ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-480/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Fidelity Funds and Others v Skatteministeret (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Restrictions — Taxation of dividends paid to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) — Dividends paid by companies resident in one Member State to non-resident UCITS — Tax exemption for dividends paid by companies resident in one Member State to resident UCITS — Justifications — Balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes — Coherence of the tax system — Proportionality)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Fidelity Funds and Others v Skatteministeret

(Case C-480/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Restrictions — Taxation of dividends paid to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) — Dividends paid by companies resident in one Member State to non-resident UCITS — Tax exemption for dividends paid by companies resident in one Member State to resident UCITS — Justifications — Balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes — Coherence of the tax system — Proportionality)’

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fidelity Funds and Others

Defendant: Skatteministeret

Intervener: NN (L) SICAV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the dividends distributed by a company resident in that Member State to a non-resident undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) are subject to withholding tax, while dividends distributed to a UCITS resident in that same Member State are exempt from such tax, provided that that undertaking makes a minimum distribution to its members, or technically calculates a minimum distribution, and withholds on that actual or notional distribution the tax payable by its members.

( 1 ) OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain, Lico Leasing SA, Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión SA

(Case C-128/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system) - Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid - Condition relating to selectivity - Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 328/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, E. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, (Agent), Lico Leasing SA, Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión SA (represented by M. Merola, avvocato, and M. Sánchez, abogado)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Bankia SA, Asociación Española de Banca, Unicaja Banco SA, Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Gallego SA, Catalunya Banc SA, Caixabank SA, Banco Santander SA, Santander Investment SA, Naviera Bósforo AIE, Industria de Diseño Textil SA, Naviera Nebulosa de Omega AIE, Banco Mare Nostrum SA, Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA, Ibercaja Banco SA, Banco Grupo Cajatres SAU, Naviera Bósforo AIE, Joyería Tous SA, Corporación Alimentaria Guissona SA, Naviera Muriola AIE, Poal Investments XXI SL, Poal Investments XXII SL, Naviera Cabo Vilaboa C 1658 AIE, Naviera Cabo Domaio, C 1659 AIE, Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos SL, Blumaq SA, Grupo Ibérica de Congelados SA, RNB SL, Inversiones Antaviana SL, Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SAU, Banco de Albacete SA, Bodegas Muga SL, (represented by J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados), Aluminios Cortizo SAU, (represented by A. Beiras Cal, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2015, Spain and Others v Commission (T-515/13 and T-719/13, EU:T:2015:1004);

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

3. Reserves costs;

4. Orders Bankia SA, Asociación Española de Banca, Unicaja Banco SA, Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Gallego SA, Catalunya Banc SA, Caixabank SA, Banco de Santander SA, Santander Investment SA, Naviera Séneca AIE, Industria de Diseño Textil SA, Naviera Nebulosa de Omega AIE, Banco Mare Nostrum SA, Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA, Ibercaja Banco SA, Banco Grupo Cajatres SAU, Naviera Bósforo AIE, Joyería Tous SA, Corporación Alimentaria Guissona SA, Naviera Muriola AIE, Poal Investments XXI SL, Poal Investments XXII SL, Naviera Cabo Vilaboa C-1658 AIE, Naviera Cabo Domaio, C-1659 AIE, Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos SL, Blumaq SA, Grupo Ibérica de Congelados SA, RNB SL, Inversiones Antaviana SL, Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SAU, Banco de Albacete SA, Bodegas Muga SL and Aluminios Cortizo SAU to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Criminal proceedings against Dániel Bertold Lada

(Case C-390/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA - Taking account in new criminal proceedings of a previous conviction in another Member State - Special procedure for recognition of a conviction in another Member State - Review and legal reclassification of the earlier decision - Principle of mutual recognition - Article 82(1) TFEU))

(2018/C 301/02)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Törvényszék

Party to the main proceedings

Dániel Bertold Lada

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings, read in the light of Article 82 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding the taking into account in a Member State, in new criminal proceedings brought against a person, of a final judgment previously handed down by a court of another Member State convicting that person of other offences being conditional on a special procedure for prior recognition, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by the courts of the first Member State.

(1) OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.
1.

Declares that, by failing to propose and transmit, within the period prescribed, pursuant to Article 4(1) and Annexes II and III of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, a list indicating a sufficient number of sites hosting the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and by failing, to that extent, to contribute, pursuant to Article 3(2) of that directive, to the creation of the Natura 2000 network in proportion to the representation within its territory of the habitats of that species, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 May 2016, France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission (T-479/11 and T-157/12, EU:T:2016:320), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court annulled Article 1(3), (4) and (5) and Articles 2 to 12 of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08));
1.

An examination of the questions of validity referred to the Court has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, or the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Council of the European Union v Growth Energy, Renewable Fuels Association, European Commission, ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol

(Case C-465/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 - Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Country-wide dumping margin - Actions for annulment - Associations representing non-exporting producers and traders/blenders - Locus standi - Direct concern - Individual concern)

(2019/C 139/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, Agent, and N. Tuominen, avocată)

Other parties to the proceedings: Growth Energy, Renewable Fuels Association (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, advocaat, and N. Mizulin and M. Peristeraki, avocats), European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and M. França, Agents), ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (represented by: O. Prost and A. Massot, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 June 2016, Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council (T-276/13, EU:T:2016:340), except inasmuch as it dismissed the action brought by Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association in their own right as interested parties in the proceedings;

2. Dismisses the action for annulment of Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association as inadmissible in so far as they brought that action in their capacity as representatives of the interests of the sampled US bioethanol producers;

3. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the action for annulment of Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association in so far as they brought that action in their capacity as representatives of the interests of the traders/blenders Murex and CHS;

4. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
Case C-75/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Residencial Palladium, SL (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) — Article 65 — Unregistered trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA’ — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law — Conditions — Sign of more than merely local significance — Right to prohibit the use of a later trade mark)

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Residencial Palladium, SL

(Case C-75/17 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) — Article 65 — Unregistered trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA’ — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law — Conditions — Sign of more than merely local significance — Right to prohibit the use of a later trade mark)’

Parties

Appellant: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and J.C. Erdozain López, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and D. Botis, acting as Agents), Residencial Palladium, SL (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Fiesta Hotels & Resorts SL to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
2)

Clause 5(1) of Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it permits the parties to a contract of employment, without additional requirements, indefinitely to postpone, by common agreement during the course of the employment relationship, including on more than one occasion if necessary, the agreed date of termination related to reaching the normal retirement age, simply because that worker, by reaching the normal retirement age, is entitled to a retirement pension.
Case C-537/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Claudia Wegener v Royal Air Maroc SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 3(1) — Scope — Definition of ‘connecting flight’ — Flight departing from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State, including a transfer at an airport situated in the territory of a third State and destined for another airport of that third State)

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Claudia Wegener v Royal Air Maroc SA

(Case C-537/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 3(1) — Scope — Definition of ‘connecting flight’ — Flight departing from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State, including a transfer at an airport situated in the territory of a third State and destined for another airport of that third State)’

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Claudia Wegener

Defendant: Royal Air Maroc SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the regulation applies to a passenger transport effected under a single booking and comprising, between its departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and its arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State, a scheduled stopover outside the European Union with a change of aircraft.

( 1 ) OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.
Case C-152/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Directive 2004/17/EC — Obligation to review prices after the award of the contract — No such obligation in Directive 2004/17/EC or arising from the general principles underlying Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2004/17/EC — Cleaning and maintenance services linked to railway transport operations — Article 3(3) TEU — Articles 26, 57, 58 and 101 TFEU — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Inadmissibility — Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Provision of national law not implementing EU law — Lack of jurisdiction)

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

(Case C-152/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Directive 2004/17/EC — Obligation to review prices after the award of the contract — No such obligation in Directive 2004/17/EC or arising from the general principles underlying Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2004/17/EC — Cleaning and maintenance services linked to railway transport operations — Article 3(3) TEU — Articles 26, 57, 58 and 101 TFEU — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Inadmissibility — Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Provision of national law not implementing EU law — Lack of jurisdiction)’

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA

Defendant: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

Operative part of the judgment

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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 of 30 November 2011, and the general principles underlying that directive are to be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which do not provide for periodic price review after a contract has been awarded in the sectors covered by that directive.

( 1 ) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Case C-6/17 P: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clauses — Perform and Oasis contracts concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Eligible costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Counter-claim)

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission

(Case C-6/17 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — Arbitration clauses — Perform and Oasis contracts concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Eligible costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Counter-claim)’

Parties

Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: S. Paliou, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
1.

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a situation in which a contracting entity has terminated the contract for the provision of services relating to the security of buildings concluded with one undertaking and has, for the purposes of the provision of those services, concluded a new contract with another undertaking, which takes on, pursuant to a collective agreement, the majority, in terms of their number and skills, of the staff whom the first undertaking had assigned to the performance of those services, in so far as the operation is accompanied by the transfer of an economic entity between the two undertakings concerned.
Case C-246/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Ibrahima Diallo v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizens of the European Union — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 10(1) — Application for a residence card as a family member — Issuance — Time limit — Adoption and notification of the decision — Consequences of non-compliance with the period — Procedural autonomy of Member States — Principle of effectiveness)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Ibrahima Diallo v État belge

(Case C-246/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizens of the European Union — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 10(1) — Application for a residence card as a family member — Issuance — Time limit — Adoption and notification of the decision — Consequences of non-compliance with the period — Procedural autonomy of Member States — Principle of effectiveness)’

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ibrahima Diallo

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that the decision on the application for a residence card of a family member of a Union citizen must be adopted and notified within the period of six months laid down in that provision.

2. Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires competent national authorities to issue automatically a residence card of a family member of a European Union citizen to the person concerned, where the period of six months, referred to in Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/38, is exceeded, without finding, beforehand, that the person concerned actually meets the conditions for residing in the host Member State in accordance with EU law.

3. EU law must be interpreted as precluding national case-law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, following the judicial annulment of a decision refusing to issue a residence card of a family member of a Union citizen, the competent national authority automatically regains the full period of six months referred to in Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/38.

( 1 ) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.