ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/14

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH v Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien

(Case C-355/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures in the area of public procurement - Article 1(3) - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Article 2a(2) - Concept of a ‘tenderer concerned’ - Right of a tenderer definitively excluded by the contracting authority to seek review of a subsequent award decision))

(2017/C 053/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH

Defendants: Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as not precluding a tenderer who has been excluded from a public procurement procedure by a decision of the contracting authority which has become final from being refused access to a review of the decision awarding the public contract concerned and of the conclusion of the contract where only that unsuccessful tenderer and the successful tenderer submitted bids and the unsuccessful tenderer maintains that the successful tenderer’s bid should also have been rejected.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/18

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Länsförsäkringar AB v Matek A/S

(Case C-654/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(1)(b) - Article 15(1) - Article 51(1)(a) - Extent of the exclusive right granted to the proprietor - Period of five years following registration))

(2017/C 053/22)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Länsförsäkringar AB

Defendant: Matek A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark, read in conjunction with Articles 15(1) and 51(1)(a) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, during the period of five years following registration of an EU trade mark, its proprietor may, if there is a likelihood of confusion, prevent third parties from using in the course of trade a sign identical or similar to his mark in respect of all goods and services identical or similar to those for which that mark has been registered without having to demonstrate genuine use of that mark in respect of those goods or services.

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/16

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — French Republic v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-373/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005, (EC) No 1975/2006 and (EC) No 796/2004 - Rural development support measures - Areas with natural handicaps - On-the-spot controls - Coefficient density of livestock - Counting of animals))

(2017/C 104/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented initially by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, and subsequently by G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize and A. Daly, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: D. Bianchi and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 April 2015, France v Commission (T-259/13, not published, EU:T:2015:250);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 — European Commission v Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA

(Case C-351/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Fines - Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the latter’s unlawful conduct - Payment of the fine by the subsidiary - Reduction of the amount of the subsidiary’s fine following a judgment of the General Court of the European Union - Letters from the accountant of the European Commission demanding payment by the parent companies of the amount it repaid to the subsidiary plus default interest - Action for annulment - Challengeable acts - Effective judicial protection))

(2017/C 070/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: C. Perrin, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA;

3. Orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/2

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Balş — Judeţul Olt — Romania) — SC Casa Noastră SA v Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR)

(Case C-245/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Social provisions - Exceptions - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 3(a) - Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 - Article 2(3) - Regular services providing for the carriage of passengers - Concept - Carriage free of charge organised by an economic operator for its employees, to and from work, in vehicles belonging to it and driven by one of its employees))

(2017/C 121/02)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Balş — Judeţul Olt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Casa Noastră SA

Defendants: Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the service of the carriage by road of workers between home and work, organised by their employer, where the route covered does not exceed 50 km, falls within the scope of the derogation laid down in Article 3(a) of Regulation No 561/2006, according to which that regulation does not apply to such a service.

(1) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/6

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-317/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 64 TFEU - Movement of capital to or from third countries involving the provision of financial services - Financial assets held in a Swiss bank account - Additional assessment for recovery - Recovery period - Extension of the recovery period in the case of assets held outside the Member State of residence))

(2017/C 112/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 64(1) TFEU must be interpreted as applying to national legislation which imposes a restriction on the movements of capital referred to in that provision, such as the extended recovery period at issue in the main proceedings, even where that restriction can also be applied to situations which have nothing to do with direct investment, establishment, the provision of financial services or the admission of securities to capital markets.

2. The opening of a securities account by a resident of a Member State with a banking institution outside the European Union, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comes within the concept of a movement of capital involving the provision of financial services, within the meaning of Article 64(1) TFEU.

3. The possibility, provided for in Article 64(1) TFEU, for Member States to apply restrictions on capital movements involving the provision of financial services also applies to restrictions which, like the extended recovery period at issue in the main proceedings, are not related to either the provider of the services or the conditions and mechanisms of the provision of services.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — Stichting Woonpunt, Woningstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN)

(Case C-415/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Existing aid - Article 108(1) TFEU - Aid schemes in favour of social housing corporations - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 17, 18 and 19 - Assessment by the Commission of the compatibility with the internal market of an existing aid scheme - Proposal of appropriate measures - Commitments given by the national authorities in order to comply with EU law - Compatibility decision - Scope of judicial review - Legal effects))

(2017/C 151/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Stichting Woonpunt, Woningstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (represented by: L. Hancher, E. Besselink and P. Glazener, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, advocaat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2015, Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission (T-203/10 RENV, not published, EU:T:2015:286);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Belgische Staat v Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV, Wereldhave NV

(Case C-448/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Parent companies and subsidiaries established in different Member States - Common system of taxation applicable - Corporation tax - Directive 90/435/EEC - Scope - Article 2(c) - Company subject to tax without the possibility of an option or of being exempt - Taxation at a zero rate))

(2017/C 144/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgische Staat

Defendants: Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV, Wereldhave NV

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be construed to the effect that Article 5(1) does not preclude legislation of a Member State whereby an advance tax on investment income is levied on dividends paid by a subsidiary established in that Member State to a fiscal investment institution established in another Member State which is subject to corporation tax at a zero rate, provided that all of its profits are paid to its shareholders, since such an institution does not constitute a ‘company of a Member State’ for the purposes of that directive.

(1) OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
2.

As regards such a public contract, the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and the obligation of transparency which derive from Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude the contracting entity from making changes to a clause in the tender specifications, after publication of the tender notice, relating to the conditions and scheme for combining professional capacities, such as Clause 4.3 at issue in the main proceedings, provided, first, that the changes made are not so substantial that they have attracted potential tenderers which, in the absence of such changes, would not be in a position to submit a tender, second, they are adequately publicised and, third, they are made before the tenderers submit their bids, that the time limit for submitting those tenders is extended when the changes concerned are substantial, the length of that extension depending on the extent of those changes, and that the length of time is sufficient to allow the economic operators concerned to adapt their tender as a consequence, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, with regard to the landfills of Torremolinos (Malaga), Torrent de S’Estret (Andratx, Mallorca), Hoya de la Yegua de Arriba (Yaiza, Lanzarote), Barranco de Butihondo (Pájara, Fuerteventura), La Laguna-Tiscamanita (Tuineje, Fuerteventura), Lomo Blanco (Antigua, Fuerteventura), Montaña de Amagro (Galdar, Gran Canaria), Franja Costera de Botija (Galdar, Gran Canaria), Cueva Lapa (Galdar, Gran Canaria), La Colmena (Santiago del Teide, Tenerife), Montaña Los Giles (La Laguna, Tenerife), Las Rosas (Güimar, Tenerife), Barranco de Tejina (Guía de Isora, Tenerife), Llano de Ifara (Granadilla de Abona, Tenerife), Barranco del Carmen (Santa Cruz de La Palma, La Palma), Barranco Jurado (Tijarafe, La Palma), Montaña Negra (Puntagorda, La Palma), Lomo Alto (Fuencaliente, La Palma), Arure/Llano Grande (Valle Gran Rey, La Gomera), El Palmar — Taguluche (Hermigua, La Gomera), Paraje de Juan Barba (Alajeró, La Gomera), El Altito (Valle Gran Rey, La Gomera), Punta Sardina (Agulo, La Gomera), Los Llanillos (La Frontera, El Hierro), Faro de Orchilla (La Frontera, El Hierro), Montaña del Tesoro (Valverde, El Hierro), Arbancón (Castilla-La Mancha), Galve de Sorbe (Castilla-La Mancha), Hiendelaencina (Castilla-La Mancha), Tamajón (Castilla-La Mancha), El Casar (Castilla-La Mancha), Cardeñosa (Ávila), Miranda de Ebro (Burgos), Poza de la Sal (Burgos), Acebedo (León), Bustillo del Páramo (León), Cármenes (León), Gradefes (León), de Noceda del Bierzo (León), San Millán de los Caballeros (León), Santa María del Páramo (León), Villaornate y Castro (León), Cevico de La Torre (Palencia), Palencia (Palencia), Ahigal de los Aceiteros (Salamanca), Alaraz (Salamanca), Calvarrasa de Abajo (Salamanca), Hinojosa de Duero (Salamanca), Machacón (Salamanca), Palaciosrubios (Salamanca), Peñaranda de Bracamonte (Salamanca), Salmoral (Salamanca), Tordillos (Salamanca), Basardilla (Segovia), Cabezuela (Segovia), Almaraz del Duero (Zamora), Cañizal (Zamora), Casaseca de las Chanas (Zamora), La Serratilla (Abanilla), Las Rellanas (Santomera) and El Labradorcico (Águilas), the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health, without harming the environment and, in particular without risk to water, air, soil, animals or plants, and that the waste disposed of is treated by the municipalities themselves or by a dealer, an establishment or undertaking which carries out waste treatment operations or a private or public waste collector, in accordance with Articles 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfill its obligations under Articles 13 and 15(1) of that directive;
1.

Declares that by providing for the value added tax (VAT) regime applicable to independent groups of persons, as defined, first, in Article 44(1)(y) of the consolidated text of the loi du 12 février 1979 concernant la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée (Law of 12 February 1979 on value added tax), read in conjunction with Article 2(a) and Article 3 of the règlement grand-ducal du 21 janvier 2004 relatif à l’exonération de la TVA des prestations de services fournies à leurs membres par des groupements autonomes de personnes (Grand-Ducal Regulation of 21 January 2004 on the exemption from VAT of supplies of services by independent groups of persons to their members), second, in Article 4 of that regulation, read in conjunction with circulaire administrative no707, du 29 janvier 2004 (administrative circular No 707 of 29 January 2004), in so far as it comments on Article 4 of that regulation, and, third, in the note of 18 December 2008 drafted by the working group within the comité d’observation des marchés (Market Observation Committee, COBMA) with agreement from the administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domaines (Registration and Land Authority), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(c), Article 132(1)(f), Article 168(a), Article 178(a), Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle

(Case C-535/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - General obligation to register and information requirements - Unregistered chemicals - Export of unregistered chemicals outside the territory of the European Union))

(2017/C 202/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

Defendant: Jost Pinckernelle

intervening parties: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(12) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that substances which have not be registered at the time of their import into the territory of the European Union in accordance with that regulation may be exported outside that territory.

(1) OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV

(Case C-610/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition - Online sharing platform - Sharing of protected files, without the consent of the rightholder))

(2017/C 277/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Brein

Defendants: Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as covering, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the making available and management, on the internet, of a sharing platform which, by means of indexation of metadata relating to protected works and the provision of a search engine, allows users of that platform to locate those works and to share them in the context of a peer-to-peer network.

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
1.

Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the affixing of an individual EU trade mark, by the proprietor or with his consent, on goods as a label of quality is not a use as a trade mark that falls under the concept of ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of that provision. However, the affixing of that mark does constitute such genuine use if it guarantees, additionally and simultaneously, to consumers that those goods come from a single undertaking under the control of which the goods are manufactured and which is responsible for their quality. In that case, the proprietor of the mark is entitled to prevent, pursuant to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation, the affixing by a third party of a similar sign on identical goods, if that affixing creates a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Czech Republic v European Commission

(Case C-696/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Transport - Directive 2010/40/EU - Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport - Article 7 - Delegation of power to the European Commission - Limits - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 - Provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 - Data and procedures for the provision of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users - Article 290 TFEU - Explicit definition of the objectives, content, scope and duration of the delegation of power - Essential element of the matter in question - Establishment of a supervisory body))

(2017/C 309/08)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, T. Müller and J. Pavliš, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, P.J.O. Van Nuffel, J. Hottiaux and Z. Malůšková, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.