ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland — Netherlands) — Aannemingsbedrijf Aertssen NV, Aertssen Terrassements SA v VSB Machineverhuur BV, Van Sommeren Bestrating BV, Jos van Sommeren

(Case C-523/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 1 - Scope - Complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings - Article 27 - Lis pendens - Proceedings brought before a court of another Member State - Ongoing judicial investigation - Article 30 - Time when a court is deemed to be seised))

(2015/C 414/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Aannemingsbedrijf Aertssen NV, Aertssen Terrassements SA

Defendants: VSB Machineverhuur BV, Van Sommeren Bestrating BV, Jos van Sommeren

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a complaint lodged with an investigating magistrate seeking to join a civil action to proceedings falls within the scope of that regulation in so far as its object is to obtain monetary compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the complainant.

2. Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that proceedings are brought, within the meaning of that provision, when a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings has been lodged with an investigating magistrate, even though the judicial investigation of the case at issue has not yet been closed.

3. Article 30 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a person lodges a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings with an investigating magistrate by means of the lodging of a document which need not, under the applicable national law, be served before that lodging, the time which must be chosen for the purposes of holding that magistrate to be seised is the time when that complaint was lodged.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
3.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the authorisation for an undertaking or group of undertakings to open a vehicle roadworthiness testing centre subject to the condition, first, that there is a minimum distance between that centre and centres belonging to that undertaking or group of undertakings which are already authorised and, secondly, that that undertaking or group of undertakings will, if such an authorisation is granted, not hold a market share in excess of 50 %, unless it is established that that condition is genuinely appropriate in order to achieve the objectives of consumer protection and road safety and does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose, these being matters for the referring court to determine.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/11

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)

(Case C-325/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition of ‘communication’ and ‘public’ - Distribution of television programmes - Process known as ‘direct injection’))

(2016/C 016/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SBS Belgium NV

Defendant: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that a broadcasting organisation does not carry out an act of communication to the public, within the meaning of that provision, when it transmits its programme-carrying signals exclusively to signal distributors without those signals being accessible to the public during, and as a result of that transmission, those distributors then sending those signals to their respective subscribers so that they may watch those programmes, unless the intervention of the distributors in question is just a technical means, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH

(Case C-490/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal protection of databases - Directive 96/9/EC - Article 1(2) - Scope - Databases - Topographic maps - Independence of materials constituting a database - Possibility of separating those materials without affecting the value of their informative content - Account taken of the purpose of a topographic map for the user))

(2015/C 429/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant: Verlag Esterbauer GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that geographical information extracted from a topographic map by a third party so that that information may be used to produce and market another map retains, following its extraction, sufficient informative value to be classified as ‘independent materials’ of a ‘database’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/15

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba — Spain) — María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España SA

(Case C-407/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Discriminatory dismissal - Article 18 - Compensation or reparation for the loss and damage actually sustained - Deterrent effect - Article 25 - Penalties - Punitive damages))

(2016/C 068/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho

Defendant: Securitas Seguridad España SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for the loss and damage sustained as a result of discrimination on grounds of sex to be the subject of genuine and effective compensation or reparation in a way which is dissuasive and proportionate, that article requires Member States which choose the financial form of compensation to introduce in their national legal systems, in accordance with detailed arrangements which they determine, measures providing for payment to the person injured of compensation which covers in full the loss and damage sustained.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH

(Case C-166/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence - Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - National legislation making an action for damages subject to a precondition that the procedure be declared unlawful - Limitation period which starts to run irrespective of the applicant’s knowledge of the unlawfulness))

(2016/C 038/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH

Intervening parties: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wirtschaft, Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger, Pharmazeutische Gehaltskasse für Österreich

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, precludes national legislation which makes bringing an action for damages in respect of the infringement of a rule of public procurement law subject to a prior finding that the public procurement procedure for the contract in question was unlawful because of the lack of prior publication of a contract notice, where the action for a declaration of unlawfulness is subject to a six-month limitation period which starts to run on the day after the date of the award of the public contract in question, irrespective of whether or not the applicant in that action was in a position to know of the unlawfulness affecting the decision of the awarding authority.

(1) OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/12

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Artūrs Stretinskis

(Case C-430/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Community Customs Code - Article 29(1)(d) - Determination of the customs value - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 143(1)(h) - Definition of ‘related persons’ for the purposes of determining the customs value - Kinship relationship between the buyer, a natural person, and the director of the company which sold the goods))

(2016/C 098/14)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant: Artūrs Stretinskis

Operative part of the judgment

Article 143(1)(h) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 46/1999 of 8 January 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that a buyer, who is a natural person, and a seller, which is a legal person, within which a kin of that buyer actually has the power to influence the sales price of goods for the benefit of that buyer, must be regarded as being related persons within the meaning of Article 29(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996.

(1) OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/18

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-595/14) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Replacement of the contested decision in the course of the proceedings - Purpose of the action - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - New psychoactive substance subjected to control measures - Legal framework applicable after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Consultation of the European Parliament))

(2016/C 068/21)

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 K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU of 25 September 2014 on subjecting 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures;

2. Orders that the effects of Implementing Decision 2014/688 be maintained in force;

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

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen v Jovanna García-Nieto, Joel Peña Cuevas, Jovanlis Peña García, Joel Luis Peña Cruz

(Case C-299/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement of persons - Citizenship of the Union - Equal treatment - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(2) - Social Assistance - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 4 and 70 - Special non-contributory cash benefits - Exclusion of nationals of a Member State during the first three months of residence in the host Member State))

(2016/C 145/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen

Respondents: Jovanna García-Nieto, Joel Peña Cuevas, Jovanlis Peña García, Joel Luis Peña Cruz

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1244/2010 of 9 December 2010, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which nationals of other Member States who are in a situation such as that referred to in Article 6(1) of that directive are excluded from entitlement to certain ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 883/2004, which also constitute ‘social assistance’ within the meaning of Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38.

(1) OJ C 315, 19.9.2014.
1.

Declares that: — by failing to include all the territories of the important bird areas in the special protection area covering the Kaliakra region, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to classify as special protection areas the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation, first, of the biological species listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds and, secondly, of the migratory species not listed in that annex but regularly occurring in the geographical sea and land area where that directive applies, with the result that that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of that directive; — by approving the implementation of the projects ‘AES Geo Energy’, ‘Disib’ and ‘Longman Investment’ in the territory of the important bird area covering the Kaliakra region which was not classified as a special protection area, although it should have been, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147; — by approving the implementation of the projects ‘Kaliakra Wind Power’, ‘EVN Enertrag Kavarna’ and ‘Vertikal — Petkov & Cie’, and of the ‘Thracian Cliffs Golf & Spa Resort’, in the territory of the special protection areas covering the regions of Kaliakra and Belite Skali respectively, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; — by failing, first, to assess properly the cumulative effect of the projects ‘Windtech’, ‘Brestiom’, ‘Eco Energy’ and ‘Longman Investment’ in the territory of the important bird area covering the Kaliakra region which was not classified as a special protection area, although it should have been, and, secondly, by none the less authorising the implementation of the ‘Longman Investment’ project, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and point 1(b) of Annex III to that directive, and under Article 2(1) of that directive, respectively;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte GmbH v Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon Logistik GmbH, Amazon Media Sàrl

(Case C-572/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Article 5(3) - Concept of ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Article 5(2)(b) - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Reproduction for private use - Fair compensation - Non-payment - Whether included in the scope of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001))

(2016/C 211/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte GmbH

Defendants: Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon Logistik GmbH, Amazon Media Sàrl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a claim seeking to obtain payment of remuneration due by virtue of a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, implementing the ‘fair compensation’ system provided for in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, falls within ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’, within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
3.

Article 33 of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as not precluding a residence condition, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, from being imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, in receipt of certain specific social security benefits, with the objective of facilitating the integration of third-country nationals in the Member State that has granted that protection — when the applicable national rules do not provide for such a measure to be imposed on third-country nationals legally resident in that Member State on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law and who are in receipt of those benefits — if beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status are not in a situation that is objectively comparable, so far as that objective is concerned, with the situation of third-country nationals legally resident in the Member State concerned on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law, it being for the referring court to determine whether that is the case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Borsele v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Borsele

(Case C-520/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2(1)(c) and 9(1) - Taxable persons - Economic activities - Definition - Transport of schoolchildren))

(2016/C 243/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gemeente Borsele, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Gemeente Borsele

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a regional or local authority which provides a service for the transport of schoolchildren under conditions such as those described in the main proceedings does not carry out an economic activity and is not therefore a taxable person.

(1) OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

(Case C-131/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 - Article 3(3) - Tariff quota - Garlic of Argentinian origin - Import licences - Non-transferability of rights deriving from import licences - Circumvention - Abuse of rights - Conditions - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 4(3)))

(2016/C 211/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino

Defendants: Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

Intervening party: Roberto Cervati

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 of 2 April 2002 establishing the method for managing tariff quotas and introducing a system of certificates of origin for garlic imported from third countries and Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that they do not, in principle, preclude a mechanism, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby, following an order placed by an operator, a traditional importer within the meaning of the former regulation, having exhausted its licences to import at a preferential rate of duty, with a second operator, also a traditional importer not holding such licences,

— goods are, first of all, sold, outside the European Union, by an undertaking connected with the second operator, to a third operator, a new importer within the meaning of the former regulation, holding such licences,

— the goods are, then, released for free circulation in the European Union by the third operator at the preferential rate of customs duty, subsequently sold on by the third to the second operator and

— the goods are, finally, sold by the second to the first operator, which thereby acquires goods imported under the tariff quota set out in the former regulation despite the fact that the first operator does not hold the necessary licences for so doing.

(1) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.