ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-572/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Decision 2011/278/EU - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Period 2013-2020 - Allocation application - Incorrect data - Correction - Mandatory time limit))

(2018/C 134/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: INEOS Köln GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10a 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, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, and Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down, for the submission of an application for free allocation of emission allowances for the period 2013-2020, a mandatory time limit after which the applicant has no means of correcting or supplementing its application, since that time limit is not liable to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the submission of such an application.

(1) OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
1.

Article 1(5) of Regulation (EU) 2015/751 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an arrangement between a co-branding partner or an agent, on the one hand, and a three party payment card scheme, on the other, it is not a prerequisite of that scheme being regarded as issuing card-based payment instruments with a co-branding partner or through an agent and therefore being considered to be a four party payment card scheme, within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Regulation 2015/751, that that co-branding partner or agent act as an issuer, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of that regulation;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH

(Case C-395/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community design - Article 8(1) - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Criteria for assessment - Existence of alternative designs - Consideration of the point of view of an ‘objective observer’))

(2018/C 161/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DOCERAM GmbH

Defendant: CeramTec GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

(1) Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether the features of appearance of a product are exclusively dictated by its technical function, it must be established that the technical function is the only factor which determined those features, the existence of alternative designs not being decisive in that regard.

(2) Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the relevant features of appearance of a product are solely dictated by its technical function, within the meaning of that provision, the national court must take account of all the objective circumstances relevant to each individual case. In that regard, there is no need to base those findings on the perception of an ‘objective observer’.

(1) OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/6

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 — Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Joined Cases C-412/16 P and C-413/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of EU figurative marks ocean beach club ibiza and ocean ibiza - Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion))

(2018/C 142/08)

Language of the cases: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.
Case C-550/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — A, S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 2(f) — Definition of ‘unaccompanied minor’ — Article 10(3)(a) — Right of a refugee to family reunification with his parents — Refugee below the age of 18 at the time of entry into the Member State and at the time of application for asylum, but over 18 at the time of the decision granting asylum and of his application for family reunification — Relevant date for assessing ‘minor’ status of the person concerned)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — A, S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-550/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 2(f) — Definition of ‘unaccompanied minor’ — Article 10(3)(a) — Right of a refugee to family reunification with his parents — Refugee below the age of 18 at the time of entry into the Member State and at the time of application for asylum, but over 18 at the time of the decision granting asylum and of his application for family reunification — Relevant date for assessing ‘minor’ status of the person concerned)’

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A, S

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(f) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national or stateless person who is below the age of 18 at the time of his or her entry into the territory of a Member State and of the introduction of his or her asylum application in that State, but who, in the course of the asylum procedure, attains the age of majority and is thereafter granted refugee status must be regarded as a ‘minor’ for the purposes of that provision.

( 1 ) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
3.

Article 9(3) and (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU environmental law, the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive applies to the part of a challenge that would not be covered by that requirement, as it results, under Directive 2011/92, from the answer given in point 2 of the present operative part, in so far as the applicant seeks, by that challenge, to ensure that national environmental law is complied with. Those provisions do not have direct effect, but it is for the national court to give an interpretation of national procedural law which, to the fullest extent possible, is consistent with them.
Case C-531/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Šiaulių regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras, ‘Ecoservice projektai’ UAB, formerly ‘Specializuotas transportas’ UAB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/18/EC — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Links between tenderers having submitted separate tenders in the same procedure — Obligations of the tenderers, of the contracting authority and of the national court)

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Šiaulių regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras, ‘Ecoservice projektai’ UAB, formerly ‘Specializuotas transportas’ UAB

(Case C-531/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/18/EC — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Links between tenderers having submitted separate tenders in the same procedure — Obligations of the tenderers, of the contracting authority and of the national court)’

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Šiaulių regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras, ‘Ecoservice projektai’ UAB, formerly ‘Specializuotas transportas’ UAB

Interveners:‘VSA Vilnius’ UAB, ‘Švarinta’ UAB, ‘Specialus autotransportas’ UAB, ‘Ecoservice’ UAB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 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 meaning that:

— failing any express legislative provision or specific condition in the call for tenders or in the tender specifications governing the conditions for the award of a public contract, related tenderers submitting separate offers in the same procedure are not obliged to disclose, on their own initiative, the links between them to the contracting authority;

— the contracting authority, when it has evidence that calls into question the autonomous and independent character of the tenders submitted by certain tenderers, is obliged to verify, requesting, where appropriate, additional information from those tenderers, whether their offers are in fact autonomous and independent. If the offers prove not to be autonomous and independent, Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 precludes the award of the contract to the tenderers having submitted those tenders.

( 1 ) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Case C-532/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v SEB bankas AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Limitation of the right to deduct input tax — Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid — Supply of land — Mischaracterisation as ‘taxable activity’ — Indication of VAT on the initial invoice — Amendment of that indication by the supplier)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v SEB bankas AB

(Case C-532/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Limitation of the right to deduct input tax — Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid — Supply of land — Mischaracterisation as ‘taxable activity’ — Indication of VAT on the initial invoice — Amendment of that indication by the supplier)’

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Defendant: SEB bankas AB

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 184 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to adjust undue value added tax (VAT) deductions set down in that article also applies to cases where the initial deduction could not be made lawfully because the transaction giving rise to that deduction was exempt from VAT. By contrast, Articles 187 to 189 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the mechanism for the adjustment of undue VAT deductions provided for in those articles is not applicable in such cases, in particular in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the initial VAT deduction was unjustified as it concerned a VAT-exempt transaction relating to the supply of land.

2) Article 186 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in cases where the initial deduction of VAT could not be made lawfully, it is for the Member States to determine the date on which the obligation to adjust the undue VAT deduction arises and the time period for which that adjustment must be made, in accordance with the principles of EU law, in particular the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. It is for the national court to determine whether, in cases such as that at issue in the main proceedings, those principles have been respected.

( 1 ) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Case C-667/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — M.N.J.P.W. Nooren, J.M.F.D.C. Nooren, the heirs of M.N.F.M. Nooren v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — EAFRD financing — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Support for rural development — Non-compliance with cross-compliance rules — Reductions and exclusions — Aggregation of reductions)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — M.N.J.P.W. Nooren, J.M.F.D.C. Nooren, the heirs of M.N.F.M. Nooren v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-667/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — EAFRD financing — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Support for rural development — Non-compliance with cross-compliance rules — Reductions and exclusions — Aggregation of reductions)’

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M.N.J.P.W. Nooren, J.M.F.D.C. Nooren, the heirs of M.N.F.M. Nooren

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 70 to 72 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for by that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, read in conjunction with Articles 23 and 24 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, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which there have been found to be multiple instances of non-compliance within the same area, the reduction of the total amount of direct payments that have been, or are to be, granted that is applicable to instances of negligent non-compliance, on the one hand, and the reduction that is applicable to instances of intentional non-compliance, on the other hand, must be aggregated, with the total amount of reductions for one calendar year having to be fixed in compliance with the principle of proportionality and without exceeding the total amount referred to in Article 23(1) of Regulation No 73/2009.

( 1 ) OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Case C-647/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lille — France) — Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for the examination of an application for international protection lodged in a Member State by a third-country national — Procedures for taking charge and taking back — Article 26(1) — Adoption and notification of the transfer decision before the acceptance of the take back request by the requested Member State)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lille — France) — Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais

(Case C-647/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for the examination of an application for international protection lodged in a Member State by a third-country national — Procedures for taking charge and taking back — Article 26(1) — Adoption and notification of the transfer decision before the acceptance of the take back request by the requested Member State)’

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Lille

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Adil Hassan

Defendant: Préfet du Pas-de-Calais

Operative part of the judgment

Article 26(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 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State that has submitted, to another Member State which it considers to be responsible for the examination of an application for international protection pursuant to the criteria laid down by that regulation, a request to take charge of or take back a person referred to in Article 18(1) of that regulation from adopting a transfer decision and notifying it to that person before the requested Member State has given its explicit or implicit agreement to that request.

( 1 ) OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.
Case C-451/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — National State pension scheme — Conditions for recognition of change of gender — National legislation under which such recognition is subject to the annulment of any marriage entered into before that change of gender — Refusal to grant a person who has changed gender a State retirement pension as from the pensionable age for persons of the gender acquired — Direct discrimination on grounds of sex)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-451/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — National State pension scheme — Conditions for recognition of change of gender — National legislation under which such recognition is subject to the annulment of any marriage entered into before that change of gender — Refusal to grant a person who has changed gender a State retirement pension as from the pensionable age for persons of the gender acquired — Direct discrimination on grounds of sex)’

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: MB

Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, in particular the first indent of Article 4(1), read in conjunction with the third indent of Article 3(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires a person who has changed gender not only to fulfil physical, social and psychological criteria but also to satisfy the condition of not being married to a person of the gender that he or she has acquired as a result of that change, in order to be able to claim a State retirement pension as from the statutory pensionable age applicable to persons of his or her acquired gender.

( 1 ) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Case C-543/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Article 5(5) and (7) — Annex II, A, points 1 to 3 and 5 — Annex III(1), points 1 to 3, and (2) — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Inadequacy of measures in force — Supplemental or enhanced measures — Review of the action programme — Limitation of land application — Balanced fertilisation — Periods of land application — Capacity of tanks for storing manure — Land application on steeply-sloping surfaces and on frozen or snow-covered land)

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-543/16) ( 1 )

‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Article 5(5) and (7) — Annex II, A, points 1 to 3 and 5 — Annex III(1), points 1 to 3, and (2) — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Inadequacy of measures in force — Supplemental or enhanced measures — Review of the action programme — Limitation of land application — Balanced fertilisation — Periods of land application — Capacity of tanks for storing manure — Land application on steeply-sloping surfaces and on frozen or snow-covered land)’

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning and M. Wolff, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Declares that, by failing to adopt supplemental or enhanced measures as soon as it became apparent that the measures of the German action programme were inadequate and by failing to review that action programme, the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(5) and (7) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, read in conjunction with Annex II, A, points 1 to 3 and 5, and Annex III(1), points 1 to 3, and (2) to that directive;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.