ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/4

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA

(Case C-701/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Transport - Definition of ‘exploitation of a geographical area for the purpose of the provisions of airports or other terminal facilities to carriers by air’ - Directives 2004/17/EC and 96/67/EC - National legislation which does not require a tendering procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation of areas within an airport))

(2017/C 293/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA

Defendant: SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA

Intervening party: Beta-Trans SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not require a public selection procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation, including a temporary allocation, of areas within airports to be used for the provision of groundhandling services for which no remuneration is to be paid by the manager of the airport.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/3

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 — Ferriere Nord SpA v European Commission

(Case C-88/15 P P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian producers of reinforcing bars - Fixing of prices and limiting and controlling output and sales - Infringement of Article 65 CS - Annulment of the initial decision by the General Court of the European Union - Decision re-adopted on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Failure to issue a new statement of objections - Lack of a hearing following the annulment of the initial decision))

(2017/C 392/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Ferriere Nord SpA (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Moretto, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 December 2014, Ferriere Nord v Commission (T-90/10, not published, EU:T:2014:1035);

2. Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in so far as it concerns Ferriere Nord SpA;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ferriere Nord SpA both at first instance and in the present appeal.

(1) OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

(Case C-570/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Application of social security schemes - Migrant workers - Determination of the applicable legislation - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(b)(i) - Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States - Person employed in one Member State and who pursues part of his activities in the Member State of his residence))

(2017/C 382/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2)(b)(i) 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, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a person, such as the one in question in the main proceedings, who is employed by an employer established in the territory of one Member State and who resides in another Member State where he carried out, over the course of the past year, a part of his employment activity amounting to 6,5 % of his hours worked without such an arrangement having been agreed with his employer in advance, is not to be considered to be normally employed in the territory of two Member States, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2017 — Bionorica SE (C-596/15 P), Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG (C-597/15 P) v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-596/15 P and C-597/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Public health - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Health claims on foods - Article 13(3) - List of permitted health claims on foods - Botanical substances - Claims on hold - Action for failure to act - Article 265 TFEU - Defined position of the European Commission - Interest in bringing proceedings - Locus standi))

(2018/C 022/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Bionorica SE (C-596/15 P), Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG (C-597/15 P) (represented by: M. Weidner, T. Guttau and N. Hußmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Grünheid and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2015, Bionorica v Commission (T-619/14, not published, EU:T:2015:723);

2. Dismisses the action for failure to act lodged by Bionorica SE in Case T-619/14 as inadmissible;

3. Dismisses the appeal in Case C-597/15 P;

4. Orders Bionorica SE and the Commission each to bear their own costs incurred both at first instance in Case T-619/14 and on appeal in Case C-596/15 P;

5. Orders Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs incurred on appeal in Case C-597/15 P.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2017 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-687/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Conclusions of the Council of the European Union concerning the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 of the International Telecommunication Union - Article 218(9) TFEU - Derogation from the prescribed legal form - No indication of the legal basis))

(2017/C 437/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Šulce, J.-P. Hix and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and M. Hedvábná, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Stranz, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: F. Fize, G. de Bergues, B. Fodda and D. Colas, 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, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the conclusions of the Council of the European Union, adopted on 26 October 2015, at its 3419th meeting in Luxembourg, on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU);

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against K. P.

(Case C-458/15) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common foreign and security policy - Combating terrorism - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Council Decision retaining an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Validity)

(2019/C 270/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the criminal proceedings against

K. P.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor such as to affect the validity of: — Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC; — Council Decision 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/445/EC; — Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC; and — Council Decision 2009/62/EC of 26 January 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2008/583/EC.

2. Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2009 of 15 June 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2009/62/EC is invalid in so far as, by that regulation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were kept on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
1.

By failing to ensure that the additional levy payable in respect of quantities produced in Italy in excess of the national quota, from the first year in which the additional levy was in fact applied in Italy (1995/1996) until the last year in which there was surplus production in Italy (2008/2009), — was in fact allocated to the individual producers which had contributed to each of the production overruns and — was paid at the appropriate time, upon their being given notification of the amount payable, by the purchasers or the producers in the case of direct sales, or — where the levy was not paid within the period prescribed, was registered and, where possible, recovered by way of enforcement from those purchasers or producers, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on it by Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector, Articles 79, 80 and 83 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), and, with regard to the Commission’s implementing provisions, Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products, Article 11(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation No 3950/92, and, finally, Articles 15 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation No 1788/2003, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 of 4 October 2006;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/17

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Giovanni Pesce and Others (C-78/16), Cesare Serinelli and Others (C-79/16) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-79/16) Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Commissario Delegato Per Fronteggiare il Rischio Fitosanitario Connesso alla Diffusione della Xylella nel Territorio della Regione Puglia, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Puglia

(Joined Cases C-78/16 and C-79/16) (1)

((Preliminary ruling - Protection of plant health - Directive 2000/29/EC - Protection against the introduction into and the spread within the Union of organisms harmful to plants or plant products - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 - Measures designed to avoid the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells and Raju) - Article 6(2)(a) - Obligation to carry out the immediate removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the infected plants - Validity - Article 16(3) of Directive 2000/29 - Principle of proportionality - Precautionary principle - Obligation to state reasons - Right to compensation))

(2016/C 296/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Giovanni Pesce and Others (C-78/16), Cesare Serinelli and Others (C-79/16)

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-79/16) Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Commissario Delegato Per Fronteggiare il Rischio Fitosanitario Connesso alla Diffusione della Xylella nel Territorio della Regione Puglia, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Puglia

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor such as to affect the validity of Article 6(2)(a) of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.), in the light of Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, as amended by Council Directive 2002/89/EC of 28 November 2002, read in the light of the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality and in the light of the obligation to state reasons provided for in Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/21

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) — Portugal) — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-21/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 131 and 138 - Preconditions for the exemption of an intra-Community supply - VAT Information Exchange System (VIES) - Purchaser’s failure to register - Refusal to grant the exemption - Whether permissible))

(2017/C 104/30)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Euro Tyre BV

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 131 and Article 138(1) of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from refusing to exempt an intra-Community supply from value added tax on the sole ground that, at the time of that supply, the purchaser domiciled in the territory of the Member State of destination and who was in possession of a valid identification number for the purposes of value added tax in that Member State is neither registered in the Value Added Tax Information Exchange System nor comes under a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, where there is no sound evidence pointing to the existence of fraud and it is established that the basic conditions of the exemption are fulfilled. In that case, Article 138(1) of that directive, interpreted in the light of the principle of proportionality, also precludes such refusal where the vendor was aware of the circumstances of the situation of the purchaser with regard to the application of VAT and was convinced that subsequently the purchaser would be registered as an intra-Community operator with retroactive effect.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
1)

Declares that, by not creating a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and by not establishing the interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 21 October 2009, establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC.
1.

Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 must be interpreted as meaning that an importer may not rely on a legitimate expectation, in accordance with that provision, in order to object to a post-clearance incurring of liability for import duties, submitting that he acted in good faith, unless three cumulative conditions are met. It is necessary, first of all, that those duties were not levied as a result of an error on the part of the competent authorities themselves, secondly, that that error was such that it could not reasonably have been detected by a person liable for payment acting in good faith and, finally, that that person complied with all the provisions laid down by the legislation in force as regards his customs declaration. Such a legitimate expectation is lacking, in particular, where, although there are clear reasons for doubting the accuracy of a Form A certificate of origin, an importer failed to obtain, using his best efforts, information concerning the circumstances of the issue of that certificate in order to verify whether those doubts were well founded. Such an obligation does not however mean that an importer is required, in general, to systematically verify the circumstances of the issue, by the customs authorities of the exporting country, of a Form A certificate of origin. It is for the referring court to determine, taking into account all of the specific facts of the dispute in the main proceedings, whether those three conditions are met in this case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/18

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association française des entreprises v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

(Case C-365/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Directive 2011/96/EU - Prevention of double taxation - Contribution of 3 % in addition to corporation tax))

(2017/C 239/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP), Axa SA, Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin SCA, Danone SA, ENGIE SA, formerly GDF Suez, Eutelsat Communications SA, LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SE, Orange SA, Sanofi SA, Suez Environnement Company SA, Technip SA, Total SA, Vivendi SA, Eurazeo SA, Safran SA, Scor SE, Unibail-Rodamco SE, Zodiac Aerospace SA

Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2014/86/EU of 8 July 2014, must be interpreted as precluding a tax measure laid down by the Member State of a parent company, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, providing for the levy of a tax when the parent company distributes dividends and the basis of assessment of which tax is the amounts of the dividends distributed, including those coming from that company’s non-resident subsidiaries.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

(Case C-17/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Article 3(1) - Natural person entering or leaving the European Union - Obligation to declare - International transit area of a Member State’s airport))

(2017/C 213/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL

Defendant: Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted to the effect that the obligation to declare laid down in that provision is applicable in the international transit area of an airport of a Member State.

(1) OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
3.

The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a credit institution has granted a loan to two jointly and severally liable debtors, the ‘place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’, within the meaning of that provision, is, unless otherwise agreed, the place where that institution has its registered office, and this also applies with a view to determining the territorial jurisdiction of the court called upon to hear and determine an action for recourse between those joint debtors.