Article 37 TEU - International agreement relating exclusively to the CFSP - Second subparagraph of Article 218(6) TFEU - Obligation to inform the Parliament immediately and fully - Article 218(10) TFEU - Maintenance of effects))

2014/C 292/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Caiola and M. Allik, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, R. Troosters and L. Gussetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert, G. Étienne, M. Bishop and G. Marhic, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), French Republic, (represented by: G. de Bergues, N. Rouam and E. Belliard, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie and A. Robinson, acting as Agents, and by D. Beard QC and G. Facenna, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Annuls Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer;

2) Orders that the effects of Decision 2011/640 be maintained in force;

3) Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs;

4) Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.