ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2017 — European Commission v Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA and Others

(Case C-691/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures - Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 - Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temperature - Categories of acute aquatic toxicity (H400) and chronic aquatic toxicity (H410) - Duty to act diligently - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 022/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by K. Talabér-Ritz and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd, Koppers Netherlands BV, Rütgers basic aromatics GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o., Bawtry Carbon International Ltd, Grupo Ferroatlántica, SA, SGL Carbon GmbH, SGL Carbon GmbH, SGL Carbon, SGL Carbon, SA, SGL Carbon Polska S.A., ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG, Tokai erftcarbon GmbH (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats, and by P. Sellar, Advocate); European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by N. Herbatschek, W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents), GrafTech Iberica, SL (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem and M. Grunchard, avocats, and by P. Sellar, Advocate)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning and M. N. Lyshøj, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, C.S. Schillemans and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Bilbaína de Alquitranes SA, Deza a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón SA, Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd, Koppers Netherlands BV, Rütgers basic aromatics GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o., Bawtry Carbon International Ltd, Grupo Ferroatlántica SA, SGL Carbon GmbH (Germany), SGL Carbon GmbH (Austria), SGL Carbon, SGL Carbon SA, SGL Carbon Polska S.A., ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG and Tokai erftcarbon GmbH, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings that gave rise to the order of the Vice-President of the Court of 7 July 2016, Commission v Bilbaína de Alquitranes and Others (C-691/15 P–R, not published, EU:C:2016:597);

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs;

4. Orders GrafTech Iberica SL and the European Chemicals Agency to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
2.

Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that: — even where there are no substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the Member State responsible for examining the application for asylum, the transfer of an asylum seeker within the framework of Regulation No 604/2013 can take place only in conditions which exclude the possibility that that transfer might result in a real and proven risk of the person concerned suffering inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of that article; — in circumstances in which the transfer of an asylum seeker with a particularly serious mental or physical illness would result in a real and proven risk of a significant and permanent deterioration in the state of health of the person concerned, that transfer would constitute inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of that article; — it is for the authorities of the Member State having to carry out the transfer and, if necessary, its courts to eliminate any serious doubts concerning the impact of the transfer on the state of health of the person concerned by taking the necessary precautions to ensure that the transfer takes place in conditions enabling appropriate and sufficient protection of that person’s state of health. If, taking into account the particular seriousness of the illness of the asylum seeker concerned, the taking of those precautions is not sufficient to ensure that his transfer does not result in a real risk of a significant and permanent worsening of his state of health, it is for the authorities of the Member States concerned to suspend the execution of the transfer of the person concerned for such time as his condition renders him unfit for such a transfer; and — where necessary, if it is noted that the state of health of the asylum seeker concerned is not expected to improve in the short term, or that the suspension of the procedure for a long period would risk worsening the condition of the person concerned, the requesting Member State may choose to conduct its own examination of that person’s application by making use of the ‘discretionary clause’ laid down in Article 17(1) of Regulation No 604/2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/17

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Ruslanas Kovalkovas

(Case C-477/16 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘judicial decision’ - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania with a view to executing a custodial sentence))

(2017/C 014/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Ruslanas Kovalkovas

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘judicial authority’, referred to in Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is an autonomous concept of EU law and that provision must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes an organ of the executive, such as the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, from being designated as an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of the same Article 6(1), meaning that the European arrest warrant issued by it with a view to executing a judgment imposing a custodial sentence cannot be regarded as a ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299.

(1) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/4

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

(Case C-51/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification of goods - Implant screws intended to be inserted in the human body for the treatment of fractures or the stabilisation of prostheses - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 9021 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1212/2014 - Validity))

(2017/C 195/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Operative part of the judgment

Heading 9021 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff 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 Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that medical implant screws such as those at issue in the main proceedings fall under that heading as those goods have characteristics which distinguish them from ordinary goods by the finish of their manufacture and their high degree of precision, as well as by their method of manufacture and the specificity of their purpose. In particular, the fact that medical implant screws such as those at issue in the main proceedings can be inserted in the body only by means of specific medical tools, not by means of ordinary tools, is a characteristic to be taken into consideration in order to distinguish those medical implant screws from ordinary products.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — FlibTravel International SA, Léonard Travel International SA v AAL Renting SA and Others

(Case C-253/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 96 TFEU - Applicability - National legislation prohibiting taxi services from offering individual seats - National legislation prohibiting taxi services from predetermining their destination - National legislation prohibiting taxi services from touting for custom))

(2017/C 151/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: FlibTravel International SA, Léonard Travel International SA

Respondents: AAL Renting SA, Haroune Tax SPRL, Saratax SCS, Ryad SCRI, Taxis Bachir & Cie SCS, Abdelhamid El Barjraji, Abdelouahab Ben Bachir, Sotax SCRI, Mostapha El Hammouchi, Boughaz SPRL, Sahbaz SPRL, Jamal El Jelali, Mohamed Chakir Ben Kadour, Taxis Chalkis SCRL, Mohammed Gheris, Les délices de Fes SPRL, Abderrahmane Belyazid, E.A.R. SCS, Sotrans SPRL, B.M.A. SCS, Taxis Amri et Cie SCS, Aramak SCS, Rachid El Amrani, Mourad Bakkour, Mohamed Agharbiou, Omar Amri, Jmili Zouhair, Mustapha Ben Abderrahman, Mohamed Zahyani, Miltotax SPRL, Lextra SA, Ismail El Amrani, Farid Benazzouz, Imad Zoufri, Abdel-Ilah Bokhamy, Ismail Al Bouhali, Bahri Messaoud & Cie SCS, Mostafa Bouzid, BKN Star SPRL, M.V.S. SPRL, A.B.M.B. SCS, Imatrans SPRL, Reda Bouyaknouden, Ayoub Tahri, Moulay Adil El Khatir, Redouan El Abboudi, Mohamed El Abboudi, Bilal El Abboudi, Sofian El Abboudi, Karim Bensbih, Hadel Bensbih, Mimoun Mallouk, Abdellah El Ghaffouli, Said El Aazzoui

Operative part of the judgment

Article 96(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not applying to restrictions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, imposed on taxi operators.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 November 2015, Dyson v Commission (T-544/13, EU:T:2015:836), in so far as it rejected the first part of the first plea in law and the third plea in law put forward at first instance;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/17

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission

(Case C-338/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - European Commission implementing decision - Notification to the addressee - Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 239/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and M. França, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
1.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of online games of chance, if it contains discriminatory rules with regard to operators established in other Member States or if it lays down rules which are not discriminatory but which are applied in a manner which is not transparent or are implemented in such a way as to prevent or hinder an application from certain tenderers established in other Member States;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Compass Contract Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-38/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Repayment of overpaid VAT - Right to deduct VAT - Procedures - Principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality - Principle of effectiveness - National legislation introducing a limitation period))

(2017/C 277/17)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Compass Contract Services Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

The principles of fiscal neutrality, equal treatment and effectiveness do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of the reduction of the limitation period, on the one hand, for claims for overpaid value added tax and, on the other hand, for claims for deduction of input value added tax, provides different transitional periods, with the result that claims relating to two accounting periods of three months are subject to different limitation periods depending on whether they concern the repayment of overpaid value added tax or the deduction of input value added tax.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — E v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

(Case C-193/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States - Directive 2004/38/EC - The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) - Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health - Expulsion from the territory for reasons of public policy or public security - Conduct representing a sufficiently serious present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of society - Present and genuine threat - Concept - Union citizen residing in the host Member State where he is serving a prison sentence for repeated child sexual abuse offences))

(2017/C 293/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person is imprisoned at the time the expulsion decision was adopted, without the prospect of being released in the near future, does not exclude that his conduct represents, as the case may be, a present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of the society of the host Member State.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/6

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2017 — Toshiba Corporation v European Commission

(Case C-180/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Decision taken by the European Commission following annulment in part of the initial decision by the General Court of the European Union - Amendment of fines - Rights of the defence - No adoption of a new statement of objections - Equal treatment - Joint venture - Calculation of the starting amount - Extent of contribution to the infringement - Res judicata))

(2017/C 283/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Toshiba Corporation (represented by: J. F. MacLennan, Solicitor, S. Sakellariou, dikigoros, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, and J. Jourdan, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
1.

Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Article 2(m) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the authorities of one Member State, faced with the arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, tolerate the entry into its territory of such nationals who do not fulfil the entry conditions generally imposed in the first Member State, is not tantamount to the issuing of a ‘visa’ within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation No 604/2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano- Italy) — Moussa Sacko v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano

(Case C-348/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Appeal against a decision refusing an application for international protection - Whether it is possible for the court to adjudicate without hearing the applicant))

(2017/C 309/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Moussa Sacko

Defendant: Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, in particular Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 thereof, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the national court or tribunal hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting a manifestly unfounded application for international protection from dismissing the appeal without hearing the applicant where the factual circumstances leave no doubt as to whether that decision was well founded, on condition that, first, during the proceedings at first instance, the applicant was given the opportunity of a personal interview on his or her application for international protection, in accordance with Article 14 of the directive, and the report or transcript of the interview, if an interview was conducted, was placed on the case-file, in accordance with Article 17(2) of the directive, and, second, the court hearing the appeal may order that a hearing be conducted if it considers it necessary for the purpose of ensuring that there is a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, as required under Article 46(3) of the directive.

(1) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
1.

Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that: — it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, where the detention of an applicant for international protection begins after the requested Member State has accepted the take charge request, that detention may be maintained for no longer than two months, provided, first, that the duration of the detention does not go beyond the period of time which is necessary for the purposes of that transfer procedure, assessed by taking account of the specific requirements of that procedure in each specific case and, second, that, where applicable, that duration is not to be longer than six weeks from the date when the appeal or review ceases to have suspensive effect; and — it does preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows, in such a situation, the detention to be maintained for 3 or 12 months during which the transfer could be reasonably carried out.
2.

Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that a contractual term must be drafted in plain intelligible language requires that, in the case of loan agreements, financial institutions must provide borrowers with sufficient information to enable them to take prudent and well-informed decisions. In that connection, that requirement means that a term under which the loan must be repaid in the same foreign currency as that in which it was contracted must be understood by the consumer both at the formal and grammatical level, and also in terms of its actual effects, so that the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, would be aware both of the possibility of a rise or fall in the value of the foreign currency in which the loan was taken out, and would also be able to assess the potentially significant economic consequences of such a term with regard to his financial obligations. It is for the national court to carry out the necessary checks in that regard.