ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted to the effect that it precludes legislation of a Member State implementing that provision which, in a situation where the surrender of a foreign national in possession of a residence permit of indefinite duration in the territory of that Member State is sought by another Member State in order to execute a custodial sentence imposed on that national by a decision which has become final, first, does not authorise such a surrender, and secondly, merely lays down the obligation for the judicial authorities of the first Member State to inform the judicial authorities of the second Member State that they are willing to take over the enforcement of the judgment, where, on the date of the refusal to surrender, the execution has not in fact been taken over and where, furthermore, in the event that taking over that execution subsequently proves to be impossible, such a refusal may not be challenged.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/3

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 — Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (C-86/15 P), Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (C-86/15 P), Alfa Acciai SpA (C-87/15 P) v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-86/15 P and C-87/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian producers of reinforcing bars - Fixing of prices and limiting and controlling output and sales - Infringement of Article 65 CS - Annulment of the initial decision by the General Court of the European Union - Decision re-adopted on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Failure to issue a new statement of objections - Lack of a hearing following the annulment of the initial decision - Time taken in the proceedings before the General Court))

(2017/C 392/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (C-86/15 P), Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (C-86/15 P), Alfa Acciai SpA (C-87/15 P) (represented by: D.M. Fosselard, avocat, D. Slater, Solicitor, and A. Duron, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Manzini, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 9 December 2014, Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission (T-92/10, not published, EU:T:2014:1032), and of 9 December 2014, Alfa Acciai v Commission (T-85/10, not published, EU:T:2014:1037);

2. Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in so far as it concerns Ferriera Valsabbia SpA, Valsabbia Investimenti SpA and Alfa Acciai SpA;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ferriera Valsabbia SpA, Valsabbia Investimenti SpA and Alfa Acciai SpA both at first instance and in the present appeals.

(1) OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
1.

Declares that, by not having ensured secondary or equivalent treatment of urban waste water from the agglomerations of Prosotsani, Doxato, Eleftheroupoli, Vagia and Galatista, whose population equivalent is between 2 000 and 10 000, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) 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;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain)) — María Begoña Espadas Recio v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SPEE)

(Case C-98/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Clause 4 - Male and female workers - Equal treatment in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4 - ‘Vertical’ part-time worker - Unemployment benefit - National legislation excluding days not worked from the contribution period for the purpose of establishing the duration of the benefit))

(2018/C 005/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María Begoña Espadas Recio

Defendant: Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SPEE)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, is not applicable to a contributory unemployment benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

2. Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, in the case of ‘vertical’ part-time work, excludes days not worked from the calculation of days in respect of which contributions have been paid, and therefore reduces the unemployment benefit payment period, when it is established that the majority of vertical part-time workers are women who are adversely affected by such legislation.

(1) OJ C 171, 26.5.2015
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2017 — Romania v European Commission

(Case C-599/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Own resources of the European Union - Decision 2007/436/EC - Financial liability of the Member States - Loss of certain import duties - Obligation to pay the European Commission the amount corresponding to the loss - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Letter from the European Commission - Concept of ‘actionable measure’))

(2017/C 437/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: Romania (represented by: R.-H. Radu, M. Chicu and A. Wellman, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G.-D. Balan, A. Caeiros and A. Tokár and by Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Stranz, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Romania to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Slovak Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-356/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 11 and 12 and Article 76(6) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 5 - Posting of workers - Affiliation to a social security scheme - Combating fraud - A1 Certificate - Refusal of recognition by the Member State where the professional activity is carried out in the event of fraud or abuse))

(2018/C 319/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and by P. Paepe, avocat)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, M. Browne, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by C. Toland, Barrister-at-Law)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting Articles 23 and 24 of the Programme Law of 27 December 2012, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1), Article 12(1) and Article 76(6) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, and under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-521/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1289 - Imposition of a fine on a Member State in the context of economic and budgetary surveillance of the euro area - Manipulation of statistical data relating to the deficit of the Member State concerned - Jurisdiction - Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 - Article 8(1) and (3) - Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU - Articles 2(1) and (3) and 14(2) - Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 - Articles 3(1), 8(1), 11 and 11a - Rights of defence - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41(1) - Right to good administration - Articles 121, 126 and 136 TFEU - Protocol No 12 on the excessive deficit procedure - Existence of an infringement - Misrepresentations - Determination of the fine - Principle that penal provisions may not have retroactive effect))

(2018/C 072/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, A. Rubio González and A. Sampol Pucurull, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Dumitriu-Segnana, A.F. Jensen and A. de Gregorio Merino, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J.-P. Keppenne, M. Clausen and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
2.

Article 49 TFEU and Article 11(1)(a) of Directive 90/434 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the case of a cross-border merger, makes the granting of the tax advantages applicable to such an operation under that directive, in the present case the deferral of the taxation of the capital gains relating to the assets transferred by a French company to a company established in another Member State, subject to a process of prior approval under which, in order to obtain that approval, the taxpayer must show that the operation concerned is justified for commercial reasons, that it does not have as its principal objective, or as one of its principal objectives, tax evasion or tax avoidance and that its terms make it possible for the capital gains deferred for tax purposes to be taxed in the future, whereas in the case of a national merger such a deferral is granted without the taxpayer being made subject to such a process.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/22

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — M.S. v P.S.

(Case C-283/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 41(1) - Recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Enforcement of a decision in a Member State - Application submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement - National legislation requiring recourse to be had to the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement))

(2017/C 104/32)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.S.

Defendant: P.S.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Chapter IV of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, in particular Article 41(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a maintenance creditor who has obtained an order in one Member State and wishes to enforce it in another Member State may make an application directly to the competent authority of the latter Member State, such as a specialised court, and cannot be required to submit the application to that court through the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement;

2. Member States are required to give full effect to the right laid down in Article 41(1) of Regulation No 4/2009 by amending, where appropriate, their rules of procedure. In any event, it is for the national court to apply Article 41(1), if necessary refusing to apply any conflicting provision of national law and, as a consequence, to allow a maintenance creditor to submit her application directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement, even if national law does not make provision for such an application.

(1) OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’

(Case C-13/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 7(f) - Personal data - Conditions for the lawful processing of personal data - Concept of ‘necessity for the realisation of the legitimate interests of a third party’ - Request for disclosure of personal data of a person responsible for a road accident in order to exercise a legal claim - Obligation on the controller to grant such a request - No such obligation))

(2017/C 213/10)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde

Defendant: Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as not imposing the obligation to disclose personal data to a third party in order to enable him to bring an action for damages before a civil court for harm caused by the person concerned by the protection of that data. However, Article 7(f) of that directive does not preclude such disclosure on the basis of national law.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
1)

Declares that, by accepting in a gravel mine situated on the territory of the municipality of Lovrenc na Dravskem polju (Slovenia) a persistent and continuous danger to the environment and human health, as a result of the inappropriate storage of large quantities of disused tyres, of the mixture of the latter with other waste and the landfill thereof in infringement of the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Slovenia failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3)(d) of that directive, as well as Articles 12 and 13 and Article 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/10

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Sharda Europe BVBA v Administración del Estado, Syngenta Agro SA

(Case C-293/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Directive 2008/69/EC - Article 3(2) - Procedure for re-evaluation, by the Member States, of authorised plant protection products - Time limit - Divergence between the different language versions))

(2017/C 249/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sharda Europe BVBA

Defendants: Administración del Estado, Syngenta Agro SA

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Directive 2008/69/EC of 1 July 2008 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include clofentezine, dicamba, difenoconazole, diflubenzuron, imazaquin, lenacil, oxadiazon, picloram and pyriproxyfen as active substances, must be interpreted as meaning that the date of 31 December 2008 to which it refers corresponds, for an already authorised plant protection product containing one of the active substances listed in the Annex to that directive, to the deadline by which all the active substances contained in that plant protection product, other than those listed in the Annex to Directive 2008/69, must have been included on the list in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, in order for an obligation to carry out the re-evaluation of that product, provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(2), to arise.

(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon — France) — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg

(Case C-99/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 77/249/EEC - Article 4 - Practice of the legal profession - Router for accessing the private virtual network for lawyers (RPVA) - Router for RPVA access - Refusal to issue to a lawyer registered at a Bar of another Member State - Discriminatory measure))

(2017/C 239/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jean-Philippe Lahorgue

Defendants: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux (CNB), Conseil des barreaux européens (CCBE), Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg

Intervening party: Ministère public

Operative part of the judgment

The refusal, on the part of the competent authorities of a Member State, to issue a router for access to the private virtual network for lawyers to a lawyer duly registered at a Bar of another Member State, for the sole reason that that lawyer is not registered at a Bar of the first Member State, in which he wishes to practise his profession as a free provider of services, in situations where the obligation to work in conjunction with another lawyer is not imposed by law, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services under Article 4 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, read in the light of Article 56 TFEU and the third paragraph of Article 57 TFEU. It is for the national court to determine whether such a refusal, in the light of the context in which it is put forward, genuinely serves the objectives of consumer protection and the proper administration of justice which might justify it and whether the resulting restrictions do not appear to be disproportionate in regard to those objectives.

(1) OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — ‘L.Č.’ IK v Valsts ienemumu dienests

(Case C-288/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Article 146(1)(e) - Exemptions on exportation - Supply of services directly connected with the exportation or the importation of goods - Meaning))

(2017/C 283/12)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘L.Č.’ IK

Defendant: Valsts ienemumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Article 146(1)(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption laid down in that provision does not apply to a supply of services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to a transaction consisting in the transport of goods to a third country, where those services are not provided directly to the consignor or the consignee of those goods.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/11

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 — Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-19/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Fight against terrorism - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Freezing of funds and economic resources of natural and legal persons included in a list drawn up by the United Nations Sanctions Committee - Re-listing of those persons in Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002 after annulment of the original listing - Disappearance of the legal person in the course of the proceedings - Capacity to be a party to judicial proceedings))

(2017/C 277/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd (represented by: N. Garcia-Lora, Solicitor, and E. Grieves, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek, D. Gauci and J. Norris-Usher, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne, J.-P. Hix and H. Marcos Fraile, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Mr Ghunia Abdrabbah and Mr Taher Nasuf to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
1.

Article 1(1) of Council 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 must be interpreted to the effect that, where a municipal undertaking, whose sole shareholder is a municipality, is wound up by a decision of the municipality’s executive body and its activities are transferred in part to the municipality to be carried on directly by it and in part to another municipal undertaking re-formed for that purpose, whose sole shareholder is also that same municipality, that situation falls within the scope of the directive, provided that the identity of the undertaking in question is preserved after the transfer, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.