ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Article 47(5) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that, when a contract notice requires the provision of a statement given by a bank undertaking to grant credit in the amount specified in the contract notice and to guarantee that that amount will be available to the tenderer throughout the duration of the performance of the contract, the fact that the banks approached by the tenderer consider themselves unable to provide the tenderer with a statement in the terms specified by the contract notice may constitute a ‘valid reason’, within the meaning of that article, allowing the tenderer, where appropriate, to prove its economic and financial standing by any other document considered appropriate by the contracting authority, provided that it was objectively impossible for the tenderer to provide the references required by the contracting authority, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

(Case C-6/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Withholding tax - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 1(2) - Article 5(1) - Exemption - Dividends distributed by a resident subsidiary to a non-resident parent company controlled directly or indirectly by one or more residents of third States - Presumption - Fraud, tax evasion and abuse))

(2017/C 374/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA

Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003, first, and Article 49 TFEU, secondly, must be interpreted as precluding national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which subjects the grant of the tax advantage provided for by Article 5(1) of that directive — namely, the exemption from withholding tax of profits distributed by a resident subsidiary to a non-resident parent company, where that parent company is directly or indirectly controlled by one or more residents of third States — to the condition that that parent company establish that the principal purpose or one of the principal purposes of the chain of interests is not to take advantage of that exemption.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/10

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA

(Case C-182/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘STICK MiniMINI Beretta’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the EU word mark Mini Wini - Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Level of attention of the relevant public - Independent distinctive role - Dominance - Criteria for assessing visual similarity - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 309/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: S. Labesius, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent), Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (represented by G. Ghisletti, F. Braga and P. Pozzi, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/10

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație şi Justiție — Romania) — SMS group GmbH v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

(Case C-441/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC - Directive 2006/112/EC - Taxable person residing in another Member State - Refund of VAT charged on imported goods - Conditions - Objective elements confirming the intention of the taxable person to use the imported goods in the course of his economic activities - Serious risk of non-completion of the transaction that justified the importation))

(2017/C 392/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație şi Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SMS group GmbH

Defendant: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

Operative part of the judgment

Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, read in conjunction with Article 170 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a refusal by a Member State to refund the value added tax paid on the importation of goods to a taxable person who is not established on its territory in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings where, at the time of importation, the performance of the contract in connection with which the taxable person purchased and imported those goods was suspended, the transaction for which they were intended to be used was in the end not carried out, and the taxable person did not provide proof of their subsequent movements.

(1) OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/19

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — Tilly-Sabco SAS v European Commission, Doux SA

(Case C-183/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agriculture - Poultrymeat - Frozen chickens - Export refunds - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 fixing the refund at EUR 0 - Legality - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Articles 162 and 164 - Subject matter and nature of the refunds - Criteria for fixing the amount - Powers of the Director-General of the Directorate-General (DG) for Agriculture and Rural Development to sign the contested regulation - Misuse of powers - ‘Comitology’ - Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 - Article 3(3) - Consultation with the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets - Presentation of the draft implementing regulation during the meeting of that committee - Compliance with time limits - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Annulment with maintenance of the effects))

(2017/C 382/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Tilly-Sabco SAS (represented by: R. Milchior, F. Le Roquais and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and K. Skelly, acting as Agents), Doux SA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 January 2016, Tilly-Sabco v Commission (T-397/13, EU:T:2016:8);

2. Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat;

3. Maintains the effects of Implementing Regulation No 689/2013 until the entry into force of a new act intended to replace it;

4. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/14

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 — Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-599/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name))

(2017/C 424/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (represented by T. Beazley QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by P. Mahnič Bruni and J.-P. Hix, Agents), European Commission (represented initially by S. Bartelt and J. Norris-Usher, and subsequently by E. Paasivirta and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Case C-218/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim — Poland) — proceedings brought by Aleksandra Kubicka (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Succession and the European Certificate of Succession — Scope — Immovable property located in a Member State in which legacies ‘per vindicationem’ do not exist — Refusal to recognise the material effects of such a legacy)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim — Poland) — proceedings brought by Aleksandra Kubicka

(Case C-218/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Succession and the European Certificate of Succession — Scope — Immovable property located in a Member State in which legacies ‘per vindicationem’ do not exist — Refusal to recognise the material effects of such a legacy)’

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim

Parties in the main proceedings

Applicant: Aleksandra Kubicka

Intervening party: Przemysława Bac, acting in her capacity as notary

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(k) and (l) and Article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as precluding refusal, by an authority of a Member State, to recognise the material effects of a legacy ‘by vindication’, provided for by the law governing succession chosen by the testator in accordance with Article 22(1) of that regulation, where that refusal is based on the ground that the legacy concerns the right of ownership of immovable property located in that Member State, whose law does not provide for legacies with direct material effect when succession takes place.

( 1 ) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
1.

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be interpreted as precluding a provision of domestic law, such as Article 198(10) of the 1992 Income Tax Code, coordinated by the Royal Decree of 10 April 1992 and confirmed by the Law of 12 June 1992, pursuant to which interest paid by a parent company under a loan is not deductible from the taxable profits of that parent company up to an amount equal to that of the dividends, which already benefit from tax deductibility, that are received from the holdings of that parent company in the capital of its subsidiary companies that have been held for a period of less than one year, even if such interest does not relate to the financing of such holdings;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-281/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/72 - List of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region - Reduction of the size of a site - Scientific error - Validity))

(2017/C 424/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/72 of 3 December 2014 adopting an eighth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region is invalid, in so far as, by that decision, the Haringvliet site (NL 1000015) was placed on that list without the inclusion of the Leenheerenpolder.

(1) OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.
3.

The third indent of Article 203(3) and Article 213 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a recipient acquired or held goods which he knew to have been conveyed under cover of a TIR carnet and the fact that it has not been established that those goods were presented and declared to the customs office of destination, are not sufficient, in themselves, for it to be concluded that such a recipient was aware or should reasonably have been aware that those goods had been removed from customs supervision within the meaning of the first of those provisions and must therefore be held jointly and severally liable for the customs debt pursuant to the second of those provisions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/14

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France

(Case C-641/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Court having jurisdiction - Action for unfair competition brought in the context of insolvency proceedings - Action brought by a company having its registered office in another Member State against the assignee of part of the business of a company subject to insolvency proceedings - Action not part of the proceedings or action deriving directly from those proceedings and closely connected with them))

(2018/C 005/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH

Defendant: Expert France

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages for unfair competition by which the assignee of part of the business acquired in the course of insolvency proceedings is accused of misrepresenting itself as being the exclusive distributor of articles manufactured by the debtor does not fall within the jurisdiction of the court which opened the insolvency proceedings.

(1) OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.
1.

Article 3(b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products is to be interpreted as meaning that an end of procedure notice issued by the reference Member State in accordance with Article 28(4) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended, as regards pharmacovigilance, by Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 December 2010, before the expiry of the basic patent, as defined in Article 1(c) of Regulation No 469/2009, may not be treated as equivalent to a marketing authorisation within the meaning of Article 3(b) of that regulation, with the result that a supplementary protection certificate may not be obtained on the basis of such a notice.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/11

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Anstar Oy

(Case C-630/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products - Harmonised standard EN 1090-1:2009+A1:2011 - Criteria for determining the scope of a standard adopted by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) in accordance with a mandate of the European Commission - Anchors to be fixed into concrete before it sets and used for fastening facade elements and masonry supports to the building frame))

(2018/C 052/14)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Anstar Oy

Other party: Turvallisuus- ja kemikaalivirasto (Tukes)

Operative part of the judgment

Harmonised standard EN 1090-1:2009+A1:2011, ‘Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures — Part 1: Requirements for conformity assessment of structural components’, must be interpreted as meaning that products, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, intended to be fixed into concrete before it sets fall within its scope if they have a structural function, in the sense that their removal from a structure would immediately reduce its resistance.

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/11

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-268/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Production and labelling of organic products - Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 - Interest in bringing proceedings - Notion of ‘personal benefit’))

(2018/C 072/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, G. von Rintelen and K. Walkerová, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 11 March 2016, Binca Seafoods v Commission (T-94/15, not published, EU:T:2016:164);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S

(Case C-255/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Information procedure in the field of technical rules and regulations - National legislation clarifying or introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of gaming, lotteries and betting and introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of advertising for gaming, lotteries and betting))

(2018/C 072/13)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Københavns Byret

Party/parties in the main proceedings

Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for criminal sanctions where an unauthorised offer is made of gaming, lotteries or betting on the national territory, does not constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of that provision, subject to the notification obligation under Article 8(1) of that directive. However, a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for sanctions in the event of advertising for unauthorised gaming, lotteries or betting, does constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of that provision, subject to the notification obligation under Article 8(1) of that directive, as it is clear from the travaux préparatoires for that provision of national law that its object and purpose was to extend a pre-existing prohibition on advertising to cover online gaming services, which it is for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
1.

Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 of the regulation and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the factual situation that is relevant for the review by a court or tribunal of a transfer decision is that obtaining at the time of the last hearing before the court or tribunal determining the matter or, where there is no hearing, at the time when that court or tribunal gives a decision on the matter;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 83/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca — Spain) — Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero v Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares SA, Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-270/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(2)(b)(i) - Prohibition of discrimination based on disability - National legislation permitting, subject to certain conditions, the dismissal of an employee by reason of intermittent absences, even where justified - Worker’s absences resulting from illnesses linked to his disability - Difference in treatment based on disability - Indirect discrimination - Whether justified - Combating absenteeism in the workplace - Whether appropriate - Whether proportionate))

(2018/C 083/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero

Defendant: Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares SA, Ministerio Fiscal

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(b)(i) of Council Directive 2008/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an employer may dismiss a worker on the grounds of his intermittent absences from work, even if justified, in a situation where those absences are the consequence of sickness attributable to a disability suffered by that worker, unless that legislation, while pursuing the legitimate aim of combating absenteeism, does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that aim, which is a matter for the referring court to assess.

(1) OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.