ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that: — where a jurisdiction clause is included in a prospectus concerning the issue of bonds, the formal requirement laid down in Article 23(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 is met only if the contract signed by the parties upon the issue of the bonds on the primary market expressly mentions the acceptance of that clause or contains an express reference to that prospectus; — a jurisdiction clause contained in a prospectus produced by the bond issuer concerning the issue of bonds may be relied on against a third party who acquired those bonds from a financial intermediary if it is established, which it is for the referring to verify, that (i) that clause is valid in the relationship between the issuer and the financial intermediary, (ii) the third party, by acquiring those bonds on the secondary market, succeeded to the financial intermediary’s rights and obligations attached to those bonds under the applicable national law, and (iii) the third party had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the prospectus containing that clause; and — the insertion of a jurisdiction clause into a prospectus concerning the issue of bonds may be regarded as a form which accords with a usage in international trade or commerce, for the purpose of Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001, allowing the consent of the person against whom it is relied upon to be presumed, provided inter alia that it is established, which it is for the referring court to verify, (i) that such conduct is generally and regularly followed by the operators in the particular trade or commerce concerned when contracts of that type are concluded and (ii) either that the parties had previously had commercial or trade relations between themselves or with other parties operating in the sector in question, or that the conduct in question is sufficiently well known to be considered an established practice.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — Elitaliana SpA v Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-439/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Public service contracts - Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP - Call for tenders for helicopter support for the Eulex Mission in Kosovo - Action brought against the decision awarding the contract - Article 24(1), second subparagraph, TEU - Article 275, first subparagraph, TFEU - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Jurisdiction of the Court - Article 263, first paragraph, TFEU - Meaning of ‘bodies, offices or agencies of the Union’ - Measures attributable to the European Commission - Excusable error))

(2016/C 016/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Elitaliana SpA (represented by: R. Colagrande, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Eulex Kosovo (represented by: G. Brosadola Pontotti, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Elitaliana SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — European Commission v Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH, formerly Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others

(Case C-613/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 104/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH, formerly Keramag Keramische Werke AG, Koralle Sanitärprodukte GmbH, Koninklijke Sphinx BV, Allia SAS, Produits Céramiques de Touraine SA, Pozzi Ginori SpA, Sanitec Europe Oy (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister, P. Lindfelt, advokat, and K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T-379/10 and T-381/10, EU:T:2013:457);

2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3. Dismisses the cross-appeal;

4. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union as regards the part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T-379/10 and T-381/10, EU:T:2013:457) set aside by the present judgment;

5. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-626/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement - Proof - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Reasonable time - Proportionality))

(2017/C 104/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH (represented by: A. Reidlinger and J. Weichbrodt, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-48/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Directive 2013/51/Euratom - Choice of legal basis - EAEC Treaty - Articles 31 EA and 32 EA - FEU Treaty - Article 192(1) TFEU - Protecting human health - Radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption - Legal certainty - Sincere cooperation among the institutions))

(2015/C 118/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Segnana and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and E. Ruffer, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and D. Colas and by N. Rouam, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

3) Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic and the Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
1)

Articles 2(11) and 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that where the removal of a child has taken place in accordance with a judgment which was provisionally enforceable and which was thereafter overturned by a judgment which fixed the residence of the child at the home of the parent living in the Member State of origin, the court of the Member State to which the child was removed, seised of an application for the return of the child, must determine, by undertaking an assessment of all the circumstances of fact specific to the individual case, whether the child was still habitually resident in the Member State of origin immediately before the alleged wrongful retention. As part of that assessment, it is important that account be taken of the fact that the judgment authorising the removal could be provisionally enforced and that an appeal had been brought against it.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/14

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France)) — LFB Biomédicaments SA, Association des déficitaires en Alpha 1 Antitrypsine (Association ADAAT Alpha 1-France) (C-271/14), Pierre Fabre Médicament SA (C-273/14) v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

(Joined Cases C-271/14 and C-273/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 89/105/EEC - Article 6(3) and (5) - Removal of medicinal products from a list of pharmaceutical proprietary products covered in addition to fixed payments in respect of hospital treatment - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 198/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: LFB Biomédicaments SA, Association des déficitaires en Alpha 1 Antitrypsine (Association ADAAT Alpha 1-France) (C-271/14), Pierre Fabre Médicament SA (C-273/14)

Defendants: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to state reasons provided for in Article 6(3) and (5) is applicable to a decision which restricts the conditions of reimbursement or reduces the level of coverage of a medicinal product by excluding it from the list of proprietary medicinal products covered by compulsory health insurance schemes in addition to services relating to hospital treatment covered by fixed payments in respect of periods of hospitalisation and hospital care.

(1) OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/19

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — ŠKO-ENERGO s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-43/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the ozone layer - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Method of allocating allowances - Allocation of allowances free of charge - Application of gift tax to such an allocation))

(2015/C 138/25)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ŠKO-ENERGO s.r.o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a gift tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings if it does not respect the 10 % ceiling on the allocation of emission allowances for consideration laid down in that article, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/15

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium)) — Charlotte Rosselle v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM)

(Case C-65/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Article 11(2) and (4) - Established public servant assigned non-active status for personal reasons in order to work as a salaried employee - Refusal to grant her a maternity allowance on the ground that she has not completed, as a salaried employee, the minimum contribution period required in order to be eligible to receive certain social benefits))

(2015/C 236/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Charlotte Rosselle

Defendants: Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM)

Intervening party: Institut pour l’égalité des femmes et des hommes (IEFH)

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from granting a worker a maternity allowance on the ground that, as an established public servant having obtained non-active status for personal reasons in order to work as a salaried employee, she has not completed, in the context of her work as a salaried employee, the minimum contribution period required under national law in order to be eligible to receive that maternity allowance, even if she has worked for over 12 months immediately prior to the presumed date of confinement.

(1) OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), B. Wilson v WW Realisation 1 Ltd, in liquidation, Ethel Austin Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

(Case C-80/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a) - Meaning of ‘establishment’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))

(2015/C 213/12)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants/Respondents: Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), B. Wilson

Defendants/Appellants: WW Realisation 1 Ltd, in liquidation, Ethel Austin Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘establishment’ in Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted in the same way as the term in Article 1(1)(a)(i) of that directive.

Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that lays down an obligation to inform and consult workers in the event of the dismissal, within a period of 90 days, of at least 20 workers from a particular establishment of an undertaking, and not where the aggregate number of dismissals across all of the establishments or across some of the establishments of an undertaking over the same period reaches or exceeds the threshold of 20 workers.

(1) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverfassungsgericht — Germany) — Peter Gauweiler and Others v Deutscher Bundestag

(Case C-62/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Economic and monetary policy - Decisions of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) on a number of technical features regarding the Eurosystem’s outright monetary transactions in secondary sovereign bond markets - Articles 119 TFEU and 127 TFEU - Powers conferred on the ECB and the European System of Central Banks - Monetary policy transmission mechanism - Maintenance of price stability - Proportionality - Article 123 TFEU - Prohibition of monetary financing of Member States in the euro area))

(2015/C 279/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverfassungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainants/applicant: Peter Gauweiler, Bruno Bandulet, Wilhelm Hankel, Wilhelm Nölling, Albrecht Schachtschneider, Joachim Starbatty, Roman Huber and Others, Johann Heinrich von Stein and Others, Fraktion DIE LINKE im Deutschen Bundestag

Respondent: Deutscher Bundestag

Joined party: Bundesregierung

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 119 TFEU, 123(1) TFEU and 127(1) and (2) TFEU and Articles 17 to 24 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank must be interpreted as permitting the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) to adopt a programme for the purchase of government bonds on secondary markets, such as the programme announced in the press release to which reference is made in the minutes of the 340th meeting of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) on 5 and 6 September 2012.

(1) OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
Case C-100/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — Association médicale européenne (EMA) v European Commission Appeal — Arbitration clause — Cocoon et Dicoems contracts, concluded in the framework of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) — Irregularities — Ineligible expenditure — Termination of contracts

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — Association médicale européenne (EMA) v European Commission

(Case C-100/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — Arbitration clause — Cocoon et Dicoems contracts, concluded in the framework of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) — Irregularities — Ineligible expenditure — Termination of contracts’

Parties

Appellant: Association médicale européenne (EMA) (represented by: A. Franchi, L. Picciano and G. Gangemi, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and F. Moro, acting as Agents, and D. Gullo, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Association médicale européenne (EMA) to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — proceedings brought by Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG)

(Case C-39/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Sale of agricultural land by public authorities - National provision allowing the competent authorities to object to the sale of agricultural land where the price offered is considered ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the market value - Advantage granted to certain undertakings or for the production of certain goods - Private investor test - Determination of the ‘market value’))

(2015/C 302/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party to the main proceedings

Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG)

Joined parties: Thomas Erbs, Ursula Erbs, Landkreis Jerichower Land

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a rule of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of safeguarding the interests of agricultural holdings, effectively prohibits an emanation of the State from selling agricultural land to the highest bidder in a public call for tenders, where the competent local authority considers that his bid is grossly disproportionate to the estimated value of that land, cannot be classified as ‘State aid’, provided that the application of that rule results in a price which is as close as possible to the market value of the agricultural land concerned, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/14

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium)) — The Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier

(Case C-334/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (c) - Hospital and medical care - Closely related activities - Activity of transporting human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care - Self-employed activity - Hospitals, centres for medical treatment and diagnosis - Establishment of a similar nature))

(2015/C 294/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Belgian State

Defendant: Nathalie De Fruytier

Operative part of the judgment

Neither Article 13(A)(1)(b) of the 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, nor Article 13(A)(1)(c) thereof, can be interpreted as applying to the transportation, for clinics and laboratories, of human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care, by a third party who is self-employed and whose services are covered by the reimbursement made by the social security system. In particular, such an activity does not qualify for an exemption from value added tax as an activity closely related to services of a medical nature as provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(b), since that self-employed third party cannot be characterised as a ‘body governed by public law’ or fall within the definition of a ‘hospital’, a ‘centre for medical treatment’ or a centre for ‘diagnosis’ or any ‘other duly recognised establishment of a similar nature’, operating under social conditions comparable to those applicable to bodies governed by public law.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/9

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Colena AG v Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH

(Case C-321/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 - Scope - Non-corrective colour contact lenses featuring designs - Statement on the outer packaging describing the product in question as a cosmetic product - Consumer protection))

(2015/C 354/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Colena AG

Defendant: Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that non-corrective colour contact lenses featuring designs do not fall within the scope of that regulation, notwithstanding the fact that their outer packaging bears the statement ‘cosmetic eye accessory, subject to the EU Cosmetics Directive’.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.