ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/3

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Jean-Marie Cahier and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission, French Republic

(Case C-227/15 P) (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 - Article 28(1) - Compulsory distillation of the quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the normal quantity and not exported outside the Union - Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 - Distillation carried out by the producer himself in his capacity as distiller - Production of spirits with designation of origin)

(2016/C 279/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Jean-Marie Cahier, Robert Aubineau, Laurent Bigot, Pascal Bourdeau, Jacques Brard-Blanchard, Olivier Charruaud, Daniel Chauvet, Régis Chauvet, Fabrice Compagnon, Francis Crepeau, Philippe Davril, Bernard Deborde, Chantal Goulard, Jean-Pierre Gourdet, Bernard Goursaud, Jean Gravouil, Guy Herbelot, Rodrigue Herbelot, Sophie Landrit, Michel Mallet, Michel Merlet, Alain Phelipon, Claude Potut, Philippe Pruleau, Philippe Riche, Françoise Rousseau, René Roy, Pascale Rulleaud-Beaufour (represented by: C.-É. Gudin, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Barbagallo and É. Sitbon, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and B. Schima, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and S. Ghiandoni, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dimissed.

2. Messrs Jean-Marie Cahier, Robert Aubineau, Laurent Bigot, Pascal Bourdeau, Jacques Brard-Blanchard, Olivier Charruaud, Daniel Chauvet, Régis Chauvet, Fabrice Compagnon, Francis Crepeau, Philippe Davril, Bernard Deborde, Ms Chantal Goulard, Messrs Jean-Pierre Gourdet, Bernard Goursaud, Jean Gravouil, Guy Herbelot, Rodrigue Herbelot, Ms Sophie Landrit, Messrs Michel Mallet, Michel Merlet, Alain Phelipon, Claude Potut, Philippe Pruleau, Philippe Riche, Ms Françoise Rousseau, Mr René Roy and Ms Pascale Rulleaud-Beaufour shall bear their own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 311 of 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/14

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA v European Commission

(Case C-510/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Burden of proof - Presumption of innocence - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Determining the gravity of the infringement and the additional amount in respect of deterrence - Justification - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment))

(2016/C 343/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (represented by: T. Caiado Guerreiro and R. Rodrigues Lopes, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and J. Szczodrowski, Agents, and by M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, avocats)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria SA shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/4

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie v ESET spol. s.r.o. sp. zo.o. Oddzial w Polsce

(Case C-393/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Article 169(a) - Company established in a Member State in which it carries out taxable transactions - Branch registered in another Member State for the payment of value added tax - Occasional taxable transactions made in that State - Main activity consisting in the performance of internal transactions for the benefit of that company - Input tax paid by that company - Deducted in the Member State of registration)

(2016/C 326/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

Defendant: ESET spol. s.r.o. sp. zo.o. Oddzial w Polsce

Operative part of the order

Article 168 and Article 169(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a branch registered in one Member State for the payment of value added tax for a company established in another Member State and which mainly carries out internal transactions not subject to that tax for that company, but also occasionally transactions taxed in the Member State where it is registered, is entitled to deduct input tax in the latter State charged on goods and services used for the needs of that company’s taxable transactions carried out in the Member State where the branch is established.

(1) OJ C 337 of 12.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 475/15

Order of the President of the Court of 23 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Dinu Antoci v Instituția Prefectului — județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

(Case C-236/15) (1)

(2016/C 475/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Satu Mare — Romania) — Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș v BRD Groupe Société Générale — Sucursala Judeţeană Satu Mare

(Case C-534/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Article 1(1) - Article 2(b) - Status of consumer - Assignment of a debt by novation of loan agreements - Contracts providing immovable property as security entered into by individuals not having any professional relationship with the new debtor company))

(2016/C 454/22)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Satu Mare

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș

Defendant: BRD Groupe Société Générale — Sucursala Judeţeană Satu Mare

Operative part of the order

Articles 1(1) and 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a contract providing immovable property as security concluded between natural persons and a credit institution in order to guarantee the obligations that a commercial company has undertaken with respect to that credit institution for a credit agreement, where those natural persons have acted for purposes which are outside their trade, business or profession and have no functional links with that company, which is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/28

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso v H3G SpA

(Case C-202/15) (1)

(2017/C 283/38)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/22

Order of the President of the Court of 10 November 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic: supported by: Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-495/15) (1)

(2017/C 063/30)

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer v Swiss International Air Lines AG

(Case C-172/16) (1)

(2016/C 454/38)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/14

Order of the President of the Court of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Ralf-Achim Vetter, Susanne Glang-Vetter, Anna Louisa Vetter, Carolin Marie Vetter v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-521/16) (1)

(2017/C 129/23)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/2

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Angel Marinkov v Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za balgarite v chuzhbina

(Case C-27/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Directives 2000/78/EC and 2006/54/EC - Scope - Manifest inadmissibility - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - None - Manifest lack of jurisdiction))

(2017/C 086/02)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Angel Marinkov

Defendant: Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za balgarite v chuzhbina

Re:

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court, Sofia, Bulgaria), by decision of 28 December 2015, is manifestly inadmissible in that it concerns Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and Directive 2006/54/ЕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation.

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred in that they concern Article 30, 47 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/6

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 — Anikó Pint v European Commission

(Case C-625/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents from the Hungarian Government relating to the procedure EU Pilot No 8572/15 [CHAP(2015)00353 and 6874/14/JUST] concerning an alleged infringement by Hungary of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Request to be provided with documents - Lack of a response from the European Commission))

(2017/C 195/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Anikó Pint (represented by: D. Lazar, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Operative part of the order

1) The appeal is dismissed.

2) Ms Anikó Pint shall bear her own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.04.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/5

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 February 2017 — Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH, DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH v European Commission

(Case C-446/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Traditional specialities guaranteed - Late lodging of opposition measure by the competent national authorities - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal manifestly unfounded))

(2017/C 129/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH, DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (represented by: A Wagner, Rechtanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and A. Lewis, acting as Agents)

The operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/28

Order of the President of the Court of 5 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Belgian State v Biologie Dr Antoine SPRL

(Case C-548/16) (1)

(2017/C 300/34)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/12

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Lg Costruzioni Srl v Area — Azienda Regionale per l’edilizia abitativa

(Case C-110/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contract - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 7 - Evaluation and determination of the technical capacities of the economic operators - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2017/C 249/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lg Costruzioni Srl

Defendant: Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa

In the presence of: TE.SV.AM. Srl, Alvit Srl, Igit SpA, Planarch Srl, Francesco Auteri

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), by decision of 19 January 2016, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/2

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Eurallumina SpA v Italian Republic, European Commission

(Case C-323/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Intervention - Cross-appeal - Admissibility - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Principle of presumption of the legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions - Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali - Selective nature of the measure - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(ii) - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons))

(2018/C 063/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Eurallumina SpA (represented by: L. Martin Alegi, L. Philippou and A. Stratakis, Solicitors)

Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Grasso, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission, (represented by: V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

2. Orders Eurallumina SpA to pay the costs relating to the main appeal.

3. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.

4. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/16

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl (C-655/16), Finmeccanica SpA (C-656/16) v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Joined Cases C-655/16 and C-656/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Company law - Directive 2004/25/EC - Takeover bids - Second subparagraph of Article 5(4) - Possibility of changing the price of the offer in specific circumstances and in line with clearly determined criteria - National legislation providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror and the seller))

(2018/C 005/21)

Language of the cases: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl (C-655/16), Finmeccanica SpA (C-656/16)

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Interveners: Amber Capital Italia Sgr SpA, Amber Capital Uk Llp, Bluebell Partners Limited, Elliot International Lp, The Liverpool Limited Partnership, Elliot Associates L.P.

Operative part of the order

The second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a national supervisory authority to adjust upwards the price of a takeover bid in the event of ‘collusion’, without setting out the specific conduct that characterises that notion, on condition that the interpretation of that notion can be deduced in a sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable manner from that legislation, using methods of interpretation recognised by national law.

(1) OJ C 121, 18.04.2017.
Order of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander — Spain) — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA v Fernando Quintano Ujeta, María Isabel Sánchez García

(Case C-167/16) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 6 and 7 - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law - Declaration that the clause is unfair in part - Powers of a national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Question manifestly inadmissible)

(2020/C 19/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

Defendant: Fernando Quintano Ujeta, María Isabel Sánchez García

Operative part of the order

Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, first, as precluding an accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract that has been found to be unfair from being maintained in part, with the elements which make it unfair removed by a national court. However, they do not preclude the national court from remedying the invalidity of such an unfair term, the wording of which is based on a legislative provision which is applicable where the parties to the contract so agree, by replacing that term with the new wording of that legislative provision as amended after the conclusion of the mortgage loan contract, where the contract in question cannot continue in existence if that unfair term is removed, and that the annulment of the contract in its entirety would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences.

(1) OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
Case C-631/16: Order of the President of the Court of 17 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — X B.V. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Order of the President of the Court of 17 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — X B.V. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

(Case C-631/16) ( 1 )

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

( 1 ) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/14

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Bericap Záródástechnikai Cikkeket Gyártó Bt. v Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium

(Case C-53/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Aid granted by Member States - Derogations from the prohibition of aid - Aid capable of being regarded as compatible with the internal market - Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 - Definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Linked enterprises - Enterprises exercising their activities on the same market and forming part of a global group of enterprises owned by the members of one single family - Concept of ‘group of natural persons acting jointly’))

(2017/C 249/21)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bericap Záródástechnikai Cikkeket Gyártó Bt.

Defendant: Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium

Operative part of the order

Article 3(3) of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] (General block exemption Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that enterprises may be regarded as ‘linked’, within the meaning of that provision, where it is clear from the analysis of both the legal and economic relations existing between them that they constitute, through a natural person or a group of natural persons acting jointly, a single economic unit, even though they do not formally feature any of the relationships referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that annex. Natural persons who work together in order to influence the commercial decisions of the enterprises concerned, with the result that those enterprises cannot be regarded as being economically independent of one another, are to be regarded as acting jointly for the purposes of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that annex. Whether such a condition is satisfied will depend on the circumstances of the individual case and is not necessarily conditional on the existence of contractual relations between those persons or even on a finding that they intended to circumvent the definition of micro, small or medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Annex I to Regulation No 800/2008.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/11

Order of the President of the Court of 30 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj — Romania) — Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghiţă, Vasilica Gheorghiţă v SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — sucursala Dolj

(Case C-400/17) (1)

(2018/C 013/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.