ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/18

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — Madaus GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen

(Case C-441/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 3824 90 97 and 2106 90 92 - Product in powder form composed of calcium carbonate (95 %) and modified starch (5 %)))

(2017/C 104/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Madaus GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bremen

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature 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, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013 must be interpreted to the effect that a product, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, used for the manufacture of calcium tablets in the form of simple tablets, effervescent tablets and chewable tablets, consisting of chemically defined calcium carbonate in powder form and, to improve suitability for use in tablets, added modified starch, and with a starch content of less than 5 % by weight, must be classified under heading 2106 of that nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/5

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — NEW WAVE CZ, a.s. v ALLTOYS, spol. s r. o.

(Case C-427/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right - Right of information - Request for information in proceedings - Proceedings linked to the action in which an infringement of an intellectual property right has been found))

(2017/C 070/07)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NEW WAVE CZ, a.s.

Defendant: ALLTOYS, spol. s r. o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) 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 applying to a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which, after the definitive termination of proceedings in which it was held that an intellectual property right was infringed, the applicant in separate proceedings seeks information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services by which that intellectual property right is infringed.

(1) OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — ITV Broadcasting Limited, ITV2 Limited, ITV Digital Channels Limited, Channel Four Television Corporation, 4 Ventures Limited, Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited, ITV Studios Limited v TVCatchup Limited, TVCatchup (UK) Limited, Media Resources Limited

(Case C-275/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Article 9 - Access to cable of broadcasting services - Concept of ‘cable’ - Retransmission of broadcasts of commercial television broadcasters by a third party via the internet - ‘Live streaming’))

(2017/C 121/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: ITV Broadcasting Limited, ITV2 Limited, ITV Digital Channels Limited, Channel Four Television Corporation, 4 Ventures Limited, Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited, ITV Studios Limited

Respondents: TVCatchup Limited, TVCatchup (UK) Limited, Media Resources Limited

Interveners: The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Virgin Media Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9 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 specifically the concept of ‘access to cable of broadcasting services’, must be interpreted as not covering, and not permitting, national legislation which provides that copyright is not infringed in the case of the immediate retransmission by cable, including, where relevant, via the internet, in the area of initial broadcast, of works broadcast on television channels subject to public service obligations.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Secretario Judicial del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa — Spain) — Ramón Margarit Panicello v Pilar Hernández Martínez

(Case C-503/15) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Registrar - Definition of ‘a court or tribunal’ - Compulsory jurisdiction - Exercise of judicial functions - Independence - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2017/C 112/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Secretario Judicial del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ramón Margarit Panicello

Defendant: Pilar Hernández Martínez

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to rule on the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Secretario Judicial del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa (Registrar of the Single-Member Court dealing with matters involving violence against women, Terrassa, Spain).

(1) OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/7

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate v Marci Identi

(Case C-493/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Article 4(3) TEU - Sixth Directive - State aid - Procedure discharging bankrupt natural persons from debts (esdebitazione) - Ineligibility of VAT debts))

(2017/C 151/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant: Marci Identi

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and the rules on State aid, must be interpreted to the effect that it does not preclude value added tax debts from being declared irrecoverable under national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, providing for a bankruptcy discharge procedure by means of which a court may, under certain conditions, declare irrecoverable the debts of a natural person which have not been settled by the close of the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against that person.

(1) OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Luxembourg) — ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-321/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading in the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 3(a) - Articles 11 and 12 - Cessation of activities of an installation - Surrender of unused allowances - Period from and including 2008 to 2012 - No compensation - Broad logic of the greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading scheme))

(2017/C 144/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA

Defendant: State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 219/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows the competent authority to require the surrender, without full or partial compensation, of unused allowances which have been improperly issued to an operator, as a result of the failure by the latter to comply with the obligation to inform the competent authority in due time of the cessation of the operation of an installation.

The allowances issued after an operator has ceased the activities performed in the installation to which those allowances relate, without informing the competent authority beforehand, cannot be classified as emissions ‘allowances’ within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Regulation No 219/2009.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/14

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic

(Case C-668/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin - Directive 2000/43/EC - Article 2(2)(a) and (b) - Credit institution requiring persons applying for a loan to purchase a car who have produced a driving licence indicating a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association as a form of identification to provide additional proof of identity in the form of a copy of a passport or residence permit))

(2017/C 168/17)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jyske Finans A/S

Defendant: Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin is to be interpreted as not precluding the practice of a credit institution which requires a customer whose driving licence indicates a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association to produce additional identification in the form of a copy of the customer’s passport or residence permit.

(1) OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Furkan Tekdemir, legally represented by Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir v Kreis Bergstraße

(Case C-652/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - ‘Standstill’ clause - Right of residence of members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State - Existence of an overriding reason in the public interest justifying new restrictions - Efficient management of migration flows - Requirement for nationals of third countries under 16 years old to hold a residence permit - Proportionality))

(2017/C 161/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Furkan Tekdemir, legally represented by Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir

Defendant: Kreis Bergstraße

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 must be interpreted as meaning that the objective of efficient management of migration flows may constitute an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying a national measure, introduced after the entry into force of that decision in the Member State in question, requiring nationals of third countries under the age of 16 years old to hold a residence permit in order to enter and reside in that Member State.

Such a measure is not, however, proportionate to the objective pursued where the procedure for its implementation as regards child nationals of third countries born in the Member State in question and one of whose parents is a Turkish worker lawfully residing in that Member State, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, goes beyond what is necessary for attaining that objective.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/9

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai — France) — Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

(Case C-690/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Officials of the European Union - Staff Regulations - Compulsory affiliation to the social security scheme of the EU institutions - Real estate income received in a Member State - Liability to pay General Social Contribution, social levy and additional contributions under the law of a Member State - Participating in the funding of the social security scheme of that Member State))

(2017/C 239/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Douai

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wenceslas de Lobkowicz

Defendant: Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, and the provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the joint social security scheme of the EU institutions must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that income from real estate received in a Member State by an official of the European Union who has his or her domicile for tax purposes in that Member State is subject to contributions and social levies that are allocated for the funding of the social security scheme of that same Member State.

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Onix Asigurari SA v Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

(Case C-559/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 73/239/EEC - Directive 92/49/EEC - Principle of single authorisation - Principle of supervision by the home Member State - Article 40(6) - Concept of ‘irregularities’ - Reputation of shareholders - Prohibition on insurance companies established in a Member State concluding new contracts within the territory of another Member State))

(2017/C 202/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Onix Asigurari SA

Defendant: Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) and, in particular, Article 40(6) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding the supervisory authorities of a Member State from taking emergency measures, as against an undertaking providing direct insurance other than life assurance operating in its territory under the freedom to provide services, in order to protect the interests of the insured persons and other persons who may benefit from the insurance cover taken out, such as prohibiting it from concluding new insurance contracts in that territory, on the grounds of the failure, whether pre-existing or otherwise, assessed discretionarily, to satisfy a subjective precondition laid down for the purpose of the issue of authorisation to engage in insurance business, such as the requirement of good repute. However, that directive does not preclude that Member State, in exercising the prerogatives it has in emergency situations, from establishing whether certain inadequacies or uncertainties relating to the good repute of the directors of the insurance undertaking concerned present a real and imminent danger that irregularities will occur to the detriment of the interests of the insured persons or other persons who may benefit from the insurance cover taken out and, if so, from taking appropriate measures immediately, such as, where appropriate, prohibiting the conclusion of new contracts in its territory.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Mohammad Zadeh Khorassani v Kathrin Pflanz

(Case C-678/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/39/EC - Markets in financial instruments - Article 4(1)(2) - Definition of ‘investment services’ - point 1 of Section A of Annex I - Reception and transmission of orders in relation to one or more financial instruments - Potential inclusion of brokering with a view to concluding a portfolio management contract))

(2017/C 277/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohammad Zadeh Khorassani

Defendant: Kathrin Pflanz

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(2) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC, read in conjunction with point 1 of Section A of Annex I to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the investment service consisting in the reception and transmission of orders in relation to one or more financial instruments does not include brokering with a view to concluding a contract covering portfolio management services.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Wallenborn Transports SA v Hauptzollamt Gießen

(Case C-571/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - External transit procedure - Goods transported through a free port located in a Member State - Legislation of that Member State excluding free ports from its national fiscal territory - Removal from customs supervision - Incurrence of a customs debt and chargeability of VAT))

(2017/C 249/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wallenborn Transports SA

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Gießen

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first paragraph of Article 61 and the first subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2007/75/EC of 20 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the reference to ‘one of the arrangements or situations referred to’ in Article 156 of that directive includes free zones.

2. Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that the removal of goods from customs supervision in a free zone does not give rise to the chargeable event or make import value added tax chargeable if those goods did not enter the economic network of the European Union, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

3. The second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that, when a customs debt arises by virtue of Article 203 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, and no value added tax debt is consequently incurred, on account of the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, Article 204 of the latter regulation may not be applied for the sole purpose of providing a basis for charging value added tax.

(1) OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
2.

Article 9 of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, must be interpreted as not precluding a selection procedure for the allocation of radio frequencies free of charge, which was commenced in order to remedy the unlawful exclusion of certain operators from the market, from being replaced by a fees-based procedure initiated under an amended Radio Frequency Allocation Plan subsequent to a reduction in their number, provided that the new selection procedure is based on objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria and that it is in line with the objectives laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) of Directive 2002/21, as amended. It is for the referring court to ascertain, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case, whether the conditions set out in the fee-based selection procedure are such as to allow an actual entry of new entrants into the digital television market without unduly favouring analogue or digital incumbents.