ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (reqeust for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by C

(Case C-122/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 2, 3 and 6 - Difference in treatment on grounds of age - National legislation providing, in certain situations, for higher taxation of pension income than earned income - Scope of application of Directive 2000/78 - Competence of the European Union in the field of direct taxation))

(2016/C 287/14)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

C

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to a supplementary tax on pension income, does not fall within the substantive scope of that directive nor, therefore, is it covered by Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/21

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Brite Strike Technologies Inc. v Brite Strike Technologies SA

(Case C-230/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 22(4) - Jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes - Article 71 - Conventions concluded by the Member States on particular matters - Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property - Jurisdiction in disputes concerning Benelux trade marks and designs - Article 350 TFEU))

(2016/C 335/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brite Strike Technologies Inc.

Defendant: Brite Strike Technologies SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in the light of Article 350 TFEU, does not preclude the application to those disputes of the rule of jurisdiction for disputes relating to Benelux trademarks and designs, laid down in Article 4.6 of the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2005, signed in The Hague by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

(1) OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Nissan Jidosha KK both in relation to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-572/12 and to the appeal.
1.

Article 13(2)(c) 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 a third-country national, who is divorced from a Union citizen at whose hands she has been the victim of domestic violence during the marriage, cannot rely on the retention of her right of residence in the host Member State, on the basis of that provision, where the commencement of divorce proceedings post-dates the departure of the Union citizen spouse from that Member State.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Max-Heinz Feilen v Finanzamt Fulda

(Case C-123/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Free movement of capital - Inheritance tax - Legislation of a Member State providing for a reduction in inheritance tax applicable to estates containing assets which have already formed part of an inheritance giving rise to the imposition of inheritance tax in that Member State - Restriction - Justification - Coherence of the tax system))

(2016/C 335/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Max-Heinz Feilen

Respondent: Finanzamt Fulda

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63(1) TFEU and 65 TFEU do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a reduction in inheritance tax in the case of inheritance by persons within a particular tax class where the estate includes assets that had already been acquired, by way of inheritance, by persons within that tax class during the 10 years prior to the acquisition, on condition that inheritance tax was levied in that Member State in respect of that earlier acquisition.

(1) OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.
1.

A commercial practice consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software without any option for the consumer to purchase the same model of computer not equipped with pre-installed software does not in itself constitute an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), unless such a practice is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence and materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product, a matter which is for the national court to determine by taking account of the specific circumstances of the case in the main proceedings.
1.

Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the successful party, which offers the courts responsible for making that order the possibility of taking into account features specific to the case before it, and provides for a flat-rate scheme for the reimbursement of costs for the assistance of a lawyer, subject to the condition that those rates ensure that the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party are reasonable, which it is for the referring court to determine. However, Article 14 of that directive precludes national legislation providing flat-rates which, owing to the maximum amounts that it contains being too low, do not ensure that, at the very least, that a significant and appropriate part of the reasonable costs incurred by the successful party are borne by the unsuccessful party;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/19

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV

(Case C-221/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/64/EU - Article 15(1) - Free determination, by the manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of manufactured tobacco products - National regulation prohibiting the sale of such products by retailers at prices lower than those indicated on the revenue stamp - Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Selling arrangements - Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU))

(2016/C 419/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium

Party in the main proceedings

Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 15(1) of Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits retailers from selling tobacco products at a unit price lower than the price indicated by the manufacturer or importer on the revenue stamp affixed to those products, in so far as that price has been freely determined by the manufacturer or importer.

2. Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits retailers from selling tobacco products at a unit price lower than the price indicated by the manufacturer or importer on the revenue stamp affixed to those products, in so far as that price has been freely determined by the importer.

3. Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits retailers from selling tobacco products at a unit price lower than the price indicated by the manufacturer or importer on the revenue stamp affixed to those products.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/20

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Ieper — Belgium) — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV v Gregory Demey

(Case C-261/15) (1)

((Rail transport - Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 - Passengers’ rights and obligations - Absence of a ticket - Failure to regularise within the prescribed period - Criminal offence))

(2016/C 419/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Vredegerecht te Ieper

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV

Defendant: Gregory Demey

Operative part of the judgment

The final sentence of Article 6(2) of Appendix A to the Convention Concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) of 9 May 1980, as modified by the Protocol for the modification of the Convention Concerning International Carriage by Rail of 3 June 1999, in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which lay down that a person making a train journey while not in possession of a ticket for that purpose, who fails to regularise his situation within the periods laid down in those provisions, does not have a contractual relationship with the railway undertaking.

(1) OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Edyta Mikołajczyk v Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki

(Case C-294/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 1(1)(a) - Material scope - Action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party after the death of one of the spouses - Article 3(1) - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of residence of the ‘applicant’ - Scope))

(2016/C 462/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edyta Mikołajczyk

Defendants: Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that an action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party following the death of one of the spouses falls within the scope of Regulation No 2201/2003.

2. The fifth and sixth indents of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that a person other than one of the spouses who brings an action for annulment of marriage may not rely on the grounds of jurisdiction set out in those provisions.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl v Comune di Fossano

(Case C-318/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 7(c) - Threshold amount for public contracts - Threshold not reached - Abnormally low tenders - Automatic exclusion - Discretion of the contracting authority - Obligations of the contracting authority arising from freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services and the general principle of non-discrimination - Contracts which may be of certain cross-border interest))

(2016/C 441/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl

Defendant: Comune di Fossano

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte (Piedmont Regional Administrative Court, Italy) by decision of 29 April 2015 is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/20

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern — Germany) — Hörmann Reisen GmbH v Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg

(Case C-292/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Public passenger transport services by bus - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 4(7) - Subcontracting - Requirement that the operator perform a major part of the public passenger transport services itself - Scope - Article 5(1) - Contract-award procedure - Award of the contract in accordance with Directive 2004/18/EC))

(2017/C 006/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Vergabekammer Südbayern

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hörmann Reisen GmbH

Defendant: Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a contract award procedure for public passenger transport services by bus, Article 4(7) of that regulation remains applicable to that contract;

2. Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1370/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the contracting authority from setting at 70 % the proportion of self-provision by the operator responsible for the administration and performance of a contract for public passenger transport by bus, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 475/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung eV v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

(Case C-148/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU - Free movement of goods - National legislation - Prescription-only medicinal products for human use - Sale by pharmacies - Setting of fixed prices - Quantitative restriction on imports - Measure having equivalent effect - Justification - Protection of the health and life of humans))

(2016/C 475/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung eV

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a system of fixed prices for the sale by pharmacies of prescription-only medicinal products for human use, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, within the meaning of that article, since that legislation has a greater impact on the sale of prescription-only medicinal products by pharmacies established in other Member States than on the sale of the same medicinal products by pharmacies established within the national territory.

2. Article 36 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a system of fixed prices for the sale by pharmacies of prescription-only medicinal products for human use, cannot be justified on grounds of the protection of health and life of humans, within the meaning of that article, inasmuch as that legislation is not appropriate for attaining the objectives pursued.

(1) OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/7

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ciclat Soc. coop v Consip SpA, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

(Case C-199/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 45 - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Public procurement - Conditions for exclusion from a procedure for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions - Social security contributions payment certificate - Correction of irregularities))

(2017/C 014/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ciclat Soc. coop

Defendants: Consip SpA, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

Intervening parties: Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), Team Service SCARL, as the representative of ATI-Snam Lazio Sud Srl and Ati-Linda Srl, Consorzio Servizi Integrati

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 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 not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which obliges a contracting authority to consider an infringement relating to the payment of social security contributions, recorded in a certificate requested by a contracting authority on its own initiative and issued by the social security institutions, to be a ground for exclusion, where that infringement existed on the date of the participation in a tender procedure, even if it no longer existed at the time of the award or of the verification carried out on the contracting authority’s own initiative.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris, Conseil d’État — France) — Eco-Emballages SA v Sphère France SAS and Others (C-313/15), Melitta France SAS and Others v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie (C-530/15)

(Joined Cases C-313/15 and C-530/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Article 3 - Packaging and packaging waste - Definition - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound (‘Roll cores’) - Directive 2013/2/EU - Validity - Amendment by the European Commission of the list of examples of packaging set out in Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC - Misinterpretation of the term ‘packaging’ - Misuse of implementing powers))

(2017/C 014/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Paris, Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-313/15)

Applicant: Eco-Emballages SA

Defendants: Sphère France SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, SCA Tissue France SAS, Melitta France SAS, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, Wepa France SAS, formerly Wepa Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica SL, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Délipapier SAS, Scamark SAS, CMC France SARL, Schweitzer SAS, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa France SAS, formerly Wepa Lille SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS

Interveners: Group’Hygiène syndicat professionnel (C-313/15),

(Case C-350/15)

Applicants: Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Délipapier SAS, Gopack SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Wepa France SAS, formerly Lucart France, Paul Hartmann SA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, SCA Tissue France SAS, Group’Hygiène syndicat professionnel

Defendant: Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

Intervener: Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS (C-530/15)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, as amended by Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that roll cores in the form of rolls, tubes or cylinders, around which flexible material is wound and sold to consumers, constitute ‘packaging’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
1.

In the context of the application of the Court’s case-law on direct awards of so-called ‘in-house’ public contracts, in order to determine whether the contractor carries out the essential part of its activity for the contracting authority, including local authorities which are its controlling shareholders, an activity imposed on that contractor by a non-shareholder public authority for the benefit of local authorities which are also not shareholders of that contractor and do not exercise any control over it must not be taken into account, since that activity must be regarded as being carried out for third parties.
1.

Declares that, by failing to ensure secondary treatment or equivalent treatment for urban waste water from the agglomerations of Goyave, Bastelica, Morne-à-l’Eau, Aiguilles-Château-Ville Vieille, Borgo-Nord, Isola, Plombières-les-Bains, Saint-Céré, Vincey, Etueffont, Volx and Villeneuve, either for the entire amount of their discharges, in the case of agglomerations having a population equivalent of between 10 000 and 15 000, or for discharges into fresh water and estuaries, in the case of agglomerations having a population equivalent of between 2 000 and 10 000, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008;