ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1)

On a proper construction of Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, pension funds such as those at issue in the main proceedings may fall within the scope of that provision if they are funded by the persons to whom the retirement benefit is to be paid, if the funds are invested using a risk-spreading principle, and if the pension customers bear the investment risk. In that regard, it is of little consequence that the contributions are paid by the employer; that the amount paid in is based on collective agreements between labour-market organisations; that there are different ways of paying out the funds invested; that contributions are deductible under income tax law; or that it is possible to add an insurance element which is ancillary to the other services provided;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘4finance’ UAB v Valstybinę vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnybą, Valstybinę mokesčių inspekciją prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-515/12) (1)

((Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Pyramid promotional scheme - Whether the consideration paid by consumers in order to receive compensation is relevant - Interpretation of the concept of ‘consideration’))

2014/C 159/08

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘4finance’ UAB

Defendants: Valstybinę vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnybą, Valstybinę mokesčių inspekciją prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Interpretation of point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — Pyramid promotional scheme enabling a consumer, after giving nominal consideration, to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the entry of other consumers rather than from the sale or consumption of products — Relevance of the amount of the consideration to classification of the scheme as a pyramid promotional scheme — Significance of the extent to which the compensation is financed by consideration from new consumers — Requirement that that compensation be financed entirely or to a large extent by the contributions of the new members

Operative part of the judgment

Annex I, point 14, of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted as meaning that a pyramid promotional scheme constitutes an unfair commercial practice only where such a scheme requires the consumer to give financial consideration, regardless of its amount, for the opportunity to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than from the sale or consumption of products.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Equality Tribunal — Ireland) — Z v A Government Department, The Board of Management of a Community School

(Case C-363/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of male and female workers - Commissioning mother who has had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement - Refusal to grant her paid leave equivalent to maternity leave or adoptive leave - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of any discrimination on the ground of disability - Commissioning mother unable to bear a child - Existence of a disability - Validity of Directives 2006/54 and 2000/78))

2014/C 142/07

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Equality Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Z

Defendant: A Government Department, The Board of Management of a Community School

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Equality Tribunal (Ireland) — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 14 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23) — Interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Biological mother having recourse to surrogacy — Person suffering from a physical disability which prevents her from giving birth — Right to maternity leave.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, in particular Articles 4 and 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a refusal to provide paid leave equivalent to maternity leave to a female worker who as a commissioning mother has had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement does not constitute discrimination on grounds of sex. The situation of such a commissioning mother as regards the grant of adoptive leave is not within the scope of that directive.

2. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that a refusal to provide paid leave equivalent to maternity leave or adoptive leave to a female worker who is unable to bear a child and who has availed of a surrogacy arrangement does not constitute discrimination on the ground of disability. The validity of that directive cannot be assessed in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but that directive must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with that Convention.

(1) OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/3

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 May 2014 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Friis Group International ApS

(Case C-97/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative mark representing a locking device - No distinctive character - Partial invalidity - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b)))

2014/C 212/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto, E. Gavuzzi and N. Parrotta, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Friis Group International (represented by: C. Type Jardorf, advokat)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2011 in Case T-237/10 Vuitton Malletier v OHIM and Friis Group International (Representation of a locking device), by which the General Court partially granted an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark representing a locking device, for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25, against Decision No R 1590/2008-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 February 2010, partially annulling the decision of the Cancellation Division which rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Dismisses the cross-appeal;

3. Orders Louis Vuitton Malletier, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Friis Group International ApS each to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
1)

Articles 2(a), 8 and 12 of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the national regulatory authority has the power to impose on an electronic communications operator that has significant market power on a specific market, pursuant to the obligation to meet reasonable requests for access to, and use of, specific network elements and associated facilities, an obligation to install, at the request of competing operators, a drop cable not exceeding 30 metres in length connecting the distribution frame of an access network to the network termination point at the end-user’s premises, as long as that obligation is based on the nature of the problem identified, proportionate and justified in the light of the objectives set out in Article 8(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-198/12) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Internal market in energy - Gas transmission - Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 - Articles 14(1) and 16(1) and (2)(b) - Obligation to guarantee maximum capacity - Virtual reverse flow gas capacity - Admissibility))

2014/C 253/06

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, S. Petrova, O. Beynet and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: D. Drambozova, E. Petranova and Y. Atanasov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 14(1) and Article 16(1) and (2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 36) — Obligation to ensure that all market participants are guaranteed maximum capacity — No physical interconnection between the transit system and the national gas transmission system — Intergovernmental agreements preventing compliance with the obligation to make maximum capacity available — Scope of the obligation set out in the second paragraph of Article 351 TFEU

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Michal Zeman v Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline

(Case C-543/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 91/477/EEC - Issuing of the European firearms pass - National legislation according to which that pass is issued only to holders of a firearms licence issued for hunting or target shooting use))

(2014/C 395/08)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michal Zeman

Defendant: Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, as amended by Directive 2008/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises the issue of a European firearms pass only to holders of weapons used for hunting and target shooting purposes.

(1) OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.
1.

Declares that: — by excluding members of a profession and dentists and physiotherapists from the scope of the Law of 14 July 1991 on commercial practices, consumer information and consumer protection, as amended by the Law of 5 June 2007, transposing in national law Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), — by maintaining in force Articles 20, 21 and 29 of the Law of 6 April 2010 on market practices and consumer protection, and — by maintaining in force Article 4(3) of the Law of 25 June 1993 on the exercise and organisation of travelling trading and fairground activities, as amended by the Law of 4 July 2005 and Article 5(1) of the Royal Decree of 24 September 2006 concerning the exercise and organisation of travelling trading activities, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(b) and (d), 3 and 4 of Directive 2005/29.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2014 — European Parliament (C-103/12), European Commission (C-165/12) v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-103/12 and C-165/12) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Decision 2012/19/EU - Legal basis - Article 43(2) and (3) TFEU - Bilateral agreement authorising utilisation of the surplus of allowable catch - Choice of the third country that the European Union authorises to utilise living resources - Exclusive economic zone - Policy decision - Fixing fishing opportunities))

(2015/C 026/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, I. Liukkonen and I. Díez Parra, acting as Agents) (C-103/12), European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and E. Paasivirta, acting as Agents) (C-165/12)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová and A. de Gregorio Merino, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2012/19/EU of 16 December 2011 on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Declaration on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana;

2. Maintains the effects of Decision 2012/19/EU until the entry into force, within a reasonable period of time after the date of the present judgment, of a new decision based on the appropriate legal basis, namely Article 43(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU;

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

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

(1) OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 October 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union

(Case C-399/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - EU external action - Article 218(9) TFEU - Establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union in a body set up by an international agreement - International agreement to which the European Union is not a party - International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) - ‘Acts having legal effects’ - OIV recommendations))

2014/C 421/03

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, B. Beutler and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: P. Frantzen, acting as Agent), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Holmes, Barrister)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, B. Schima and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

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

3) Orders the Czech Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/38

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil constitutionnel — France) — Jeremy F v Premier ministre

(Case C-168/13 PPU) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Articles 27(4) and 28(3)(c) - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Speciality rule - Application for extension of the European arrest warrant on which the surrender was based or for onward surrender to another Member State - Decision of the judicial authority of the executing Member State to give consent - Appeal with suspensive effect - Whether permitted)

2013/C 225/65

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil constitutionnel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jeremy F

Defendant: Premier ministre

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil constitutionnel — Interpretation of Articles 27 and 28 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Extension of the effects of a European arrest warrant — Existence in the requested Member State of an appeal against the decision of the executing judicial authority, in this case the indictment division of a court of appeal — Period of 30 days

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 27(4) and 28(3)(c) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding Member States from providing for an appeal suspending execution of the decision of the judicial authority which rules, within 30 days from receipt of the request, on giving consent either to the prosecution, sentencing or detention with a view to the carrying out of a custodial sentence or detention order of a person for an offence committed prior to his surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant, other than that for which he was surrendered, or to the surrender of a person to a Member State other than the executing Member State, pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for an offence committed prior to his surrender, provided that the final decision is adopted within the time-limits laid down in Article 17 of the Framework Decision.

(1) OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/15

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH

(Case C-132/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2006/95/EC - Definition of ‘electrical equipment - ’– CE conformity marking - Housing for multipole electrical connectors))

2014/C 135/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Defendant: ILME GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Köln — Interpretation of Articles 1, 8 and 10 of, and Annexes II to IV to, Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (OJ 2006 L 374, p. 10) — Notion of ‘electrical equipment’ — Prohibition of affixing the ‘CE’ conformity marking to the housings of multipole connectors sold as separate parts.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits must be interpreted as meaning that housing for multipole connectors for industrial use, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is covered by the definition of ‘electrical equipment’ for the purposes of that provision and must, therefore, bear the CE marking as long as its proper incorporation and use for the purpose for which it was made does not mean that it ceases to comply with the relevant safety requirements for which it has been examined.

(1) OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.
1.

Declares that, by refusing to make available the amount of GBP 20 061 462,11 corresponding to the duties payable on imports of fresh garlic covered by erroneous binding tariff information, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the Communities’ own resources and Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2000/597, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2028/2004 of 16 November 2004;