ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-29/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public health — Directive 2004/23/EC — Directive 2006/17/EC — Directive 2006/86/EC — Exclusion of reproductive cells, foetal tissues and embryonic tissues from the scope of national legislation transposing those directives)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-29/14) ( 1 )

‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public health — Directive 2004/23/EC — Directive 2006/17/EC — Directive 2006/86/EC — Exclusion of reproductive cells, foetal tissues and embryonic tissues from the scope of national legislation transposing those directives)’

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Gheorghiu and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, under Articles 3(b), 4(2) and 7 of, and Annex III to, Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells, and under Article 11 of Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, by excluding reproductive cells and foetal and embryonic tissue from the scope of the provisions of national law transposing those directives;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy)) — Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC), Unione Nazionale dei Consumatori di Prodotti in Pelle, Materie Concianti, Accessori e Componenti (Unicopel) v FS Retail, Luna srl, Gatsby srl

(Case C-95/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Articles 34, 35 and 36 TFEU - Measures having equivalent effect - Directive 94/11/EC - Articles 3 and 5 - Exhaustive harmonisation - Bar on impeding the placing on the market of footwear which complies with the labelling requirements of Directive 94/11 - National legislation requiring the country of origin to be shown on the labelling of products manufactured abroad which use the Italian term ‘pelle’ - Products in free circulation))

(2015/C 302/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC), Unione Nazionale dei Consumatori di Prodotti in Pelle, Materie Concianti, Accessori e Componenti (Unicopel)

Defendants: FS Retail, Luna srl, Gatsby srl

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 94/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 March 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to labelling of the materials used in the main components of footwear for sale to the consumer must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, prohibiting, inter alia, the marketing of leather components of footwear coming from other Member States, or coming from non-member countries and already marketed in another Member State or in the Member State concerned, when those products do not bear a label indicating their country of origin.

(1) OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
1.

The principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, a national tax authority from deciding, following a tax audit, to subject transactions to value added tax and to impose the payment of surcharges, provided that that decision is based on clear and precise rules and that that authority’s practice has not been such as to give rise, in the mind of a prudent and well-informed trader, to a reasonable expectation that that tax would not be levied on such transactions, this being a matter for the referring court to determine. The surcharges applied in such circumstances must comply with the principle of proportionality.
1)

The deposits excluded under point 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, are listed exhaustively in that provision, so that the Member States cannot provide, in their national law, for other categories of depositors who are not covered, in terms of the functions carried out, by the concepts listed in that point, in order for the exclusion from the deposit-guarantee to be applied to them.
1.

Declares that by failing to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that, as from 16 July 2009, the existing landfills for non-hazardous waste in its territory do not continue to function unless they satisfy the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 14(a) to (c) of that directive;
1.

Article 3(1)(e) 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 precluding registration as a trade mark of a sign consisting of the shape of goods where that shape contains three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, provided, however, that at least one of the grounds for refusal of registration set out in that provision is fully applicable to the shape at issue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/18

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Dimos Kropias Attikis v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Energias kai Klimatikis Allagis

(Case C-473/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Protection regime in respect of the Mount Hymettus area - Modification procedure - Applicability of the directive - Master plan and environmental protection programme for the greater Athens area))

(2015/C 363/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dimos Kropias Attikis

Defendant: Ipourgos Perivallontos, Energias kai Klimatikis Allagis

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the adoption of a measure containing a plan or programme relating to town and country planning and land use falling within the scope of Directive 2001/42 that modifies an existing plan or programme may not be exempted from the obligation to carry out an environmental assessment under that directive on the ground that that measure is intended to give more specific expression to and implement a master plan established by a hierarchically superior measure that has not itself been the subject of such an environmental assessment.

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — proceedings brought by Marie Matoušková, acting as court commissioner

(Case C-404/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 1(1)(b) - Substantive scope - Inheritance settlement agreement between the surviving spouse and minor children represented by a guardian ad litem - Classification - Requirement for approval of such an agreement by the court - Measure relating to parental responsibility or measure relating to succession))

(2015/C 389/11)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Marie Matoušková, acting as court commissioner

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the approval of an agreement for the sharing-out of an estate concluded by a guardian ad litem on behalf of minor children constitutes a measure relating to the exercise of parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) of that regulation and thus falls within the scope of the latter, and not a measure relating to succession, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(f) thereof, excluded from the scope thereof.

(1) OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
1)

Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as permitting the application of the law on the protection of personal data of a Member State other than the Member State in which the controller with respect to the processing of those data is registered, in so far as that controller exercises, through stable arrangements in the territory of that Member State, a real and effective activity — even a minimal one — in the context of which that processing is carried out. In order to ascertain, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, whether that is the case, the referring court may, in particular, take account of the fact (i) that the activity of the controller in respect of that processing, in the context of which that processing takes place, consists of the running of property dealing websites concerning properties situated in the territory of that Member State and written in that Member State’s language and that it is, as a consequence, mainly or entirely directed at that Member State, and (ii) that that controller has a representative in that Member State, who is responsible for recovering the debts resulting from that activity and for representing the controller in the administrative and judicial proceedings relating to the processing of the data concerned. By contrast, the issue of the nationality of the persons concerned by such data processing is irrelevant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/9

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Impresa Edilux Srl, as the representative of a temporary joint venture, Società Italiana Costruzioni e Forniture Srl (SICEF) v Assessorato Beni Culturali e Identità Siciliana — Servizio Soprintendenza Provincia di Trapani, Assessorato ai Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, UREGA — Sezione provinciale di Trapani, Assessorato delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità della Regione Siciliana

(Case C-425/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Grounds for exclusion from participation in a tendering procedure - Contract falling below the threshold of application of that directive - Fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty - Declaration of acceptance of a legality protocol on combating criminal activity - Exclusion for failure to lodge such a declaration - Whether permissible - Proportionality))

(2015/C 414/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Impresa Edilux Srl, as the representative of a temporary joint venture, Società Italiana Costruzioni e Forniture Srl (SICEF)

Defendants: Assessorato Beni Culturali e Identità Siciliana — Servizio Soprintendenza Provincia di Trapani, Assessorato ai Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, UREGA — Sezione provinciale di Trapani, Assessorato delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità della Regione Siciliana

Other party to the main proceedings: Icogen Srl

Operative part of the judgment

The fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty, in particular the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination and the consequent obligation of transparency, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law under which a contracting authority may provide that a candidate or tenderer be automatically excluded from a tendering procedure relating to a public contract for not having lodged, with its tender, a written acceptance of the commitments and declarations contained in a legality protocol, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the purpose of which is to prevent organised crime from infiltrating the public procurement sector. However, inasmuch as that protocol contains declarations that the candidate or tenderer is not in a relationship of control or of association with other candidates or tenderers, has not concluded and will not conclude any agreement with other participants in the tendering procedure and will not subcontract any type of tasks to other undertakings participating in that procedure, the lack of such declarations is not to lead to the automatic exclusion of the candidate or tenderer from that procedure.

(1) OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/11

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez (C-352/14), Elisabet Rion Bea (C-353/14) v Bankia SA, Sección Sindical UGT, Sección Sindical CCOO, Sección Sindical ACCAM, Sección Sindical CSICA, Sección Sindical SATE, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

(Joined Cases C-352/14 and C-353/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU - Financial crisis - Aid to the financial sector - Compatibility of aid with the internal market - Decision of the European Commission - Financial entity undergoing restructuring - Dismissal of an employee - National rules concerning the levels of redundancy payments))

(2015/C 406/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez (C-352/14), Elisabet Rion Bea (C-353/14)

Defendants: Bankia SA, Sección Sindical UGT, Sección Sindical CCOO, Sección Sindical ACCAM, Sección Sindical CSICA, Sección Sindical SATE, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Decision C(2012) 8764 final of 28 November 2012 concerning the aid granted by the Spanish authorities for the restructuring and recapitalisation of the BFA Group, and Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, which form the basis for that decision, do not preclude the application, in proceedings relating to a collective redundancy that is within the scope of that decision, of national legislation under which the compensation payable to an employee whose dismissal is held to be unfair is set at an amount higher than the legal minimum.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/12

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Cristian Pujante Rivera v Gestora Clubs Dir, SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

(Case C-422/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a), first subparagraph - Concept of workers ‘normally employed’ at the establishment concerned - Article 1(1), second subparagraph - Concepts of ‘redundancy’ and ‘terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))

(2016/C 016/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cristian Pujante Rivera

Defendants: Gestora Clubs Dir, SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that workers employed under a contract concluded for a fixed term or a specific task must be regarded as forming part of the workers ‘normally’ employed, within the meaning of that provision, at the establishment concerned.

2. In order to establish whether there is a ‘collective redundancy’, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59, thus giving rise to the application of the directive, the condition laid down in the second subparagraph of that provision that ‘there [be] at least five redundancies’ must be interpreted as relating not to terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies but only to redundancies sensu stricto.

3. Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an employer — unilaterally and to the detriment of the employee — makes significant changes to essential elements of his employment contract for reasons not related to the individual employee concerned falls within the definition of ‘redundancy’ for the purpose of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of the directive.

(1) OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.
2.

Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company provides a region with services in respect of the planning and management of the regional health service under the programme agreements concluded between that company and that region, falls under the rule of treatment as a non-taxable person for value added tax purposes, laid down by that provision, in a situation where that activity constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive, if, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, it can be considered that that company must be classified as a body governed by public law and that it carries out that activity as a public authority, in so far as the referring court finds that the exemption of that activity is not such as to lead to significant distortions of competition.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/4

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Kyocera Mita Europe BV v European Commission

(Case C-553/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 - Actions for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties - Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques))

(2016/C 048/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Kyocera Mita Europe BV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, and P. Muñiz, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Kyocera Mita Europe BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ráckevei járásbíróság — Hungary) — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Márton Lantos, Mártonné Lantos

(Case C-312/14) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/39/EC - Articles 4(1) and 19(4), (5) and (9) - Markets in financial instruments - Concept of ‘investment services and activities’ - Provisions to ensure investor protection - Conduct of business obligations when providing investment services to clients - Obligation to assess the suitability or appropriateness of the service to be provided - Contractual consequences of non-compliance with that obligation - Consumer credit contracts - Foreign currency denominated loan - Advancement and reimbursement of loan in domestic currency - Terms relating to the exchange rate))

(2016/C 038/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Ráckevei járásbíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banif Plus Bank Zrt.

Defendant: Márton Lantos, Mártonné Lantos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(2) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to verification by the referring court, an investment service or activity within the meaning of that provision does not encompass certain foreign exchange transactions, effected by a credit institution under clauses of a foreign currency denominated loan agreement such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in fixing the amount of the loan on the basis of the purchase price of the currency applicable when the funds are advanced and in determining the amounts of the monthly instalments on the basis of the sale price of that currency applicable when each monthly instalment is calculated.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-132/14 to C-136/14) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 - Directive 2013/62/EU - Directive 2013/64/EU - Legal basis - Article 349 TFEU - Outermost regions of the European Union - Amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union))

(2016/C 068/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen, L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Mölls, D. Bianchi and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, E. Karlsson, F. Florindo Gijón and J. Czuczai, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, F. Fize, D. Colas and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, B. Andrade Correia, M. Duarte and S. Marques, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions in Cases C-132/14 to C-136/14;

2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union relating to Cases C-132/14 and C-136/14;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union relating to Cases C-133/14 to C-135/14;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.