ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4)

Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, laying down detailed rules for the career progression of judges already in post before the entry into force of that law within a new remuneration system and securing faster pay progression from a certain pay step onwards for such judges who had reached a certain age at the time of transition to the new system than for such judges who were younger on the transition date, provided the different treatment to which that law gives rise may be justified in the light of Article 6(1) of that directive.
1.

Article 34(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 the fact that a judgment given in a Member State is contrary to EU law does not justify that judgment’s not being recognised in another Member State on the grounds that it infringes public policy in that State where the error of law relied on does not constitute a manifest breach of a rule of law regarded as essential in the EU legal order and therefore in the legal order of the Member State in which recognition is sought or of a right recognised as being fundamental in those legal orders. That is not the case of an error affecting the application of a provision such as Article 5(3) of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992. When determining whether there is a manifest breach of public policy in the State in which recognition is sought, the court of that State must take account of the fact that, save where specific circumstances make it too difficult, or impossible, to make use of the legal remedies in the Member State of origin, the individuals concerned must avail themselves of all the legal remedies available in that Member State with a view to preventing such a breach before it occurs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur — Belgium) — Proximus SA, formerly Belgacom SA, continuing the proceedings brought by Belgacom Mobile SA v Province of Namur

(Case C-517/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 97/13/EC - Articles 4 and 11 - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 6 - Conditions which may be attached to the general authorisation and to the rights of use for radio frequencies and numbers, and specific obligations - Article 13 - Fee for the rights to install facilities - Scope - Provincial legislation - Charge on mobile telephony network transmission and reception pylons and/or units))

(2016/C 068/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Proximus SA, formerly Belgacom SA, continuing the proceedings brought by Belgacom Mobile SA

Defendant: Province of Namur

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding a charge, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, being imposed on any natural or legal persons operating mobile telephony network transmission and reception pylons and/or units.

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — European Commission v Jørgen Andersen, Kingdom of Denmark, Danske Statsbaner SV (DSB)

(Case C-303/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - State aid - Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking Danske Statsbaner (DSB) - Public service contracts for the supply of passenger rail transport services between Copenhagen (Denmark) and Ystad (Sweden) - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to conditions - Temporal application of rules of substantive law))

(2015/C 389/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Jørgen Andersen (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés, G. van de Walle de Ghelcke and M. Nissen, avocats), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat), Danske Statsbaner SV (DSB) (represented by: M. Honoré, advokat)

Intervener in support of Jørgen Andersen: Dansk Tog (represented by: G. van de Walle de Ghelcke, J. Rivas Andrés and M. Nissen, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Andersen v Commission (T-92/11, EU:T:2013:143) in so far as, by that judgment, as regards the aid paid from 3 December 2009 under the second public transport service contract concluded for the years 2005 to 2014, the General Court annulled the second paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08));

2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3. Dismisses the cross-appeals;

4. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment, in the light of the three pleas of the application, taking account of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70, on the legality of Decision 2011/3 in so far as it declared that the aid paid from 3 December 2009 under the second public transport service contract concluded for the years 2005 to 2014 was compatible with the internal market;

5. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Roca SARL v European Commission

(Case C-638/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of equal treatment - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))

(2017/C 104/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Roca SARL (represented by: P. Vidal Martínez, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Roca SARL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/21

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Vario Tek GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-178/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Combined nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 8525 80 - Television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders - Subheadings 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 - Video cameras integrated into sports goggles - ‘Optical zoom’ function - Recording of files from external sources))

(2015/C 138/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vario Tek GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Operative part of the judgment

1) The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that video cameras integrated into sport goggles, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, do not have an ‘optical zoom’ function, does not prevent their classification under subheadings 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 of that nomenclature.

2) The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, in the version resulting from Regulation No 1006/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that video cameras integrated in sports goggles, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, offer the possibility to record and store on an interchangeable storage medium video and audio files from an external source precludes their classification under subheading 8525 80 91 of that nomenclature if that recording may be made independently and without relying on external materials or software.

(1) OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV

(Case C-30/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Database not protected by copyright or the sui generis right - Contractual limitation on the rights of users of the database)

(2015/C 073/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

Defendant: PR Aviation BV

Operative part of the judgment

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 it is not applicable to a database which is not protected either by copyright or by the sui generis right under that directive, so that Articles 6(1), 8 and 15 of that directive do not preclude the author of such a database from laying down contractual limitations on its use by third parties, without prejudice to the applicable national law.

(1) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/10

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — GST — Sarviz AG Germania v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-111/14) (1)

((Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Person liable for payment of VAT - Erroneous payment of VAT by the person to whom the supply is made - Liability to VAT of the supplier of services - Refusal to grant the supplier of services a refund of the VAT))

(2015/C 205/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GST — Sarviz AG Germania

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 193 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the only person liable to pay the value added tax is the taxable person supplying services, where those services were supplied from a fixed establishment located in the Member State in which the value added tax is payable.

2. Article 194 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/88, must be interpreted as not permitting the tax authorities of a Member State to regard as liable for the payment of value added tax the recipient of services supplied from a fixed establishment of the supplier, where both the latter and the recipient of those services are established in the territory of the same Member State, even if that recipient has already paid that tax on the mistaken assumption that the supplier did not have a fixed establishment in that State.

3. The principle of the neutrality of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national provision which permits the tax authorities to refuse to grant the supplier of services a refund of the value added tax which the supplier has paid, when the recipient of those services, who has also paid the value added tax in respect of the same services, is refused the right of deduction on the ground that that recipient did not have the corresponding tax document, any adjustment of tax documents being precluded under national law where a definitive tax adjustment notice exists.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Braşov (Romania)) — Mihai Manea v Instituția Prefectului județul Brașov — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim de Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

(Case C-76/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Tax levied by a Member State on motor vehicles at the time of their first registration or of the first transfer of the right of ownership - Neutrality as between second-hand motor vehicles imported from other Member States and similar motor vehicles available on the domestic market))

(2015/C 198/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Braşov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mihai Manea

Defendant: Instituția Prefectului județul Brașov — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim de Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

Operative part of the judgment

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as:

— not precluding a Member State from introducing a tax on motor vehicles which is levied on imported second-hand vehicles at the time of their first registration in that Member State and on vehicles already registered in that Member State at the time of the first transfer, within that Member State, of the ownership of those vehicles;

— precluding that Member State from exempting from that tax vehicles already registered and in respect of which a tax previously in force but found to be incompatible with EU law has been paid.

(1) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
Case C-1/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Base Company NV, formerly KPN Group Belgium NV, Mobistar NV v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Articles 4, 9, 13 and 32 — Universal service obligations and social obligations — Provision of access at a fixed location and provision of telephone services — Affordability of tariffs — Special tariff options — Financing of the universal service obligations — Additional mandatory services — Mobile communication services and/or internet subscription services)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Base Company NV, formerly KPN Group Belgium NV, Mobistar NV v Ministerraad

(Case C-1/14) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Articles 4, 9, 13 and 32 — Universal service obligations and social obligations — Provision of access at a fixed location and provision of telephone services — Affordability of tariffs — Special tariff options — Financing of the universal service obligations — Additional mandatory services — Mobile communication services and/or internet subscription services)’

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Base Company NV, formerly KPN Group Belgium NV, Mobistar NV

Defendant: Ministerraad

Intervener: Belgacom NV

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the special tariffs and the financing mechanism provided for in Articles 9 and 13(1)(b) of that directive respectively apply to internet subscription services requiring a connection to the internet at a fixed location, but not to mobile communication services, including internet subscription services provided by means of those mobile communication services. If those services are made publicly available within the national territory as ‘additional mandatory services’ for the purposes of Article 32 of Directive 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, they cannot be financed, under national law, by a mechanism involving specific undertakings.

( 1 ) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/16

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-195/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Articles 2(1)(a)(i) and 3(1)(2) - Labelling such as could mislead the purchaser as to the composition of foodstuffs - List of ingredients - Use of the indication ‘raspberry and vanilla adventure’ and of depictions of raspberries and vanilla flowers on the packaging of a fruit tea not containing those ingredients))

(2015/C 236/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Defendant: Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1)(a)(i) and 3(1)(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as precluding the labelling of a foodstuff and methods used for the labelling from giving the impression, by means of the appearance, description or pictorial representation of a particular ingredient, that that ingredient is present, even though it is not in fact present and this is apparent solely from the list of ingredients on the foodstuff’s packaging.

(1) OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
3.

Articles 3 to 5 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in its assessment of the unfair nature, within the meaning of Article 3(1) and (3) of that directive, of the terms of a consumer credit contract, the national court must take account of all matters surrounding the conclusion of that contract. In that regard, it is for that court to ensure that, in the case at issue, all information which may affect the scale of the consumer’s obligations has been communicated to him, enabling him to assess, in particular, the total cost of his loan. Decisive factors in that assessment are, first, the issue as to whether the terms are drafted in plain, intelligible language in such a way as to allow an average consumer, that is to say, a consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to assess such a cost and, second, the circumstance linked to the lack of mention in the consumer credit contract of information which, in view of the nature of the goods or services which constitute the subject-matter of that contract, is regarded as being essential, in particular that referred to in Article 4 of Directive 87/102, as amended.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim — Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Gerhard und Jürgen Vogel GbR, Jürgen Vogel, Gerhard Vogel

(Case C-242/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Derogation provided for in Article 14 - Use by farmers of the product of the harvest for propagating purposes without the holder’s authorisation - Farmers under an obligation to pay equitable remuneration for such use - Period within which that remuneration must be paid in order to be able to benefit from the derogation - Whether it is possible for the holder to have recourse to Article 94 - Infringement))

(2015/C 279/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mannheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Defendants: Gerhard und Jürgen Vogel GbR, Jürgen Vogel, Gerhard Vogel

Operative part of the judgment

In order to be able to benefit from the derogation provided for in Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights from the obligation to obtain the authorisation of the holder of the plant variety right concerned, a farmer who has planted propagating material obtained from a protected plant variety (farm-saved seed) without having concluded a contract for so doing with the holder is required to pay the equitable remuneration due under the fourth indent of Article 14(3) of that regulation within the period that expires at the end of the marketing year during which that planting took place, that is, no later than 30 June following the date of reseeding.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
1.

Article 13(2) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national, divorced from an Union citizen, whose marriage lasted for at least three years before the commencement of divorce proceedings, including at least one year in the host Member State, cannot retain a right of residence in that Member State on the basis of that provision where the commencement of the divorce proceedings is preceded by the departure from that Member State of the spouse who is an Union citizen.