ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/19

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — Council of the European Union v Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario), European Commission

(Case C-104/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - External relations - Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning liberalisation measures on agricultural and fishery products - Decision approving the conclusion of an international agreement - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Locus standi - Territorial scope of the agreement - Interpretation of the agreement - Principle of self-determination - Principle of the relative effect of treaties))

(2017/C 053/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Legal, A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) (represented by: G. Devers, avocat), European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Paasivirta and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize and B. Fodda, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M. Figueiredo, acting as Agents), Confédération marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, M. Struys, A. Bailleux, L. Eskenazi and R. Hicheri, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 December 2015, Front Polisario v Council (T-512/12, EU:T:2015:953);

2. Dismisses the action brought by the Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) as inadmissible;

3. Orders the Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic, the European Commission and the Confédération marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader) to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/13

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — Comercializadora Eloro, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-71/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative mark including word element ‘ZUMEX’ - Opposition of the proprietor of word mark JUMEX - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15(1), second subparagraph, (b) and Article 42(2) - Evidence of use - Use in the European Union - Article 76(2) - Additional evidence of use produced out of time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)))

(2017/C 213/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Comercializadora Eloro, SA (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent), Zumex Group, SA (represented by: M.C. March Cabrelles, abogada)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Comercializadora Eloro, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/4

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v DHL Paket GmbH

(Case C-146/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair business practices - Advertisement in a print medium - Omission of material information - Access to that information via the website by means of which the products concerned are distributed - Products sold by the person who published the advertisement or by a third party))

(2017/C 161/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: DHL Paket GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(4) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an advertisement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which falls within the definition of an ‘invitation to purchase’ within the meaning of that directive, may satisfy the obligation regarding information laid down in that provision. It is for the referring court to examine, on a case-by-case basis, first, whether the limitations of space in the advertisement warrant information on the supplier being provided only upon access to the online sales platform and, secondly, whether, so far as the online sales platform is concerned, the information required by Article 7(4)(b) of that directive is communicated simply and quickly.

(1) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
1.

Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted to the effect that the form and the time-limit in which a person benefiting from an act that is detrimental to all the creditors must raise an objection under that article, in order to challenge an action to have that act set aside in accordance with the lex fori concursus, and the question whether that article may also be applied by the competent court of its own motion, if necessary, after the time-limit allowed to the party concerned has expired, fall within the procedural law of the Member State on whose territory the dispute is pending. That law must not, however, be less favourable than the law governing similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and must not make it excessively difficult or impossible in practice to exercise the rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness), that being a matter for the referring court to determine;
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-337/16 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 239/21)

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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/8

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft., formerly Glencore Grain Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

(Case C-254/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 183 - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Deduction of input tax - Refund of overpaid VAT - Investigation procedure - Fine imposed on the taxable person in the course of such a procedure - Extension of the period within which the refund must be made - Exclusion of payment of default interest))

(2017/C 283/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft., formerly Glencore Grain Hungary Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where a tax investigation procedure is initiated by a tax authority and where a taxable person is fined for failure to cooperate, the date of the refund of overpaid value added tax may be delayed until the formal report on that investigation is delivered to the taxable person and the payment of default interest may be refused, even where the duration of the tax investigation procedure is excessive and cannot be attributed entirely to the conduct of the taxable person.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland — Netherlands) — Federatie Nederlandse Vakvereniging and Others v Smallsteps BV

(Case C-126/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Articles 3 to 5 - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Exceptions - Insolvency proceedings - ‘Pre-pack’ - Survival of an undertaking))

(2017/C 277/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Midden-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Federatie Nederlandse Vakvereniging, Karin van den Burg-Vergeer, Lyoba Tanja Alida Kukupessy, Danielle Paase-Teeuwen, Astrid Johanna Geertruda Petronelle Schenk

Defendant: Smallsteps BV

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, and in particular Article 5(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the protection of workers guaranteed by Articles 3 and 4 of that directive applies in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the transfer of an undertaking takes place following a declaration of insolvency and in the context of a ‘pre-pack’ where that ‘pre-pack’ is prepared before the declaration of insolvency and put into effect immediately after that declaration, and, in particular, a court-appointed prospective insolvency administrator investigates the possibilities for continuation of the activities of that undertaking by a third party and prepares for acts which must be carried out shortly after the insolvency to enable such continuation and, moreover, it is irrelevant in that regard that the ‘pre-pack’ is also aimed at maximising the proceeds of the transfer for all the creditors of the undertaking in question.

(1) OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro

(Case C-143/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) - Article 2(2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Age discrimination - On-call employment contract which may be concluded with persons under 25 years of age - Automatic termination of the employment contract when the worker reaches 25 years of age))

(2017/C 300/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl

Defendant: Antonino Bordonaro

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 2(1), Article 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) 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 not precluding a provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises an employer to conclude an on-call contract with a worker of under 25 years of age, whatever the nature of the services to be provided, and to dismiss that worker as soon as he reaches the age of 25 years, since that provision pursues a legitimate aim of employment and labour market policy and the means laid down for the attainment of that objective are appropriate and necessary.

(1) OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-151/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(c) - Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of navigation within European Union waters and to produce electricity on board a craft - Fuel used by a ship to sail from the place where it was built to the port of another Member State for the purpose of taking on its first commercial cargo))

(2017/C 293/10)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 14(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption laid down by that provision applies to fuel used to sail a ship, without cargo, from a port of a Member State, in the present case that where that ship was built, to a port of another Member State in order to take on cargo to be transported to a port of a third Member State.

2. Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the application of the exemption laid down by that provision on the ground that the supply of energy products for a ship was carried out without complying with the formal requirements laid down by that legislation, even though that supply is in accordance with all the conditions for application laid down by that provision.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/7

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — José Joaquim Neto de Sousa v Portuguese State

(Case C-506/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Directive 84/5/EEC - Directive 90/232/EEC - Driver responsible for the accident which caused the death of his spouse, a passenger in the vehicle - National legislation excluding compensation for material damage suffered by the driver responsible for the accident))

(2017/C 374/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: José Joaquim Neto de Sousa

Defendant: Portuguese State

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of 11 May 2005, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which allow exclusion of the right of a driver of a motor vehicle responsible, by his own fault, for a traffic accident as a result of which his spouse, a passenger in that vehicle, has died, to receive compensation for the material harm which he has suffered as a result of that death.

(1) OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.
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 Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami

(Case C-225/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 11(2) - Decision to impose an entry ban taken before that directive entered into force and relating to a longer period than that provided for by the directive - Time from which the period of the entry ban starts to run))

(2017/C 309/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Party in the main proceedings

Mossa Ouhrami

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that the starting point of the duration of an entry ban, as referred to in that provision, which in principle may not exceed five years, must be calculated from the date on which the person concerned actually left the territory of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/8

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra v Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu

(Case C-149/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘redundancies’ - Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ - Unilateral amendment by the employer of pay and working conditions))

(2017/C 392/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra

Defendant: Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that an employer is required to engage in the consultations provided for in Article 2 when it intends, to the detriment of the employees, to make a unilateral amendment to the terms of remuneration which, if refused by the employees, will result in termination of the employment relationship, to the extent that the conditions laid down in Article 1(1) of that directive are fulfilled, which is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/24

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo and Others v European Commission

(Case C-350/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common fisheries policy - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Claim for compensation - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Emergency measures adopted by the European Commission - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law - Whether possible to rely on that breach - Principle of non-discrimination - Res judicata))

(2017/C 382/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. Snc, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. (represented by: V. Cannizzaro and L. Caroli, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. Snc, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C. and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 — Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission

(Case C-198/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Public service contract - Operational technical assistance to set up and manage a network facility for the implementation of the European Innovation Partnership ‘Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’ - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Abnormally low bid - Adversarial procedure))

(2017/C 424/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (represented by: R. Sciaudone, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Agriconsulting Europe SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.