ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/29

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo

(Case C-144/12) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Articles 6 and 17 - Opposition to the European order for payment without any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Article 24 - Entering of an appearance of the defendant before the court seised - Applicability in the context of the European order for payment procedure)

2013/C 225/48

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH

Defendant: Massimo Sperindeo

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1) and of Article 17 thereof, in conjunction with Article 24 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the court seised by virtue of the entering of an appearance by the defendant in the absence of any challenge to jurisdiction and of a defence on the merits — Whether applicable in the case of the European order for payment procedure — If so, whether the defendant may challenge the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State after having entered an appearance in the same case before a court of that State before which he lodged a statement of opposition to the order for payment and raised arguments on the substance of the case

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, read in conjunction with Article 17 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a statement of opposition to a European order for payment that does not contain any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin cannot be regarded as constituting the entering of an appearance within the meaning of Article 24 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, and the fact that the defendant has, in the statement of opposition lodged, put forward arguments relating to the substance of the case is irrelevant in that regard.

(1) OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/32

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga — Portugal) — Impacto Azul Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA, Bouygues Imobiliária — SGPS Lda, Bouygues Immobilier SA, Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez

(Case C-186/12) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Restrictions - Joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries - Exclusion of parent companies having their seat in another Member State - No restriction)

2013/C 225/53

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial de Braga

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Impacto Azul Lda

Defendants: BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA, Bouygues Imobiliária — SGPS Lda, Bouygues Immobilier SA, Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Judicial de Braga — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Restrictions on freedom of establishment — National rules excluding the joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiary companies for those parent companies having their seat in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the application of the principle of the joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries to parent companies having their seat in the territory of another Member State.

(1) OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di La Spezia — Italy) — Simone Gardella v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

(Case C-233/12) (1)

(Transfer of pension rights acquired in a Member State - Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU - National rules not allowing for the right to transfer to an international organisation having its head office in another Member State the capital value representing the retirement contributions paid to a national social security body - Aggregation rule)

2013/C 245/06

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di La Spezia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Simone Gardella

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di La Spezia — Interpretation of Articles 20, 45, 48 and 145 to 147 TFEU and of Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to transfer a pension to another Member State — Employee of an international organisation having its head office in another Member State — National rules not allowing for the right to transfer to the international organisation in question the retirement contributions paid to a national social security body — Refusal of the social security body in question to conclude an agreement allowing for such a transfer

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding rules of a Member State which do not allow its nationals employed in an international organisation such as the European Patent Office, established in the territory of another Member State, to transfer to the social security scheme of that organisation the capital value representing the pension rights they have acquired previously in the territory of their Member State of origin, where there is no arrangement between that Member State and the international organisation providing for the possibility of such a transfer.

Where a mechanism for transferring the capital value representing the pension rights acquired previously in a Member State to the pension scheme of a new employer in another Member State cannot apply, Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State which do not allow account to be taken of employment periods which a European Union national completed with an international organisation such as the European Patent Office, established in the territory of another Member State, for the purposes of conferring entitlement to an old-age pension.

(1) OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/35

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings initiated by Siegfried János Schneider

(Case C-386/12) (1)

(Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Scope - Legal capacity of natural persons - Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property - Scope - Non-contentious proceedings concerning the right of a person who has been placed under guardianship and is domiciled in a Member State to dispose of immovable property situated in another Member State)

2013/C 344/61

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Siegfried János Schneider

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sofiyski gradski sad — Interpretation of Article 22(1) 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Natural person lacking full legal capacity in accordance with the law of his Member State — Application submitted by that person in another Member State, with his guardian’s approval, for permission to sell immovable property inherited in that State — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated — Whether Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 applies in non-contentious proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and, in particular, Article 22(1) thereof must be interpreted as not applying to non-contentious proceedings by which a national of a Member State who has been declared to be lacking full legal capacity and placed under guardianship in accordance with the law of that State applies to a court in another Member State for authorisation to sell his share of a property situated in that other Member State, in view of the fact that such proceedings are concerned with the ‘legal capacity of natural persons’ for the purposes of Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001, a matter which falls outside the material scope of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Anton Schlecker, trading as ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’ v Melitta Josefa Boedeker

(Case C-64/12) (1)

(Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - Contract of employment - Article 6(2) - Applicable law in the absence of a choice made by the parties - Law of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’ - Contract more closely connected with another Member State)

2013/C 325/09

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anton Schlecker, trading as ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’

Defendant: Melitta Josefa Boedeker

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1) — Law applicable where none chosen — Employment contract — Law of the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work — Employee who has carried out his work for a lengthy period and without interruption in a particular Member State — Employment contract which appears, in the light of all the other circumstances of the case, to be very closely connected with another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, must be interpreted as meaning that, even where an employee carries out the work in performance of the contract habitually, for a lengthy period and without interruption in the same country, the national court may, under the concluding part of that provision, disregard the law of the country where the work is habitually carried out, if it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with another country.

(1) OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
4.

In a situation where slurry produced and held by a pig farm is to be classified as ‘waste’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350: — Article 8 of that directive must be interpreted as precluding the holder from being authorised, under any conditions, to transfer that waste to a farmer who uses it as fertiliser on his land if it transpires that that farmer neither possesses the permit referred to in Article 10 of the directive nor is exempted from the requirement to possess such a permit and registered in accordance with Article 11 of the directive; and — Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the directive, read together, must be interpreted as precluding the transfer of that waste by the holder to a farmer who uses it as fertiliser on his land, and who possesses a permit as referred to in Article 10 or is exempted from the requirement to possess such a permit and is registered in accordance with Article 11, from being subject to the condition that the holder assumes liability for compliance by that other farmer with the rules that are to apply to the recovery operations carried out by the latter by virtue of European Union law concerning the management of waste and fertilisers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Billerud Karlsborg AB, Billerud Skärblacka AB v Naturvårdsverket

(Case C-203/12) (1)

(Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Penalty for excess emissions - Concept of excess emission - Equated with infringement of the obligation to surrender, within the time periods prescribed by the directive, a sufficient number of allowances to cover the emissions from the previous year - No exculpatory cause in the event of actual holding of non-surrendered allowances, unless force majeure - No possibility of varying the amount of the penalty - Proportionality)

2013/C 367/20

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Billerud Karlsborg AB, Billerud Skärblacka AB

Defendant: Naturvårdsverket

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen — Interpretation of Article 16(3) and (4) 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 (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Penalties provided for by the directive — Obligation for an operator who has not surrendered sufficient allowances by 30 April of each year to cover its emissions to pay a penalty, even where the non-surrender is due to negligence, administrative error or a technical problem — Possibility or non-possibility of varying the penalty or reducing the amount

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 16(3) and (4) 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 operators who have not surrendered, by 30 April of the current year, the carbon dioxide equivalent allowances equal to their emissions for the preceding year, from avoiding the imposition of a penalty for the excess emissions for which it provides, even where they hold a sufficient number of allowances on that date;

2. Article 16(3) and (4) of Directive 2003/87 must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of the lump sum penalty provided for therein may not be varied by a national court on the basis of the principle of proportionality.

(1) OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.
1.

Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from Ellinikos Khrisos A.E. the aid granted to that undertaking on the sale, by the Greek State, of immovable property, aid declared to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision C(2011) 1006 final of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Khrisos A.E., the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/11

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — Environmental Manufacturing LLP v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Société Elmar Wolf

(Case C-383/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Figurative mark representing a wolf’s head - Opposition by the proprietor of the national and international figurative marks containing the word elements ‘WOLF Jardin’ and ‘Outils WOLF’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) - Change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer - Burden of proof)

2014/C 9/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (represented by: M. Atkins, Solicitor, K. Shadbolt, Advocate, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Société Elmar Wolf

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 in Case T-570/10 Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the figurative mark representing a wolf’s head, in respect of goods in Class 7, against Decision R 425/2010-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), of 6 October 2010, annulling the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national and international figurative marks containing the word elements ‘WOLF Jardin’ and ‘Outils WOLF’, in respect of goods in Classes 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 31 — Interpretation of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative grounds for refusal — Detriment to the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 May 2012 in Case T 570/10 Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head) [2012] ECR II 0000;

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia)) — Katarína Haasová v Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová

(Case C-22/12) (1)

(Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Directive 90/232/EEC - Article 1 - Road traffic accident - Death of a passenger - Right to compensation of the partner and of the child, who is a minor - Non-material damage - Compensation - Cover by compulsory insurance)

2013/C 367/07

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties in the main proceedings

Applicant: Katarína Haasová

Defendants: Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Krajský súd v Prešove — Interpretation of Article 1 of 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 (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) and Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1) — Scope of the guarantee in favour of third parties provided by compulsory insurance — National provision not providing for compensation for non-material damage

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Article 1(1) and (2) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 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, and Article 1(1) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must cover compensation for non-material damage suffered by the next of kin of the deceased victims of a road traffic accident, in so far as such compensation is provided for as part of the civil liability of the insured party under the national law applicable in the dispute in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-196/12) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union - Staff Regulations - Adjustment of correction coefficients - Council decision - Refusal to adopt the Commission’s proposal - Failure to act - Inadmissibility)

2014/C 39/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and J.P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C. Wissels and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, and R. Palmer, Barrister)

Re:

Action for failure to act — Council’s unlawful failure to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation under Article 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations adjusting, as from 1st July 2011, the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applying thereto — Refusal to adjust correction coefficients relating to places of employment — Infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1, 3 and 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.