ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

The third sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, when publishing their air fares, air carriers must specify separately the amounts payable by customers in respect of taxes, airport charges and other charges, surcharges or fees referred to in subparagraphs (b) to (d) of the third sentence of Article 23(1) of that regulation and may not, as a consequence include those items, even partially, in the air fare referred to in subparagraph (a) of the third sentence of Article 23(1) of that regulation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/17

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden — Germany) — Tsegezab Mengesteab v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-670/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection made in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 20 - Start of the determination process - Lodging an application for international protection - Report prepared by the authorities that reached the competent authorities - Article 21(1) - Time limits for making a take charge request - Transfer of responsibility to another Member State - Article 27 - Remedy - Scope of judicial review))

(2017/C 309/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tsegezab Mengesteab

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for international protection may rely, in the context of an action brought against a decision to transfer him, on the expiry of a period laid down in Article 21(1) of that regulation, even if the requested Member State is willing to take charge of that applicant.

2. Article 21(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that a take charge request cannot validly be made more than three months after the application for international protection has been lodged, even if that request is made within two months of receipt of a Eurodac hit within the meaning of that article.

3. Article 20(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that an application for international protection is deemed to have been lodged if a written document, prepared by a public authority and certifying that a third-country national has requested international protection, has reached the authority responsible for implementing the obligations arising from that regulation, and as the case may be, if only the main information contained in such a document, but not that document or a copy thereof, has reached that authority.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Comune di Corridonia (C-196/16), Comune di Loro Piceno (C-197/16) and Others v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente

(Joined Cases C-196/16 and C-197/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Directive 2011/92/EU - Possibility of carrying out, a posteriori, an environmental impact assessment of an operational plant for the production of energy from biogas with a view to obtaining a new consent))

(2017/C 309/14)

Language of the cases: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Comune di Corridonia (C-196/16), Comune di Loro Piceno (C-197/16), Marcello Bartolini (C-197/16), Filippo Bruè (C-197/16), Sergio Forti (C-197/16), Stefano Piatti (C-197/16), Gaetano Silvetti (C-197/16), Gianfranco Silvetti (C-197/16), Rocco Tirabasso (C-197/16), Sante Vagni (C-197/16), Albergo Ristorante Le Grazie Sas di Forti Sergio & Co. (C-197/16), Suolificio Elefante Srl (C-197/16), Suolificio Roxy Srl (C-197/16), Aldo Alessandrini (C-197/16)

Defendants: Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente

Intervening parties: VBIO1 Società Agricola Srl (C-196/16), Regione Marche, Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale delle Marche — (ARPAM) — Dipartimento Provinciale di Macerata, ARPAM, VBIO2 Società Agricola Srl (C-197/16), Azienda Sanitaria Unica Regionale — Marche (ASUR Marche) (C-197/16), ASUR Marche — Area Vasta 3 (C-197/16), Comune di Colmurano (C-197/16), Comune di Loro Piceno (C-197/16)

Operative part of the judgment

In the event of failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment required under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, EU law, on the one hand, requires Member States to nullify the unlawful consequences of that failure and, on the other hand, does not preclude regularisation through the conducting of an impact assessment, after the plant concerned has been constructed and has entered into operation, on condition that:

— national rules allowing for that regularisation do not provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to circumvent the rules of EU law or to dispense with applying them, and

— an assessment carried out for regularisation purposes is not conducted solely in respect of the plant’s future environmental impact, but must also take into account its environmental impact from the time of its completion.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/23

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

(Case C-223/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 47(2) and 48(3) - Tenderer relying on the capacities of other entities to meet the requirements of the contracting authority - Loss by those entities of the capacities required - National legislation providing for the exclusion of the tenderer from the call for tenders and for the award of the contract to a competitor))

(2017/C 382/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Casertana Costruzioni Srl

Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

Third parties: Consorzio Stabile Infratech, W.E.E. Water Environment Energy SpA, Massimo Fontana, Studio Tecnico Associato Thinkd, Claudio Della Rocca, Nicola Maione, Vittorio Ciotola, Fin.Se.Co. SpA, Edilgen SpA, Site Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the possibility for an economic operator taking part in a tendering procedure to replace an auxiliary undertaking that has lost required qualifications after the submission of its tender and which results in the automatic exclusion of that operator.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/17

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16)

(Joined Cases C-168/16 and C-169/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 19(2)(a) - Concept of ‘place in which the employee habitually carries out his work’ - Airline sector - Airline crew - Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 - Concept of ‘home base’))

(2017/C 382/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sandra Nogueira, Victor Perez-Ortega, Virginie Mauguit, Maria Sanchez-Odogherty, José Sanchez-Navarro (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar (C-169/16)

Defendants: Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(2)(a) 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, in the event of proceedings being brought by a member of the air crew, assigned to or employed by an airline, and in order to establish the jurisdiction of the court seised, the concept of ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’, within the meaning of that provision, cannot be equated with that of ‘home base’, within the meaning of Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1899/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006. The concept of ‘home base’ constitutes nevertheless a significant indicium for the purposes of determining the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
Case C-404/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Lombard Ingatlan Lízing Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90(1) — Direct effect — Taxable amount — Reduction in the case of cancellation or refusal — Reduction in the case of total or partial non-payment — Distinction — Financial leasing agreement terminated for non-payment of public charges)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Lombard Ingatlan Lízing Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

(Case C-404/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90(1) — Direct effect — Taxable amount — Reduction in the case of cancellation or refusal — Reduction in the case of total or partial non-payment — Distinction — Financial leasing agreement terminated for non-payment of public charges)’

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lombard Ingatlan Lízing Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concepts of ‘cancellation’ and ‘refusal’ in Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as including a situation in which, under a financial leasing agreement with definite transfer of ownership, the lessor may no longer claim payment of the leasing instalment from the lessee because the lessor has terminated the agreement owing to breach of contract by the lessee.

2. Where a financial leasing agreement has been definitively terminated because of non-payment of the lease instalments payable by the lessee, the lessor may rely on Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 against a Member State with a view to obtaining a reduction of the taxable amount for value added tax, even if the applicable national law considers that situation to be a case of ‘non-payment’ within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the directive and does not allow the taxable amount to be reduced in the case of non-payment.

( 1 ) OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Tanja Prast-Knipping

(Case C-341/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Article 2(1) - Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the defendant is domiciled - Article 22(4) - Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of intellectual property rights - Proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark))

(2017/C 402/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hanssen Beleggingen BV

Defendant: Tanja Prast-Knipping

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(4) 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 not applying to proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark.

(1) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
2.

Article 27(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, read in the light of recital 19 thereof, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for international protection must have an effective and rapid remedy available to him which enables him to rely on the expiry of the six-month period as defined in Article 29(1) and (2) of that regulation that occurred after the transfer decision was adopted. The right which national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings accords to such an applicant to plead circumstances subsequent to the adoption of that decision, in an action brought against it, meets that obligation to provide for an effective and rapid remedy.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Vion Livestock BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-383/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets - Protection of animals during transport - Export refunds - Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Obligation to keep up to date a copy of the journey log until the arrival of the animals at the place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination - Recovery of amounts over-paid))

(2017/C 424/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vion Livestock BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, read in conjunction with Articles 3(1) and (2) and 2(2) of Regulation No 817/2010, and with points 3, 7 and 8 of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, must be interpreted as meaning that repayment of export refunds under Regulation No 817/2010 may be required where the transporter of bovine animals has not kept a copy of the journey log provided for in Annex II to Regulation No 1/2005 up to date until the place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Siracusa — Italy) — Enzo Di Maura v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale di Siracusa

(Case C-246/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Taxable amount - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Second subparagraph of Article 11C(1) - Restriction of the right to reduce the taxable amount in the event of non-payment by the other party to the contract - Scope for implementation by the Member States - Proportionality of the period of pre-financing by the trader))

(2018/C 022/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Siracusa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Enzo Di Maura

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale di Siracusa

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11C(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the law of the Member State relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not make the reduction of the VAT taxable amount in the event of total or partial non-payment subject to the condition that insolvency proceedings have been unsuccessful when such proceedings may last longer than ten years.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
2.

Article 299 TFEU and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments and Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guidance Section must be interpreted as meaning that they do not define, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the persons against whom enforcement may be pursued by virtue of an enforceable decision of the Commission ordering the recovery of sums paid. It is for the national court to define those persons, in compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
1.

Articles 17 and 27 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, as amended by Council Directive 2004/7/EC of 20 January 2004, must be interpreted as not precluding a measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, authorised by Council Decision 89/534/EEC of 24 May 1989 authorising the United Kingdom to apply, in respect of certain supplies to unregistered resellers, a measure derogating from Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive, pursuant to Article 27 of that directive, which derogates from Article 11A(1)(a) of that directive and under which the taxable amount for valued added tax (VAT) purposes of a direct sales company is the open market value of the goods sold at the stage of final consumption, where those goods are marketed through resellers not subject to VAT, even if that derogating measure does not take account, in one way or another, of the input VAT relating to demonstration items purchased by those resellers from that company;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 November 2017 — British Airways plc v European Commission

(Case C-122/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Commission decision concerning agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services - Defective statement of reasons - Plea involving a matter of public policy raised by the EU courts of their own motion - Prohibition on ruling ultra petita - Form of order set out in the application at first instance seeking the partial annulment of the decision at issue - The General Court of the European Union prohibited from annulling the decision at issue in its entirety - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy))

(2018/C 022/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: British Airways plc (represented by: J. Turner QC and R. O’Donoghue, Barrister, instructed by A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders British Airways plc to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA (C-66/16 P), Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (C-67/16 P), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA (C-68/16 P), Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Retevisión I SA (C-69/16 P) v European Commission, SES Astra SA

(Joined Cases C-66/16 P to C-69/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Definition - Discretion of the Member States))

(2018/C 072/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA (C-66/16 P), Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (C-67/16 P), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA (C-68/16 P), Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Retevisión I SA (C-69/16 P) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and M. Bolsa Ferruz, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents), SES Astra SA (represented by: F. González Díaz and V. Romero Algarra, abogados, and by F. Salerno, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismiss the appeals;

2. Orders the Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA, the Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, the Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA, Cellnex Telecom SA and Retevisión I SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.