ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/15

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupréau SAS

(Case C-2/13) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Chapter 64 - Import of components required for the manufacture of sports footwear - Heading 6404 - Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials - Heading 6406 - Parts of footwear - General Rule 2(a) for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature - Incomplete or unfinished article having the ‘essential character of the complete or finished article’ - Article ‘presented unassembled or disassembled’ - Explanatory Note for the interpretation of the Harmonised System - Assembly operations and not ‘working operations for completion into the finished state’)

2014/C 93/24

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières

Defendant: Humeau Beaupréau SAS

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 2(a) to the General Rule for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature and of paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Footwear manufacturing process — Assembly operations or working operations for completion into the finished state.

Operative part of the judgment

General Rule 2(a) for the interpretation of 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, in the version in force at the material time, must be interpreted as meaning that an upper, an outer sole and an inner sole, as an article presented unassembled having the essential character of footwear, come under heading 6404 of the combined nomenclature where, following their import, a counter must be inserted into the upper and the outer sole and the upper must be roughed for the purpose of their assembly.

(1) OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/7

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana — Spain) — Ayuntamiento de Benferri v Consejería de Infraestructuras y Transporte, Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica SAU

(Case C-300/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Construction of certain overhead electrical power lines - Extension of an electrical substation - Project not made subject to an environmental assessment))

2014/C 151/09

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Benferri

Defendants: Consejería de Infraestructuras y Transporte, Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica SAU

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana — Interpretation of point 20 of Annex I and section 3(b) of Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km — Concept — Project to extend an electrical substation independently of the existing overhead power line — National legislation which does not provide for the submission of that project to an environmental assessment.

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of point 20 of Annex I and section 3(b) of Annex II to 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 Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that a project such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which relates only to the extension of an electrical voltage transformer substation, is not, as such, among the projects covered by those provisions, unless that extension is part of the construction of overhead electrical power lines, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/6

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia (Italy)) — Cruciano Siragusa v Regione Sicilia — Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo

(Case C-206/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - General principles of EU law - Implementation of EU law - Scope of EU law - A sufficient connection - Lack of such a connection - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

2014/C 129/07

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cruciano Siragusa

Defendant: Regione Sicilia — Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia — Interpretation of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Principle of proportionality — National legislation under which any alterations made by the owner to property in an area of scenic interest are conditional upon prior clearance being granted — Obligation, in the absence of such clearance, to demolish the building, even where the owner shows afterwards that the alteration has no adverse effect on the scenery or landscape.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia (Italy).

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia –Italy) — Idrodinamica Spurgo Velox and Others v Acquedotto Pugliese SpA

(Case C-161/13) (1)

((Public procurement - Water sector - Directive 92/13/EEC - Effective and rapid review procedures - Time-limits for bringing an action - Date from which time begins to run))

2014/C 202/10

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Idrodinamica Spurgo Velox, Giovanni Putignano e figli srl, Cogeir srl, Splendor Sud srl, Sceap srl

Defendant: Acquedotto Pugliese SpA

Intervening parties: Tundo srl, Giovanni XXIII Soc. coop. arl

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia — Interpretation of Article 1, 2a, 2c and 2f of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14) — Time-limit for bringing an action — Point at which time begins to run — National legislation under which the time-limit for bringing an action begins to run with effect from the date of the notification to the applicant of the decision definitively awarding the procurement contract — Where the applicant did not become aware, until after that notification, that the rules governing the award of public procurement contracts had been infringed

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and (3) and the last subparagraph of Article 2a(2) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the time allowed for bringing an action for the annulment of the decision awarding a contract starts to run again where the contracting authority adopts a new decision, after the award decision has been adopted but before that contract is signed, which may affect the lawfulness of that award decision. That period starts to run from the communication of the earlier decision to the tenderers or, in the absence thereof, from when they became aware of that decision.

Where a tenderer becomes aware, after the expiry of the period for bringing an action laid down by national legislation, of an irregularity allegedly committed before the award decision was adopted, an action for the annulment of that decision may be brought only within that period, unless such a right is explicitly provided for by national law in accordance with Union law.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
2.

The fact that the product covered by the customs declaration at issue in the main proceedings, while corresponding to the characteristics laid down in code 7019 59 00 10 of the Integrated Tariff of the European Communities and set out in the regulations subjecting it to anti-dumping duties, does not correspond to the designation given to it in that code and those regulations as published in the language of the Member State of origin of the declarant and on which alone the latter based its declaration is not liable to entail the annulment of its tariff classification under that code made by the customs authorities on the basis of all the other language versions of that code and those regulations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/14

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Burgas — Bulgaria) — Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas AD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt Pristanishte Burgas Tsentar pri Mitnitsa Burgas

(Case C-330/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Classification of goods - Goods described as ‘heavy oils, lubricating oils or other oils for undergoing a specific process’ - Headings 2707 and 2710 - Aromatic and non-aromatic constituents - Relationship between the Combined Nomenclature and the Harmonised System))

2014/C 282/19

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Аdministrativen sad — Burgas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas AD

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt Pristanishte Burgas Tsentar pri Mitnitsa Burgas

Operative part of the judgment

1) The criterion to take into consideration in order to classify products with characteristics such as those of the product at issue in the main proceedings under Heading 2707 or Heading 2710 of the Combined Nomenclature 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 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, is the content by weight of the aromatic constituents in relation to the non-aromatic constituents.

2) The expression ‘aromatic constituents’ in Chapter 27 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011, must be interpreted as being wider than ‘aromatic hydrocarbons’.

3) It is, in principle, for the national courts to establish the most appropriate method to determine the content of aromatic constituents of a specific product in order to classify it under Heading 2707 or Heading 2710 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011.

4) Point 1 of the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011, on subheadings 2707 99 91 and 2707 99 99 thereof must be interpreted as being non-exhaustive, so that a product falling within Heading 2707 of the Combined Nomenclature which cannot be classified under a specific subheading must be classified under subheading 2707 99 99 thereof.

(1) OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-105/13) (1)

((Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Articles 34, 36 and 137 - Payment entitlements - Basis of calculation - Premiums paid in respect of cattle and land held by the farmer during the reference period - Modification of the method for determining the area of agricultural parcels - Reduction in the hectares eligible for aid - Application by the farmer for a reduction in the number and an increase in the unit value of his payment entitlements - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Article 73a(2a) - Lawfulness))

2014/C 253/13

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Articles 34, 36 and 137 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16) — Direct support schemes — Single payment scheme — Farmer who obtained, in 2006, payment entitlements acquired on the basis of his non-area-related production and the areas belonging to him — Method of identifying the areas subsequently amended — Reduction in the hectares eligible for aid

Operative part of the judgment

Article 73a(2a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulations (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 73/2009, as well as for the implementation of cross-compliance provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 380/2009 of 8 May 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer’s payment entitlements must be recalculated when, in the initial determination of his payment entitlements, that farmer’s reference amount was divided by too high a number of hectares because of the method for determining the area of agricultural parcels used at that time in the Member State concerned. Article 137 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 does not apply to a correction under Article 73a(2a) of Regulation No 796/2004.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/19

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-391/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from funding from the European Union - Olive oil - Arable crops - Manifest error of assessment - Increase in the flat-rate correction due to the recurrence of failure - Impact of CAP reform on the flat-rate correction - Proportionality - Nature of expenditure for the establishment of the olive cultivation GIS))

2014/C 315/28

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chaklias, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Marcoulli and D. Tryantafyllou, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/23

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Thi Ly Pham v Stadt Schweinfurt, Amt für Meldewesen und Statistik

(Case C-474/13) (1)

((Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 16(1) - Detention for the purpose of removal - Detention in prison accommodation - Possibility of detaining a third-country national with ordinary prisoners where he has given his consent))

2014/C 315/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thi Ly Pham

Defendant: Stadt Schweinfurt, Amt für Meldewesen und Statistik

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to detain a third-country national for the purpose of removal in prison accommodation together with ordinary prisoners even if the third-country national consents thereto.

(1) OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.
3)

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the Kingdom of Spain and to bear its own costs of both the proceedings at first instance and of the present appeal proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/11

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Wedl & Hofmann GmbH

(Case C-141/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark Walzer Traum - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark Walzertraum - Concept of genuine use of the mark - Failure to take earlier decisions into account - Principle of equal treatment))

2014/C 315/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (represented by: T. Raubal, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d.

(Case C-162/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - Accident caused in the courtyard of a farm by a tractor to which a trailer was attached))

(2014/C 395/14)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Damijan Vnuk

Defendant: Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d.

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 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ in that article covers any use of a vehicle that is consistent with the normal function of that vehicle. That concept may therefore cover the manoeuvre of a tractor in the courtyard of a farm in order to bring the trailer attached to that tractor into a barn, as in the case in the main proceedings, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm — Sweden) — Skandia America Corporation (USA), filial Sverige v Skatteverket

(Case C-7/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT group - Internal invoicing for services supplied by a main company with its seat in a third country to its branch belonging to a VAT group within a Member State - Whether services supplied are taxable))

2014/C 421/09

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skandia America Corporation (USA), filial Sverige

Defendant: Skatteverket

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 2(1), 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that supplies of services from a main establishment in a third country to its branch in a Member State constitute taxable transactions when the branch belongs to a group of persons whom it is possible to regard as a single taxable person for value added tax purposes;

2. Articles 56, 193 and 196 of Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings where the main establishment of a company in a third country supplies services for consideration to a branch of that company in a Member State and where the branch belongs to a group of persons whom it is possible to regard as a single taxable person for value added tax purposes in that Member State, that group, as the purchaser of those services, becomes liable for the value added tax payable.

(1) OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.
3)

Article 66 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and Article 251 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993, laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 312/2009, of 16 April 2009 are compatible with the fundamental right to equality before the law affirmed in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in circumstances where, in the context of the common customs tariff, referred to in Articles 28 TFEU and 31 TFEU, the aforementioned provisions of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 312/2009, do not permit the invalidation, on request, of an incorrect customs declaration and thus the grant of the benefit of the exemption from anti-dumping duty to the consignee that the latter could have claimed, if the error had not been made.