ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 439/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Elena Petru v Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Sibiu, Casa Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate

(Case C-268/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 22(2), second subparagraph - Health insurance - Hospital treatment provided in another Member State - Prior authorisation refused - Lack of medication and basic medical supplies and infrastructure))

(2014/C 439/07)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elena Petru

Defendants: Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Sibiu, Casa Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) 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 European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorisation necessary under Article 22(1)(c)(i) of that regulation cannot be refused where it is because of a lack of medication and basic medical supplies and infrastructure that the hospital care concerned cannot be provided in good time in the insured person’s Member State of residence. The question whether that is impossible must be determined by reference to all the hospital establishments in that Member State that are capable of providing the treatment in question and by reference to the period within which the treatment could be obtained in good time.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 439/14

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-641/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cohesion Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Public works contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Award criteria - Experience of previous works - Qualitative selection criteria))

(2014/C 439/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.
1)

Article 18(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2004 of 29 October 2004, must be interpreted as applying, first, in the case where a farmer meets the conditions for the application of any two or more of Articles 19 to 23a of Regulation No 795/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1974/2004, and, second, in the case where a farmer who meets the conditions for the application of at least one of Articles 19 to 23a of Regulation No 795/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1974/2004, also meets the conditions for the application of at least one of Articles 37(2), 40, 42(3) and 42(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda sanitaria locale n. 5 ‘Spezzino’, Associazione nazionale pubblica assistenza (ANPAS) — Comitato regionale Liguria, Regione Liguria v San Lorenzo Soc. coop. sociale, Croce Verde Cogema cooperativa sociale Onlus

(Case C-113/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Ambulance services - National legislation reserving ambulance services for public health establishments to registered voluntary associations fulfilling the legal requirements on a preferential basis - Compatibility with EU law - Public procurement - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Directive 2004/18/EC - Mixed services, covered both by Annex II A and Annex II B to Directive 2004/18 - Article 1(2)(a) and (d) - Concept of ‘public service contracts’ - Pecuniary nature - Consideration consisting in the reimbursement of expenses incurred))

(2015/C 046/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Azienda sanitaria locale n. 5 ‘Spezzino’, Associazione nazionale pubblica assistenza (ANPAS) — Comitato regionale Liguria, Regione Liguria

Defendants: San Lorenzo Soc. coop. sociale, Croce Verde Cogema cooperativa sociale Onlus

Intervening parties: Croce Rossa Italiana — Comitato regionale Liguria and Others

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the provision of urgent and emergency ambulance services must be entrusted on a preferential basis and awarded directly, without any advertising, to the voluntary associations covered by the agreements, in so far as the legal and contractual framework in which the activity of those associations is carried out actually contributes to the social purpose and the pursuit of the objectives of the good of the community and budgetary efficiency on which that legislation is based.

(1) OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.
2.

Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 7 October 2010 regarding the recovery of certain expenses received by Mr Riccardo Nencini, a former Member of the European Parliament, in respect of travel and parliamentary assistance expenses and the debit note of the Director General of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finances, No 315653 of 13 October 2010;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

(Case C-81/13) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Coordination of social security systems - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Council decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Association Council - Choice of legal basis - Article 48 TFEU - Article 79(2)(b) TFEU - Article 217 TFEU))

(2015/C 065/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt, C. Murrell, E. Jenkinson and S. Behzadi Spencer, Agents, and A. Dashwood QC)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by: L. Williams, Agent, and N. Travers, BL)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and M. Chavrier, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, J. Enegren and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

3) Orders Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo, CRL

(Case C-128/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Articles 4(1) and 13 - Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 - Article 19(1)(a) - Export refunds - Advance payments on refunds - Conditions for the release of the guarantee furnished to ensure the repayment of the advance))

(2015/C 046/04)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cruz & Companhia Lda

Defendants: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo, CRL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 3403/93 of 10 December 1993, must be interpreted as meaning that the guarantee furnished by an exporter to ensure the repayment of the advance received by way of export refund must not be considered to be extinguished even where it is established that the exporter submitted the acceptance of the export declaration, proof that the goods left the customs territory of the European Union within a maximum period of 60 days after that acceptance, and the proof of clearance of those products through customs in the importing third country, if the other conditions for the grant of the refund, in particular the condition of sound and fair marketable quality of the products exported, provided for in Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/94 of 26 July 1994, are not satisfied.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Birutė Šiba v Arūnas Devėnas

(Case C-537/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Scope - Consumer contracts - Contract for the provision of legal services concluded between a lawyer and a consumer)

(2015/C 073/07)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Birutė Šiba

Defendant: Arūnas Devėnas

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as applying to standard form contracts for legal services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concluded by a lawyer with a natural person acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/12

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Società Edilizia Turistica Alberghiera Residenziale (SETAR) v Comune di Quartu S. Elena

(Case C-551/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/98/EC - Article 15 - Waste management - Possibility for the waste producer to carry out the waste treatment independently - National transposition law adopted, but not yet in force - Expiry of the transposition period - Direct effect))

(2015/C 065/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Società Edilizia Turistica Alberghiera Residenziale (SETAR)

Defendant: Comune di Quartu S. Elena

Operative part of the judgment

EU law and Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which transposes into national law a provision of that directive, but the entry into force of which is deferred pending the adoption of a subsequent internal measure, if that entry into force takes place after the end of the transposition period prescribed by the directive.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98, read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 13 of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which no provision is made permitting a waste producer or waste holder to dispose of that waste independently and accordingly to be exempted from liability for payment of a municipal tax for the disposal of waste, provided that that legislation meets the requirements entailed by the principle of proportionality.

(1) OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/9

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-662/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax - Transactions constituting an abusive practice - National tax law - Special national procedure where the existence of abusive practices is suspected in the field of taxation - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence))

(2015/C 118/12)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the mandatory preliminary application of a national administrative procedure, such as that laid down by Article 63 of the Code of Taxation Procedure and Proceedings (Código de Procedimento e de Processo Tributário), in the event that the revenue authorities suspect the existence of an abusive practice.

(1) OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.
2.

EU law, in particular Article 16 of Directive 2000/78, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which seeks to end discrimination based on age does not necessarily have to allow an employee whose periods of service completed before the age of 18 have not been taken into account in calculating his advancement to obtain financial compensation which corresponds to payment of the difference between the remuneration which he would have received in the absence of such discrimination and that which he actually received. Nevertheless, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as long as a system to abolish discrimination on grounds of age in a way that conforms with the provisions of Directive 2000/78 has not been adopted, re-establishing equal treatment entails granting employees whose experience was, if only in part, acquired before the age of 18 the same benefits as those enjoyed by employees who have obtained, after reaching that age, experience of the same type and comparable duration, as regards the recognition of periods of service completed before the age of 18 but also advancement in the pay scale;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others v Fipa Group Srl, Tws Automation Srl, Ivan Srl

(Case C-534/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 191(2) TFEU - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability - National legislation under which no provision is made for the administrative authorities to require owners of polluted land who have not contributed to that pollution to carry out preventive and remedial measures, and the sole obligation imposed concerns the reimbursement of the measures undertaken by those authorities - Whether compatible with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority))

(2015/C 138/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Ispra — Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale

Respondents: Fipa Group Srl, Tws Automation Srl, Ivan Srl

Intervening parties: Comune di Massa, Regione Toscana, Provincia di Massa Carrara, Comune di Carrara, Agenzia regionale per la protezione ambientale della Toscana (ARPAT), Ediltecnica Srl, Versalis SpA, Edison SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in cases where it is impossible to identify the polluter of a plot of land or to have that person adopt remedial measures, does not permit the competent authority to require the owner of the land (who is not responsible for the pollution) to adopt preventive and remedial measures, that person being required merely to reimburse the costs relating to the measures undertaken by the competent authority within the limit of the market value of the site, determined after those measures have been carried out.

(1) OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/12

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams — Latvia) — ‘Oliver Medical’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-547/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8543, 9018 and 9019 - Laser and ultrasonic appliances and their parts and accessories))

(2015/C 138/15)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Oliver Medical’ SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended, successively, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified as medical instruments or appliances, under heading 9018 of the Combined Nomenclature, or as mechano-therapy appliances, under heading 9019 thereof, or rather as electrical apparatus, having an individual function, under heading 8543 thereof, it is appropriate to take account of all the relevant factors in the case, to the extent that they relate to characteristics and objective properties inherent to those goods. Among the relevant factors, it is necessary to assess the use for which the product is intended by the manufacturer and the methods and place of its use. Thus, the fact that the product is intended to treat one or more different pathologies and that that treatment must be carried out in an authorised medical centre and under the supervision of a practitioner are indications capable of establishing that that product is intended for medical use. Conversely, the fact that a product mainly brings about aesthetic improvement, that it may be operated outside a medical environment, for example in a beauty parlour, and without the intervention of a practitioner are indications that that product is not intended for medical use. The dimensions, weight and technology used are not decisive factors for the classification of goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under heading 9018 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania)) — ‘Litaksa’ UAB v ‘BTA Insurance Company’ SE

(Case C-556/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 90/232/EEC - Article 2 - Differentiation in the amount of the insurance premium depending on the territory in which the vehicle is used))

(2015/C 171/05)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Litaksa’ UAB

Defendant:‘BTA Insurance Company’ SE

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a premium which varies according to whether the insured vehicle is to be used only in the territory of the Member State in which that vehicle is normally based or in the entire territory of the European Union does not fall within the concept of ‘single premium’, within the meaning of that article.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/4

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — ‘go fair’ Zeitarbeit OHG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona

(Case C-594/13) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(g) - Exemption for supplies of services closely linked to welfare and social security work - Concept of ‘bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ - Temporary-work agency - Hiring out of qualified care workers - Exemption not allowed))

(2015/C 146/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘go fair’ Zeitarbeit OHG

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that neither State-examined care workers who provide their services directly to persons in need of care nor a temporary-work agency which supplies such workers to establishments recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing come within the scope of ‘bodies recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing’ contained in that provision.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.