ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — Air Baltic Corporation AS v Valsts robežsardze

(Case C-575/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Articles 24(1) and 34 - Uniform visa - Annulment or revocation of a uniform visa - Validity of a uniform visa affixed to a travel document which has been cancelled - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Articles 5(1) and 13(1) - Border checks - Entry conditions - National legislation requiring a valid visa affixed to a valid travel document))

(2014/C 395/09)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Air Baltic Corporation AS

Defendant: Valsts robežsardze

Operative part of the judgment

1) On a proper construction of Articles 24(1) and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), the cancellation of a travel document by an authority of a third country does not mean that the uniform visa affixed to that document is automatically invalidated.

2) On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 265/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 March 2010, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) of Regulation No 562/2006, the entry of third-country nationals into the territory of Member States is not subject to the condition that, at the border check, the valid visa presented must necessarily be affixed to a valid travel document.

3) Article 5(1) of Regulation No 562/2006, as amended by Regulation No 265/2010, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) of Regulation No 562/2006, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the entry of third-country nationals to the territory of the Member State concerned subject to the condition that, at the border check, the valid visa presented must necessarily be affixed to a valid travel document.

(1) OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 June 2015 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Joined Cases C-549/12 P and C-54/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Reduction of financial assistance - Method of calculation by extrapolation - European Commission’s procedure for the adoption of the decision - Failure to comply with the time-limit - Consequences))

(2015/C 279/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, acting as Agent, and by U. Karpenstein, C. Johann, C. von Donat and J. Lipinsky, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Conte and A. Steiblytė, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and B. Koopman, Agents) (C-54/13 P)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union in Germany v Commission (T-265/08, EU:T:2012:434) and Germany v Commission (T-270/08, EU:T:2012:612);

2) Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 1690 final of 30 April 2008 reducing the financial assistance granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the Operational Programme in the Objective 1 area of the Land Thüringen (Germany) (1994-1999), in accordance with Commission Decision C(94) 1939/5 of 5 August 1994, and of Commission Decision C(2008) 1615 final of 29 April 2008 reducing the financial assistance granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) by Commission Decision C(94) 1973 of 5 August 1994 to the Operational Programme for Berlin (East) (Germany) relating to Objective No 1 (1994-1999);

3) Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany both in the context of the procedure at first instance and in relation to these appeals;

4) Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

OJ C 86 23.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — Jean-François Giordano v European Commission

(Case C-611/12 P) (1)

((Appeals - Common fisheries policy - Fishing quotas - Emergency measures adopted by the Commission - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Conditions - Actual and certain harm - Individual fishing rights))

(2014/C 462/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean-François Giordano (represented by: D. Rigeade and A. Scheuer, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Giordano v Commission (T-114/11, EU:T:2012:585);

2. Dismisses the action for damages brought by Mr Jean-François Giordano in Case T-114/11;

3. Orders Mr Jean-François Giordano and the Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Alpina River Cruises GmbH, Nicko Tours GmbH v Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti — Capitaneria di Porto di Chioggia

(Case C-17/13) (1)

((Maritime transport - Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 - Concept of ‘maritime cabotage’ - Cruise services - Cruise crossing the Venetian lagoon, Italian territorial sea and the river Po - Departure from and arrival at the same port))

2014/C 151/06

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alpina River Cruises GmbH, Nicko Tours GmbH

Defendant: Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti — Capitaneria di Porto di Chioggia

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) — Scope — Concept of maritime cabotage — Cruise service — Departure and arrival of passengers in one and the same port after calling at other ports

Operative part of the judgment

A maritime transport service consisting of a cruise which starts and ends, with the same passengers, in the same port of the Member State in which it takes place, is covered by the term ‘maritime cabotage’ within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage).

(1) OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2014 — 1. garantovaná a.s. v European Commission

(Case C-90/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Total turnover in the preceding business year))

2014/C 212/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: 1. garantovaná a.s. (represented by: K. Lasok QC, J. Holmes and B. Hartnett, Barristers, O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Vecchi and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 in Case T-392/09 1. garantovaná v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel industry), concerning a cartel on the markets for calcium carbide powder, calcium carbide granulates and magnesium granulates in a substantial part of the EEA, involving price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant — Calculation of the fine — Upper limit of 10 % of turnover — Relevant turnover

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders 1. garantovaná a.s. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/14

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Acino AG v European Commission

(Case C-269/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Medicinal products for human use - Suspension of the marketing and the withdrawal of certain consignments of medicinal products containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel - Variation of marketing authorisations - Prohibition on marketing - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Directive 2001/83/EC - Precautionary principle - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons))

2014/C 175/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Acino AG (represented by: R. Buchner and E. Burk, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 March 2013 in Case T-539/10 Acino v Commission, in so far as that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decisions C (2010) 2203, C (2010) 2205, C (2010) 2210 and C (2010) 2218 of 29 March 2010 and Commission Decisions C (2010) 6430, C (2010) 6432, C (2010) 6434 and C (2010) 6435 of 16 September 2010, relating to the suspension of the marketing of medicinal products for human use containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel manufactured at a certain site, the withdrawal of consignments of those medicinal products from the market, the variation of the marketing authorisations and the prohibition on marketing those medicinal products — Precautionary principle — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Acino AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 215, 27.07.2013.
3.

Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into employment contracts of indefinite duration only in circumstances where the worker concerned has been employed continuously under such contracts by the same employer for a period longer than one year, the employment relationship being considered to be continuous where the fixed-term employment contracts are separated by time lapses of less than or equal to 60 days. It is, however, for the referring court to satisfy itself that the conditions of application and the effective implementation of that legislation result in a measure that is adequate to prevent and punish the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships.
2)

Where a Member State has not exercised the power laid down in the second sentence of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95, the first sentence of Article 3(3) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of invalidity proceedings in respect of a mark which is intrinsically devoid of distinctive character, in order to assess whether that mark has acquired a distinctive character through use, it is necessary to examine whether such character was acquired before the date of filing of the application for registration of that mark. It is irrelevant in that regard that the proprietor of the mark at issue maintains that the mark has, in any event, acquired a distinctive character through use after the date of filing of the application for registration, but before the date of registration of that mark.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/13

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no1 de Benidorm — Spain) — Víctor Manuel Julian Hernández and Others v Puntal Arquitectura SL and Others

(Case C-198/13) (1)

((Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Scope - Employer’s right to compensation from a Member State in respect of the remuneration paid to an employee during proceedings challenging that employee’s dismissal beyond the 60th working day after the action challenging the dismissal was brought - No right to compensation in the case of invalid dismissals - Subrogation of the employee to the right to compensation of his employer in the event of that employer’s provisional insolvency - Discrimination against employees who are the subject of an invalid dismissal - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Scope - Article 20))

2014/C 315/19

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social no1 de Benidorm

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Víctor Manuel Julian Hernández, Chems Eddine Adel, Jaime Morales Ciudad, Bartolomé Madrid Madrid, Martín Selles Orozco, Alberto Martí Juan, Said Debbaj

Defendants: Puntal Arquitectura SL, Obras Alteamar SL, Altea Diseño y Proyectos SL, Ángel Muñoz Sánchez, Vicente Orozco Miro, Subdelegación del Gobierno de España en Alicante

Operative part of the judgment

National legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which an employer can request from the Member State concerned payment of remuneration which has become due during proceedings challenging a dismissal after the 60th working day following the date on which the action was brought and according to which, where the employer has not paid that remuneration and finds itself in a state of provisional insolvency, the employee concerned may, by operation of legal subrogation, claim directly from that State the payment of that remuneration, does not come within the scope of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer and cannot, therefore, be examined in the light of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in particular, of Article 20 thereof.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/22

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Landgericht München I (Germany)) — Adala Bero v Regierungspräsidium Kassel (C-473/13), Ettayebi Bouzalmate v Kreisverwaltung Kleve (C-514/13)

(Joined Cases C-473/13 and C-514/13) (1)

((Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 16(1) - Detention for the purpose of removal - Detention in prison accommodation - Not possible to provide accommodation for third-country nationals in a specialised detention facility - No such facility in the Land where the third-country national is detained))

2014/C 315/33

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof, Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Adala Bero (C-473/13), Ettayebi Bouzalmate (C-514/13)

Defendants: Regierungspräsidium Kassel (C-473/13), Kreisverwaltung Kleve (C-514/13)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as requiring a Member State, as a rule, to detain illegally staying third-country nationals for the purpose of removal in a specialised detention facility of that State even if the Member State has a federal structure and the federated state competent to decide upon and carry out such detention under national law does not have such a detention facility.

(1) OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
3)

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the Kingdom of Spain and to bear its own costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.
1.

Article 3 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained must be interpreted as meaning that no abuse can be identified in the fact that a national of a Member State who after successfully obtaining a university degree travels to another Member State in order to acquire there the professional qualification of lawyer and returns to the Member State of which he is a national in order to practise there the profession of lawyer under the professional title obtained in the Member State where that professional qualification was acquired;
1.

On a proper construction of Article 2d(4) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, where a public contract is awarded without prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, but that was not permissible under 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, the contract may not be declared ineffective if the conditions laid down in that provision are in fact satisfied, which it is for the referring court to determine.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/15

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen

(Case C-328/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses - Obligation on the transferee to maintain the terms and conditions agreed in a collective agreement until the entry into force of another collective agreement - Concept of collective agreement - National legislation providing that a rescinded collective agreement continues to have effect until the entry into force of another collective agreement))

2014/C 409/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund

Defendant: Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(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 meaning that the terms and conditions laid down in a collective agreement, which, pursuant to the law of a Member State, despite the rescission of that agreement, continue to produce their effects as regards the employment relationship which was governed by them before the agreement was terminated, constitute ‘terms and conditions agreed in any collective agreement’ so long as that employment relationship is not subject to a new collective agreement or a new individual agreement is not concluded with the employees concerned.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
1.

In not laying down an obligation to inform the competent Polish authorities of the locations at which genetically modified organism crops are being grown pursuant to Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, and in not establishing a register of those locations and in not making public the information relating to them, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(3)(b) of that directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/16

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Vlaams Gewest v Heidi Van Den Broeck

(Case C-525/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Area aid application - Article 33 - Penalties - Irregularities committed intentionally))

2014/C 421/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vlaams Gewest

Defendant: Heidi Van Den Broeck

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 33 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 118/2004 of 23 January 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of intentional irregularity found in an area aid application, the farmer is to be refused all of the aid to which that farmer would have been entitled under the aid scheme concerned by the application and for which the crop group concerned by that irregularity was eligible.

(1) OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.