ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/9

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet v Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet, Fonnship A/S, Facket för Service och Kommunikation (SEKO)

(Case C-83/13) (1)

((Maritime transport - Freedom to provide services - Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 - Applicability to transport carried out from or to States that are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) using vessels flying the flag of a third country - Industrial action taken in the ports of such a State in favour of third country nationals employed on those vessels - Nationality of those workers and vessels having no bearing on the applicability of EU law))

2014/C 315/13

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Arbetsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet

Defendants: Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet, Fonnship A/S, Facket för Service och ommunikation (SEKO)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries must be interpreted as meaning that a company established in a State that is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 and which is proprietor of a vessel flying the flag of a third country, by which maritime transport services are provided from or to a State that is a party to the EEA Agreement, may rely on the freedom to provide services, provided that it can, due to its operation of that vessel, be classed as a provider of those services and that the persons for whom the services are intended are established in States that are parties to the EEA Agreement other than that in which that company is established.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/20

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany)) — Apple Inc. v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-421/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Articles 2 and 3 - Signs capable of constituting a trade mark - Distinctive character - Representation, by design, of the layout of a flagship store - Registration as a trade mark for ‘services’ connected with the products on sale in such a store))

2014/C 315/30

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Apple Inc.

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2008/95 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the representation, by a design alone, without indicating the size or the proportions, of the layout of a retail store, may be registered as a trade mark for services consisting in services relating to those goods but which do not form an integral part of the offer for sale thereof, provided that the sign is capable of distinguishing the services of the applicant for registration from those of other undertakings; and, that registration is not precluded by any of the grounds for refusal set out in that directive.

(1) OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Simon, Evers & Co. GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

(Case C-21/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Anti-dumping duties - Regulation (EC) No 499/2009 - Validity - Imports of products originating in China - Imports of the same products consigned from Thailand - Circumvention - Proof - Refusal to cooperate))

(2014/C 395/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Simon, Evers & Co. GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question raised by the referring court has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 499/2009 of 11 June 2009 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of the same product consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Naime Dogan v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-138/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Additional Protocol - Article 41(1) - Right of residence of family members of Turkish nationals - National legislation requiring evidence of basic linguistic knowledge with regard to the family member wishing to enter the national territory - Lawfulness - Directive 2003/86/EC - Family reunification - Article 7(2) - Compatibility))

2014/C 315/15

Language of the case: Germany

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Naime Dogan

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 concluding the additional protocol and the financial protocol signed on 23 November 1970 and annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and relating to the measures to be taken for their implementation must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘standstill’ clause set out in that provision precludes a measure of national law, introduced after the entry into force of that additional protocol in the Member State concerned, which imposes on spouses of Turkish nationals residing in that Member State, who wish to enter the territory of that State for the purposes of family reunification, the condition that they demonstrate beforehand that they have acquired basic knowledge of the official language of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) v European Commission, BNP Paribas, BPCE, formerly Caisse Nationale des Caisses d’Épargne and de Prévoyance (CNCEP), Société Générale SA

(Case C-67/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81(1) EC - Payment cards system in France - Decision by an association of undertakings - Issuing market - Pricing measures applicable to ‘new entrants’ - Membership fee, mechanism for ‘regulating the acquiring function’ and ‘dormant member “wake-up”’ mechanism - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Examination of the degree of harm to competition))

2014/C 409/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) (represented by: F. Pradelles, O. Fauré and C. Ornellas-Chancerelles, avocats, and by J. Ruiz Calzado, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, V. Bottka and B. Mongin, acting as Agents), BNP Paribas (represented by: O. de Juvigny, D. Berg and P. Heusse, avocats), BPCE, formerly Caisse Nationale des Caisses d’Épargne and de Prévoyance (CNCEP) (represented by: A. Choffel, S. Hautbourg, L. Laidi and R. Eid, avocats), Société Générale SA (represented by: P. Guibert and P. Patat, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 November 2012 in Case T-491/07 CB v Commission;

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

3) Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
1.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, in particular Article 13 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from being regarded as the competent State for the purpose of granting a family benefit to a person on the sole ground that the person concerned is registered as being permanently resident in its territory, where neither that person nor the members of his family work or habitually reside in that Member State. Article 13 of that regulation must be interpreted as also precluding a Member State which is not the competent State in so far as concerns the person in question from granting family benefits to such a person unless there are specific and particularly close connecting factors between the situation at issue and the territory of that first Member State;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Commerz Nederland NV v Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV

(Case C-242/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Definition of aid - Guarantees provided by a public undertaking to a bank to facilitate lending to third party creditors - Guarantees deliberately provided by the director of that public undertaking in disregard of that undertaking’s statutes - Presumption of opposition by the public body that owns that undertaking - Whether the guarantees may be imputed to the State))

2014/C 421/14

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Commerz Nederland NV

Respondent: Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 107(1) TFEU, for the purposes of determining whether or not the guarantees provided by a public undertaking are imputable to the public authority controlling that undertaking, the following are relevant, together with the body of evidence arising from the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings and from the context in which they took place: on the one hand, that the sole director of the company providing those guarantees acted improperly, deliberately kept the provision of those guarantees secret and disregarded the undertaking’s statutes and, on the other, that that public authority would have opposed the provision of the guarantees, had it been informed of it. In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, those circumstances could, in themselves, exclude such imputability only if it may be inferred that the guarantees at issue were provided without the involvement of that same public authority.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/13

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — Società Italiana Calzature SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vicini SpA

(Joined Cases C-308/13 P and C-309/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Community trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Registration of figurative marks containing the word elements ‘GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN’ and ‘BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI’ - Opposition by the proprietor of word and figurative, national and community, trade marks, containing the word element ‘ZANOTTI’ - Opposition dismissed by the Board of Appeal))

2014/C 421/16

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Società Italiana Calzature SpA (represented by: A. Rapisardi and C. Ginevra, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock acting as agent), Vicini SpA (represented by: M. Franzosi and C. Giorgetti, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Società Italiana Calzature SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 233, 10.08.2013.
—

by not taking all necessary measures to ensure that part of the municipal waste going to the landfills of the Rome SubATO, excluding the Cecchina landfill, and to those of the Latina SubATO undergoes treatment, including a proper sorting of the various fractions of the waste and the stabilisation of the organic fraction, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1), in conjunction with Article 6(a), of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, and Articles 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives,
3.

Article 4(2) of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is argued that a contract has a closer connection with a country other than that the law of which is designated by the presumption laid down therein, the national court must compare the connections existing between that contract and, on the one hand, the country whose law is designated by the presumption and, on the other, the other country concerned. In so doing, the national court must take account of the circumstances as a whole, including the existence of other contracts connected with the contract in question.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — O. Tümer v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-311/13) (1)

((Protection of employees in the event of the employer’s insolvency - Directive 80/987/EEC - Employee who is a third-country national and who does not hold a valid residence permit - Refusal to grant an insolvency benefit))

(2015/C 007/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: O. Tümer

Respondent: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a third-country national who is not legally resident in the Member State concerned is not to be regarded as an employee with the right to an insolvency benefit — on the basis, in particular, of claims relating to unpaid wages — in the event of his employer’s insolvency, even though that third-country national is recognised under the civil law of the Member State as having the status of an ‘employee’ with an entitlement to pay which could be the subject of an action against his employer before the national courts.

(1) OJ C 250, 31.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-65/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Implementing Decision 2012/733/EU - EURES network - Implementing power of the European Commission - Scope - Article 291(2) TFEU))

(2014/C 462/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Tamás and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.
2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the judgment in Commission v Greece (EU:C:2005:592) has been complied with, in the event that the failure to fulfil obligations established in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the present judgment persists until that day, a six-monthly penalty payment to be calculated, as regards the first six-month period following delivery of the present judgment, at the end of that period, on the basis of an initial amount set at EUR 1 4 5 20 000, from which the sum of EUR 40 000 is to be deducted in respect of each uncontrolled waste disposal site, covered by the infringement established, that has by then been closed down or cleaned up since 13 May 2014, and the sum of EUR 80 000 is to be deducted in respect of each such site that has by then been both closed down and cleaned up. The penalty payment due in respect of every six-month period thereafter is to be calculated, at the end of each such period, on the basis of the amount of the penalty payment set for the preceding six-month period, from which the same deductions are to be made in respect of the closing down and/or cleaning up of sites, covered by the failure to fulfil obligations established, effected during the six-month period in question;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Leopold Schmitzer v Bundesministerin für Inneres

(Case C-530/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Discrimination based on age - National legislation under which inclusion of periods of study and service completed before the age of 18 for the purpose of determining remuneration is subject to an extension of the periods for advancement - Justification - Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued - Possibility of challenging the extension of the periods for advancement)

(2015/C 016/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leopold Schmitzer

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Inneres

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, with a view to ending age-based discrimination, takes into account periods of training and service prior to the age of 18 but which, at the same time, introduces — only for civil servants who suffered that discrimination — a three-year extension of the period required in order to progress from the first to the second incremental step in each job category and each salary group.

2. Articles 9 and 16 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a civil servant who has suffered age-based discrimination — resulting from the method by which the reference date taken into account for the calculation of his advancement was fixed — must be able to rely on Article 2 of that directive in order to challenge the discriminatory effects of the extension of the period for advancement, even though, at his request, that reference date has been revised.

(1) OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014 — European Commission v Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR Srl, Parker-Hannifin Corp.

(Case C-434/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for marine hoses - Succession of legal entities - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Reduction of the fine by the General Court - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2015/C 065/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, V. Bottka and R. Sauer, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR Srl, Parker-Hannifin Corp. (represented by: F. Amato, F. Marchini Càmia and B. Amory, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Sets aside paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Parker ITR and Parker-Hannifin v Commission (T-146/09, EU:T:2013:258);

2) Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits of the action;

3) Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
2.

Declares that, if the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the date of delivery of this judgment, the Kingdom of Sweden shall be ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 4 000 for each day of delay in taking the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Commission v Sweden (C-607/10, EU:C:2012:192), from the date of delivery of this judgment until the date on which the first judgment has been complied with;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v L.F. Evans

(Case C-179/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Determination of the social security legislation applicable to a worker - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Applicability - Employment of a national of a Member State at the consulate of a third State in the territory of another Member State in whose territory he resides - Vienna Convention on consular relations - Article 71(2) - National legislation according facilities, privileges and immunities to permanent residents)

(2015/C 073/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Defendant: L.F. Evans

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, read in conjunction with Article 16 of that regulation, should be construed as meaning that, for the period during which a national of a Member State has been employed at a consular post of a third State within the territory of a Member State of which he is not a national but within whose territory he resides, that national is not subject to the legislation of a Member State within the meaning of this provision if, by virtue of the legislation of his Member State of residence, adopted pursuant to Article 71(2) of the Vienna Convention on consular relations, concluded at Vienna on 24 April 1963, he is not affiliated to the national social security scheme.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.