ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Mimoun Khachab v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

(Case C-558/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 7(1)(c) - Family reunification - Requirements for the exercise of the right to family reunification - Stable and regular resources which are sufficient - National legislation permitting a prospective assessment of the likelihood that the sponsor will retain his resources - Compatibility))

(2016/C 211/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mimoun Khachab

Respondent: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as allowing the competent authorities of a Member State to refuse an application for family reunification on the basis of a prospective assessment of the likelihood of the sponsor retaining, or failing to retain, the necessary stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, without recourse to the social assistance system of that Member State, in the year following the date of submission of that application, that assessment being based on the pattern of the sponsor’s income in the six months preceding that date.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
3.

Article 94(2) of Regulation No 2100/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of the damage referred to in that provision must be determined on the basis of the specific matters put forward in that regard by the holder of the variety infringed, if need be using a lump-sum method if those matters are not quantifiable. It is not contrary to that provision if the costs incurred in an unsuccessful interlocutory application are left out of account in the determination of that damage or if the out-of-court expenses incurred in connection with the main action are not taken into consideration. However, a condition for not taking those expenses into account is that the amount of the legal costs that are likely to be awarded to the victim of the infringement is not such, in view of the sums he has incurred in respect of out-of-court expenses and their utility in the main action for damages, as to deter him from bringing legal proceedings in order to enforce his rights.
1.

Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests and Article 2(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 must be interpreted as meaning that failure to comply with national provisions by a contracting authority, the beneficiary of Structural Funds, in connection with the award of a public contract of an estimated value below the threshold laid down in Article 7(a) of 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1422/2007 of 4 December 2007, may constitute, at the time the contract is awarded, an ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 or Article 2(7) of Regulation No 1083/2006, if that breach has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the European Union by charging an unjustified item of expenditure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-567/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Non-exclusive licence agreement - Patent - No infringement - Obligation to pay royalties))

(2016/C 335/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Genentech Inc.

Defendants: Hoechst GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the imposition on the licensee, under a licence agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a requirement to pay a royalty for the use of a patented technology for the entire period in which that agreement was in effect, in the event of the revocation or non-infringement of a licensed patent, provided that the licensee was able freely to terminate that agreement by giving reasonable notice.

(1) OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2016 — European Commission v Peter McBride and Others

(Case C-361/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Resource conservation measures and restructuring of the fisheries sector - Requests for increased safety tonnage - Annulment by the European Union judicature of the decision initially rejecting those requests - Article 266 TFEU - Repeal of the legal basis on which that initial decision was founded - Competence and legal basis to adopt new decisions - Annulment by the General Court of new decisions rejecting the requests - Principle of legal certainty))

(2016/C 305/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister-at-Law)

Other parties to the proceedings: Peter McBride, Hugh McBride, Mullglen Ltd, Cathal Boyle, Thomas Flaherty, Ocean Trawlers Ltd, Patrick Fitzpatrick, Eamon McHugh, Eugene Hannigan, Larry Murphy, Brendan Gill (represented by: N. Travers, Senior Counsel, D. Barry, Solicitor, and E. Barrington, Senior Counsel)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Alfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado

(Case C-165/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of a third-country national with a criminal record to reside in a Member State - Parent having sole care of two minor children, who are Union citizens - First child possessing the nationality of the Member State of residence - Second child possessing the nationality of another Member State - National legislation precluding grant of a residence permit to the father because of his criminal record - Refusal of residence capable of resulting in the children being obliged to leave the territory of the European Union))

(2016/C 419/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Alfredo Rendón Marín

Respondent: Administración del Estado

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 TFEU and 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 precluding national legislation which requires a third-country national to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he has a criminal record where he is the parent of a minor child who is a Union citizen and a national of a Member State other than the host Member State and who is his dependant and resides with him in the host Member State.

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the same national legislation which requires a third-country national who is a parent of minor children who are Union citizens in his sole care to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he has a criminal record, where that refusal has the consequence of requiring those children to leave the territory of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others, Jimmy Tessens and Others, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des avocats du barreau d’Arlon and Others v Conseil des ministres

(Case C-543/14) (1)

((VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Validity and interpretation of the directive - Services provided by lawyers - Liability to VAT - Right to an effective remedy - Equality of arms - Legal aid))

(2016/C 350/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others, Jimmy Tessens and Others, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des avocats du barreau d’Arlon and Others

Defendant: Conseil des ministres

Intervening parties: Association Syndicale des Magistrats ASBL, Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe

Operative part of the judgment

1. The examination of Article 1(2) and Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in the light of the right to an effective remedy and the principle of equality of arms under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has not revealed anything which might affect their validity in so far as those provisions impose VAT on services supplied by lawyers to clients who do not qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme.

2. Article 9(4) and (5) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998, cannot be relied on for the purposes of assessing the validity of Article 1(2) and Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112.

3. Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the services supplied by lawyers for clients who qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, are not exempt from VAT.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
1.

Declares that, by failing to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special protection area ‘Campiñas de Sevilla’, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which that area was established, the Kingdom of Spain failed, in respect of the period before 29 July 2008, to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds and, in respect of the period after that date, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/7

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, previously Alouminion AE, European Commission

(Case C-590/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Production of aluminium - Preferential electricity tariff granted by a contract - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Termination of the contract - Judicial suspension of the effects of termination of the contract - Decision declaring the aid unlawful - Article 108(3) TFEU - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Distinction))

(2017/C 006/08)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, avocat, and by E. Salaka, C. Synodinos, C. Tagaras and A. Oikonomou, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, previously Alouminion AE (represented by: G. Dellis, N. Korogiannakis, E. Chrysafis, D. Diakopoulos and N. Keramidas, dikigoroi)

European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 October 2014 in Alouminion v Commission (T-542/11, EU:T:2014:859);

2. Refers Case T-542/11 back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 December 2017 — Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union

(Case C-600/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - External action of the European Union - Article 216(1) TFEU - Article 218(9) TFEU - Establishment of the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union in a body set up by an international agreement - Revision Committee of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF) - Amendment of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) and the Appendices thereto - Competence shared between the European Union and its Member States - External competence of the European Union in an area where the Union has not yet adopted common rules - Validity of Decision 2014/699/EU - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sincere cooperation))

(2018/C 052/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented initially by D. Colas, G. de Bergues and M. Hours, acting as Agents, and subsequently by D. Colas and M.-L. Kitamura, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by C. Brodie, M. Holt and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan, Z. Kupčová and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by F. Erlbacher, W. Mölls and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Murcia — Spain) — IOS Finance EFC SA v Servicio Murciano de Salud

(Case C-555/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Commercial transactions between private undertakings and public authorities - National legislation making the immediate recovery of the principal amount of a debt conditional upon the waiver of interest for late payment and of compensation for recovery costs))

(2017/C 112/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Murcia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IOS Finance EFC SA

Defendant: Servicio Murciano de Salud

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, and Article 7(2) and (3) thereof in particular, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a creditor to waive his right to interest for late payment and compensation for recovery costs in exchange for immediate payment of the principal amount of debts owed, on condition that such a waiver is freely agreed to, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.
1)

Declares that, by levying the full amount of registration tax provided for under its national legislation at the time of registration of a vehicle hired or leased by a customer resident in its territory from a supplier established in another Member State, without taking into consideration the duration of the hire or lease contract and the duration of use of that vehicle in the national territory of Greece, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 to 62 TFEU;
1.

Article 3(3) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the right to send an applicant for international protection to a safe third country may also be exercised by a Member State after that Member State has accepted that it is responsible, pursuant to that regulation and within the context of the take-back procedure, for examining an application for international protection submitted by an applicant who left that Member State before a decision on the substance of his first application for international protection had been taken.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/15

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Kødbranchens Fællesråd, acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslagteri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportslagteri A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen

(Case C-112/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Official controls of feed and food - Fees that may be charged by Member States to cover the costs incurred through official controls - Costs in connection with the training of official auxiliaries))

(2016/C 156/21)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kødbranchens Fællesråd, acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslagteri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportslagteri A/S

Defendants: Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(4)(a) and Annex VI, points (1) and (2), of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules must be interpreted as precluding Member States, when they prescribe the fees charged to food sector establishments, from including the costs connected to the compulsory basic training of official auxiliaries.

(1) OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/9

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV

(Case C-31/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 - Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty))

(2016/C 287/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented initially by B. Driessen and S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents), Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV (represented by: R. Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Photo USA Electronic Graphic Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Bank of Industry and Mine v Council of the European Union

(Case C-358/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 - Legal base - Criterion relating to the provision of material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran - Part of the profits of a State company paid to the Iranian State))

(2016/C 243/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bank of Industry and Mine (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Bank of Industry and Mine and the Council of the European Union to each pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
1.

Declares that, in applying, in order to determine the taxable value of second-hand vehicles imported into Portugal from another Member State, a system for calculating the depreciation on the vehicles which does not take account of the depreciation on the vehicles during their first year of use or of depreciation of more than 52 % in the case of vehicles which have been used for more than five years, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 110 TFEU;