ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period for an irregularity committed in the context of a ‘multiannual programme’, such as the project at issue in the main proceedings, runs from the date on which the irregularity in question was committed, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95; if the irregularity is ‘continuous or repeated’, the limitation period runs from the day on which the irregularity ceases, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95. In addition, a ‘multiannual programme’ is regarded as ‘definitively terminated’, within the meaning of the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, on the end date provided for in respect of that programme, in accordance with the rules which govern it. In particular, a multiannual programme governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999, Council Regulation (EC) No 1265/1999 of 21 June 1999 and the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be regarded as being ‘definitively terminated’, within the meaning of that provision, on the date indicated in the European Commission decision approving that project as the deadline for completion of the work and for the making of the payments of the eligible expenditure related thereto, without prejudice to any extension, by a new decision of the Commission to that effect.
1.

Declares that, by imposing the obligation to pay in advance the full amount of the vehicle registration tax applicable in the event of permanent registration, whatever the actual limited duration of the proposed use in Ireland of a vehicle imported there, and although the temporary duration of the lease or rental has been determined precisely and is known in advance, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/3

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-465/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Scope - Article 2(4)(b) - Electricity used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction - Concept))

(2017/C 374/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Operative part of the judgment

The third indent of Article 2(4)(b) 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 electricity used for the operation of turbo blowers intended to compress the air subsequently used in a blast furnace in the process of producing pig iron by chemical reduction of iron ore is not ‘electricity used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2017 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

(Case C-650/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) - Article 57 - Substances of very high concern - Identification - Article 2(8)(b) - Exemption - Article 3(15) - Definition of ‘intermediate’ - Acrylamide))

(2017/C 437/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS (represented by E. Mullier and R. Cana, avocats, and by D. Abrahams, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (represented by M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck and S. Raes, advocaten), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by M. Bulterman and B. Koopman, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by K. Talabér-Ritz, E. Manhaeve, K. Mifsud-Bonnici and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission to bear their own costs

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — ‘DNB BANKA’ AS v Valsts ienemumu dienests

(Case C-326/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(f) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Exemption for the supply of services by independent groups of persons for their members - Applicability to financial services))

(2017/C 392/06)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘DNB BANKA’ AS

Defendant: Valsts ienemumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that the exemption provided for in that provision relates only to independent groups of persons whose members carry on an activity in the public interest referred to in Article 132 of that directive and that, therefore, the services supplied by a group whose members carry on an economic activity in the area of financial services, which does not constitute such an activity in the public interest, are not entitled to that exemption.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 January 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Raad van State — Netherlands) — College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort v X BV (C-360/15), Visser Vastgoed Beleggingen BV v Raad van de gemeente Appingedam (C-31/16)

(Joined Cases C-360/15 and C-31/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Scope - Article 2(2)(c) - Exclusion of electronic communications services and networks - Article 4(1) - Concept of ‘service’ - Retail trade in goods - Chapter III - Freedom of establishment of service providers - Applicability in purely internal situations - Article 15 - Requirements to be evaluated - Territorial restriction - Zoning plan prohibiting the activity of retail trade in goods other than bulky goods in geographical zones situated outside the city centre - Protection of the urban environment - Authorisation of electronic communications services and networks - Directive 2002/20/EC - Financial payments attached to rights to install facilities for a public electronic communications network))

(2018/C 112/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort (C-360/15), Visser Vastgoed Beleggingen BV (C-31/16)

Defendants: X BV (C-360/15), Raad van de gemeente Appingedam (C-31/16)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to fees/charges for the payment of which liability is connected with the rights of undertakings authorised to provide electronic communications networks and services to install cables for a public electronic communications network.

2. Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as meaning that the activity of retail trade in goods constitutes a ‘service’ for the purposes of that directive.

3. The provisions of Chapter III of Directive 2006/123, on freedom of establishment of providers, must be interpreted as meaning that they also apply to a situation where all the relevant elements are confined to a single Member State.

4. Article 15(1) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as not precluding rules contained in a municipal zoning plan from prohibiting retail trade activity in goods other than bulky goods in geographical zones situated outside the city centre of that municipality, provided that all the conditions laid down in Article 15(3) of that directive are satisfied, which it is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/2

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 — Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE), Sace BT SpA v European Commission, Italian Republic

(Case C-472/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Export credit insurance - Reinsurance cover provided by a public undertaking to its subsidiary - Capital contributions to cover the subsidiary’s losses - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Private investor test))

(2018/C 022/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE), Sace BT SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa and G. Rizza, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, G. Conte and D. Grespan, acting as Agents) Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE) and Sace BT SpA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/10

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

(Case C-145/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Validity - Regulation (EU) No 301/2012 - Headings 8703 and 8711 - Three-wheeled motor vehicle called ‘Spyder’))

(2017/C 112/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aramex Nederland BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out 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 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that a three-wheeled vehicle, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, fitted with tyres manufactured for three-wheeled motorcycles but similar to those for motor cars, steered using a handlebar and fitted with a steering system based on the Ackermann principle, falls within heading 8703 of that nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/23

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev

(Case C-439/16 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2016/343/EU - Articles 3 and 6 - Temporal application - Review by the courts of the remand in custody pending trial of an accused - National legislation prohibiting, during the trial stage of the proceedings, inquiry into whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused has committed an offence - Incompatibility with Article 5(1)(c) and (4) of the European Convention on Human Rights - Discretion left by the national case-law to the national courts to decide whether or not to apply that convention))

(2017/C 006/28)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main proceedings

Emil Milev

Operative part of the judgment

The opinion delivered on 7 April 2016 by the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation, Bulgaria) at the beginning of the transposition period of Directive 2016/343/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, which confers on the national courts having jurisdiction to hear an action brought against a custody decision the ability to decide whether, during the trial stage of the criminal proceedings, the continued custody of an accused must be subject to a review by the court of whether, in addition, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he committed the offence with which he is charged is not likely seriously to compromise, after the expiry of the period prescribed for transposition of the directive, the attainment of the objectives prescribed by that directive.

(1) OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
1.

Declares that, by authorising the construction of the coal-fired power plant in Moorburg, near Hamburg (Germany), without conducting an appropriate and comprehensive assessment of its implications, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/12

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger registrierte Genossenschaft mbH (AKM) v Zürs.net Betriebs GmbH

(Case C-138/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Right of communication of works to the public - Article 3(1) - Exceptions and limitations - Article 5(3)(o) - Broadcast of television programmes through a local cable network - National law laying down exceptions for installations allowing access to a maximum of 500 subscribers and for the retransmission of broadcasts of the public broadcaster in national territory))

(2017/C 151/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger registrierte Genossenschaft mbH (AKM)

Defendant: Zürs.net Betriebs GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society and Article 11bis of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, in the version resulting from the Paris Act of 24 July 1971, as amended on 28 September 1979, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the simultaneous, full and unaltered transmission of programmes broadcast by the national broadcasting corporation, by means of cables on national territory, is not subject, under the exclusive right of communication to the public, to the requirement that authorisation be obtained from the author, provided that it is merely a technical means of communication and was taken into account by the author of the work when the latter authorised the original communication, this being a matter for the national court to ascertain.

Article 5 of Directive 2001/29, in particular paragraph 3(o) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that a broadcast made by means of a communal antenna installation, when the number of subscribers connected to the antenna is no more than 500, is not subject, under the exclusive right of communication to the public, to the requirement that authorisation be obtained from the author, and as meaning that that legislation must, therefore, be applied consistently with Article 3(1) of that directive, this being a matter for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/16

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland — Netherlands) — Bas Jacob Adriaan Krijgsman v Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

(Case C-302/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(1)(c) - Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Contract for carriage concluded through an online travel agent - Air carrier having informed the travel agent in good time of a change to the scheduled time for the flight - Travel agent having communicated that information to a passenger by email 10 days before the flight))

(2017/C 239/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bas Jacob Adriaan Krijgsman

Defendant: Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the operating air carrier is required to pay the compensation specified in those provisions in the case where a flight was cancelled and that information was not communicated to the passenger at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure, including in the case where the air carrier, at least two weeks before that time, communicated that information to the travel agent via whom the contract for carriage had been entered into with the passenger concerned and the passenger had not been informed of that cancellation by that agent within that period.

(1) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
1.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the decision of a company of which a Member State is the main shareholder to accept, in order to extinguish a debt, a transfer in lieu of payment of an asset which is the property of another company of which that Member State is the only shareholder and to pay a sum corresponding to the difference between the estimated value of that asset and the amount of that debt is liable to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU if: — that decision constitutes an advantage granted directly or indirectly by means of State resources and is imputable to the State, — the beneficiary undertaking has not obtained facilities comparable to a private creditor, and — that decision is liable to affect trade between the Member States and distort competition. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether those conditions are met.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/17

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission, Republic of Latvia

(Case C-279/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Action for annulment - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain))

(2017/C 277/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and V. Ester Casas, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents), Republic of Latvia

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/18

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v TofuTown.com GmbH

(Case C-422/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 78 and Annex VII, Part III - Decision 2010/791/EU - Definitions, designations and sales descriptions - ‘Milk’ and ‘milk products’ - Designations used for the promotion and marketing of purely plant-based products))

(2017/C 277/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Trier

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

Defendant: TofuTown.com GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78(2) and Annex VII, Part III to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 must be interpreted as precluding the term ‘milk’ and the designations reserved by that regulation exclusively for milk products from being used to designate a purely plant based product in marketing or advertising, even if those terms are expanded upon by clarifying or descriptive terms indicating the plant origin of the product at issue, unless that product is listed in Annex I to Commission Decision 2010/791/EU of 20 December 2010 listing the products referred to in the second subparagraph of point III(1) of Annex XII to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

(1) OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.
1.

The provisions of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, read in the light of Articles 191 and 193 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that, to the extent that the situation in the main proceedings comes within the scope of Directive 2004/35 — this being a matter for the referring court to determine — such provisions do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which identifies another category of persons who, in addition to those using the land on which unlawful pollution was produced, share joint liability for the environmental damage, namely the owners of that land, without it being necessary to establish a causal link between the conduct of the owners and the damage established, provided that such legislation complies with the general principles of EU law, all relevant provisions of the EU and FEU Treaties and of the acts of secondary law of the European Union.