ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2016 — Jean-Charles Marchiani v European Parliament

(Case C-566/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Member of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of undue payments - Recovery - Implementing Measures of the Statute for Members of the Parliament - Respect for the rights of the defence - Principle of impartiality - Limitation - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 - Articles 78 to 81 - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 - Articles 81, 82 and 93 - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Reasonable time))

(2016/C 305/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean-Charles Marchiani (represented by: C.S. Marchiani, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
1.

Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), read in conjunction with Article 2(a) of that directive and with Article 1(2) 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 service such as that at issue in the main proceedings, provided by a communication network operator and consisting in making that network available to the general public free of charge constitutes an ‘information society service’ within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31 where the activity is performed by the service provider in question for the purposes of advertising the goods sold or services supplied by that service provider.
1.

Annex I, Chapter V, point 1.4(d) to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the transport by road of the animals belonging to the species referred to, in particular the bovine species except calves, first, the rest period between the periods of movement may, in principle, be longer than one hour. However, that length of time, if it exceeds one hour, must not be such that, in the specific conditions in which that rest and the transport occur together, it constitutes a risk of injury or undue suffering for the transported animals. Furthermore, the combined journey time and resting periods, as provided for under point 1.4(d) of that chapter, must not exceed 29 hours, subject to the possibility of extending those periods by 2 hours in the interests of the animals, in accordance with point 1.8 of that chapter and without prejudice to the application of Article 22 of that regulation in the event of unforeseeable circumstances. Second, the periods of movement of a maximum of 14 hours may each include 1 or more stop periods. Those break periods must be in addition to the periods of movement that count towards the overall period of movement of a maximum of 14 hours to which they belong.
3.

Article 34(1) of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 17 July 1995 and approved on behalf of the European Community and the European Coal and Steel Community by Decision 98/238/EC, ECSC of the Council and of the Commission of 26 January 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that: — it has direct effect and may be relied on in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which a company resident in Portugal receives dividends from a company resident in Tunisia as a result of the direct investment which it has made in the distributing company, in order to challenge the tax treatment reserved for the those dividends in Portugal; — legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which a company which is a resident of a Member State may deduct in full or in part, from its taxable amount, dividends received where the dividends are distributed by a company which is resident in the same Member State, but cannot make such a deduction where the distributing company is resident in Tunisia, constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital, prohibited in principle as regards direct investment and, in particular, the repatriation of the proceeds of those investments, by Article 34(1) of that agreement; — the effect of that provision is not limited, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by Article 89 of that agreement; — the refusal to grant, pursuant to Article 46(1) and (8) of the Corporation Tax Code, in the version in force in 2009, a full or partial deduction of the dividends received from the beneficiary company’s taxable amount may be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest relating to the need to preserve the effectiveness of fiscal supervision where it is impossible for the tax authorities of the Member State in which the beneficiary company is resident to obtain information from the Republic of Tunisia, in which the company distributing such dividends is resident, in order to allow it to be verified that the condition relating to the tax liability of the company distributing those dividends is satisfied; — the refusal to grant such a partial deduction in accordance with Article 46(11) of the Corporation Tax Code, in that version, cannot be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest relating to the need to preserve the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, where that provision can be applied in situations in which the distributing company’s tax liability in Tunisia, in which that company is resident, cannot be verified, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.
1.

Article 17(1) and (2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule being interpreted in such a way that it permits the executing State to grant to the sentenced person a reduction in sentence by reason of work he carried out during the period of his detention in the issuing State, although no such reduction in sentence was granted by the competent authorities of the issuing State, in accordance with the law of the issuing State;
1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04)), and by failing to inform the European Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2 to 4 of that decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Brandconcern BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-577/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(2) - Word mark LAMBRETTA - Genuine use of the mark - Application for revocation - Partial revocation - Communication No 2/12 of the President of EUIPO - Limitation of the temporal effects of a judgment of the Court))

(2017/C 112/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Brandconcern BV (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte, and by G. Casucci, N. Ferretti and C. Galli, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Scooters India Ltd, (represented by: C. Wolfe, Solicitor, and by B. Brandreth and A. Edwards-Stuart, Barristers)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Brandconcern BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/15

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Kurt Hesse v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hubert Ampferl, as insolvency administrator of Lutter & Partner GmbH, formerly Lutter & Partner GmbH, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG

(Case C-50/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Word mark Carrera - Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word marks CARRERA - Likelihood of confusion - Reputation acquired by the earlier mark))

(2016/C 098/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Kurt Hesse (represented by: M. Krogmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent), Hubert Ampferl, as insolvency administrator of Lutter & Partner GmbH, formerly Lutter & Partner GmbH, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (represented by: E. Stolz, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Kurt Hesse to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/15

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina SL, Mediaset España Comunicación SA, formerly Gestevisión Telecinco SA

(Case C-99/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 13(1) - Audiovisual work - Infringing activity - Damages - Rules for calculation - Lump sum - Moral prejudice - Inclusion))

(2016/C 156/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Christian Liffers

Respondents: Producciones Mandarina SL, Mediaset España Comunicación SA, formerly Gestevisión Telecinco SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as permitting a party injured by an intellectual property infringement, who claims compensation for his material damage as calculated, in accordance with heading (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive, on the basis of the amount of royalties or fees which would have been due to him if the infringer had requested his authorisation to use that right, also to claim compensation for the moral prejudice that he has suffered, as provided for under heading (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/19

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Daimler AG v Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft.

(Case C-179/15) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5(1) - Advertisements relating to a third party accessible on the internet - Unauthorised use of the mark - Advertisements published online without the knowledge and without the consent of that third party or maintained online despite the opposition of that third party - Action of the trade mark proprietor against that third party))

(2016/C 156/27)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Daimler AG

Defendant: Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/95/EC 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 a third party, who is named in an advertisement on a website, which contains a sign identical or similar to a trade mark in such a way as to give the impression that there is a commercial relationship between him and the proprietor of the trade mark, does not make use of that sign that may be prohibited by that proprietor under that provision, where that advertisement has not been placed by that third party or on his behalf or, if that advertisement has been placed by that third party or on his behalf with the consent of the proprietor, where that third party has expressly requested the operator of that website, from whom the third party ordered the advertisement, to remove the advertisement or the reference to the mark contained therein.

(1) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/7

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Invamed Group Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-198/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Section XVII - Vehicles - Chapter 87 - Vehicles other than railway or tramway rolling stock, and parts and accessories thereof - Headings 8703 and 8713 - Vehicles with battery-powered electric motors - Definition of ‘disabled persons’))

(2016/C 260/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Invamed Group Ltd, Invacare UK Ltd, Days Healthcare Ltd, Electric Mobility Euro Ltd, Medicare Technology Ltd, Sunrise Medical Ltd, Invacare International SARL

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Operative part of the judgment

1. Heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature set out 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, must be interpreted as meaning: — the words ‘for disabled persons’ mean that the product is designed solely for disabled persons; — the fact that a vehicle may be used by non-disabled persons is irrelevant to the classification under heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature — the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature are not capable of amending the scope of the tariff headings of the Combined Nomenclature.

2. the words ‘disabled persons’ under heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1810/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that they designate persons affected by a non-marginal limit on their ability to walk, the duration of that limitation and the existence of other limitations relating to the capacities of those persons being irrelevant.

(1) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/13

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Oniors Bio’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-233/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 1517 90 91 and 1518 00 31 - Mixture of fluid vegetable oil, unprocessed, non-volatile, composed of rapeseed oil (88 %) and sunflower oil (12 %)))

(2016/C 243/12)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Oniors Bio’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out 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, in order to determine whether a mixture of vegetable oils such as that at issue in the main proceedings must be classified as an edible mixture of vegetable oils under CN subheading 1517 90 91 or as an inedible mixture of vegetable oils under CN subheading 1518 00 31, all the factors relevant to the case must be taken into account, in so far as they relate to the objective characteristics and properties inherent in that product. Among the relevant factors which may justify the classification of such a mixture as ‘inedible’, account should be taken of the information provided by the producer of that mixture in the context of the customs declaration, according to which, because of the characteristics of the process for its production, the presence of noxious substances in that mixture cannot be excluded. In that regard, the fact that an analysis of samples taken from such a mixture of vegetable oils has not shown that it contains any noxious substance does not suffice, by itself, to call into question the classification of the mixture in question as ‘inedible’. Such a consequence presupposes the existence of other relevant evidence capable of calling into question the accuracy of the information relating to the process for the production of the mixture in question, provided by its producer and included in that declaration, in accordance with Articles 62, 68 and 71 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
1.

Article 5(3) of Regulation 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, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may not be construed as being, failing any other connecting factors, the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, when that damage consists exclusively of financial damage which materialises directly in the applicant’s bank account and is the direct result of an unlawful act committed in another Member State.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/14

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland EPZ NV v Bestuur van de Nederlandse Emissieautoriteit

(Case C-158/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Atmospheric pollution - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Directive 2003/87/EC - Concept of ‘installation’ - Inclusion of the fuel storage site - Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 - Concept of ‘fuel exported from the installation’))

(2016/C 296/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland EPZ NV

Defendant: Bestuur van de Nederlandse Emissieautoriteit

Operative part of the judgment

1. A fuel storage site of a coal-fired power plant such as that at issue in the main proceedings and as described by the referring court is part of an ‘installation’ within the meaning of Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Decision No 1359/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013.

2. The first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2014 of 4 March 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that coal lost as a result of the process by which it naturally self-heats while in storage on a site that is part of an installation within the meaning of Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87 cannot be regarded as coal exported from that installation.

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/23

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano v Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero

(Case C-335/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 119 of the EC Treaty (subsequently Article 141 EC) - Directive 75/117/EEC - Equal pay for men and women - Article 1 - Directive 92/85/EEC - Measures to improve the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Article 11(2)(b) and Article 11(3) - National law providing for an allowance for ordinary magistrates in respect of expenses which they incur in the performance of their professional functions - No entitlement for an ordinary magistrate to that allowance in the case of compulsory maternity leave taken prior to 1 January 2005))

(2016/C 335/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Cristina Elisabetta Ornano

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia, Direzione Generale dei Magistrati del Ministero

Operative part of the judgment

Article 119 of the EC Treaty (subsequently Article 141 EC), Article 1 of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, and Article 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be interpreted, in a situation where the Member State concerned did not provide for the maintenance of all the elements of pay to which an ordinary magistrate was entitled before her maternity leave, as not precluding a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the case of a period of compulsory maternity leave taken prior to 1 January 2005, an ordinary magistrate is not entitled to receive an allowance in respect of costs that ordinary magistrates incur in the performance of their professional functions, provided that that worker received, during that period, an income in an amount at least equivalent to that of the benefit provided for under national social security legislation which she would have received in the event of a break in her activities on grounds connected with her state of health, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.