ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v Accord Healthcare OÜ

(Case C-572/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Industrial and commercial property - Patent - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 21(2) - Transitional provisions - Certificate granted in accordance with the national legislation of a Member State prior to its accession to the European Union - Interpretation of Article 21(2) - Duration of validity of the certificate - Validity of Article 21(2) - Adjustment to secondary legislation resulting directly from the Act of Accession - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2016/C 441/06)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG

Defendant: Accord Healthcare OÜ

Operative part of the judgment

1. The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of Article 21(2) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.

2. Article 21(2) of Regulation No 469/2009, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a supplementary protection certificate, relating to a given medicinal product, granted by a Member State prior to its accession to the European Union. To the extent that that medicinal product was the subject, within the European Economic Area, of a marketing authorisation before that granted in that Member State, and, as the case may be, before its accession to the European Union, only the first marketing authorisation must be taken into account for the purposes of determining the duration of validity of the supplementary protection certificate.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2016 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), LG Electronics Inc.

(Case C-43/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative mark including the word elements ‘compressor technology’ - Opposition of the proprietor of the word marks KOMPRESSOR PLUS and KOMPRESSOR - Partial refusal of registration - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 60 - Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Article 8(3) - ‘Ancillary’ appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Weak distinctive character of the earlier national marks - Likelihood of confusion))

(2017/C 006/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch and R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent), LG Electronics Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/14

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Orange, formerly France Télécom v European Commission

(Case C-211/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - State aid - Aid granted by the French Republic to France Télécom - Reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom - Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Télécom - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions - Definition of aid - Definition of economic advantage - Selective nature - Adverse effect on competition - Distortion of the facts - No statement of reasons - Substitution of grounds))

(2017/C 006/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Orange to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
1.

Article 1(1), Article 2(1)(b) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘lending’, within the meaning of those provisions, covers the lending of a digital copy of a book, where that lending is carried out by placing that copy on the server of a public library and allowing a user to reproduce that copy by downloading it onto his own computer, bearing in mind that only one copy may be downloaded during the lending period and that, after that period has expired, the downloaded copy can no longer be used by that user.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Timothy Martin Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd’ and Others v Westminster City Council

(Case C-316/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 13(2) - Authorisation procedures - Concept of charges which may be incurred))

(2017/C 014/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The Queen, on the application of: Timothy Martin Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd’, James Alan Poulton, Harmony Ltd, Gatisle Ltd, trading as ‘Janus’, Winart Publications Ltd, Darker Enterprises Ltd, Swish Publications Ltd

Defendant: Westminster City Council

Interveners: The Architects’ Registration Board, The Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, The Bar Standards Board, The Care Quality Commission, The Farriers’ Registration Council, The Law Society, The Bar Council, The Local Government Association, Her Majesty’s Treasury

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(2) 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 precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the requirement for the payment of a fee, at the time of submitting an application for the grant or renewal of authorisation, part of which corresponds to the costs relating to the management and enforcement of the authorisation scheme concerned, even if that part is refundable if that application is refused.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Roma — Italy) — Mercedes Benz Italia SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3

(Case C-378/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 17(5), third subparagraph, point (d) - Scope - Application of a deductible proportion to the value added tax charged on the acquisition of all goods and services used by a taxable person - Incidental transactions - Use of turnover as an indicator))

(2017/C 046/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mercedes Benz Italia SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3

Operative part of the judgment

Point (d) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) and Article 19 of 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, must be interpreted as not precluding national rules and practice, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which require a taxable person:

— to apply to all goods and services which he has acquired a deductible proportion based on turnover, without providing for a method of calculation which is based on the nature and actual destination of each of the goods and services acquired and which objectively reflects the portion of the expenditure actually to be attributed to each of the taxed and untaxed activities; and

— to refer to the composition of his turnover in order to identify transactions which may be classified as ‘incidental’, in so far as the assessment carried out for that purpose also takes account of the relationship between those transactions and the taxable activities of that taxable person and, as the case may be, of the use which they entail of the goods and services which are subject to value added tax.

(1) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Nelsons GmbH v Ayonnax Nutripharm GmbH, Bachblütentreff Ltd

(Case C-177/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer information and protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Nutrition and health claims made on foods - Transitional measures - Article 28(2) - Products bearing trade marks or brand names existing before 1 January 2005 - ‘Bach flower’ remedies - European Union mark RESCUE - Products marketed as medicinal products before 1 January 2005 and as foodstuffs after that date))

(2017/C 030/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nelsons GmbH

Defendants: Ayonnax Nutripharm GmbH, Bachblütentreff Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28(2), first sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies in the situation in which a foodstuff bearing a trade mark or brand name was, before 1 January 2005, marketed as a medicinal product and then, although having the same physical characteristics and bearing the same trade mark or brand name, as a foodstuff after that date.

(1) OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto — Italy) — Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus v Comune di Venezia and Others

(Case C-444/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Article 3(3) - Plans and programmes which require an environmental assessment only where the Member States determine that they are likely to have significant environmental effects - Validity in the light of the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Meaning of use of ‘small areas at local level’ - National legislation referring to the size of the areas concerned))

(2017/C 053/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus

Defendants: Comune di Venezia, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Regione Veneto, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero della Difesa — Capitaneria di Porto di Venezia, Agenzia del Demanio

Intervener: Società Ca’ Roman Srl

Operative part of the judgment

1. The examination of the first question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, in the light of the provisions of the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2. Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/42, read in conjunction with recital 10 of that directive, must be interpreted to the effect that the term ‘small areas at local level’ in paragraph 3 must be defined with reference to the size of the area concerned where the following conditions are fulfilled: — the plan or programme is prepared and/or adopted by a local authority, as opposed to a regional or national authority, and — that area inside the territorial jurisdiction of the local authority is small in size relative to that territorial jurisdiction.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.
2.

Article 96(2) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, is to be interpreted as meaning that a transport subcontractor, such as the subcontractor in the main proceedings, who has, first, handed over the goods to the main carrier, together with the transit document, at the car park of the customs office of destination and, second, assumed responsibility for the goods once again in order to continue with the transport, was under an obligation to ensure that the goods were produced at the customs office of destination and may be held liable for any failure to ensure that the goods were thus produced only if he was aware, when he again assumed responsibility for the goods, that the transit procedure had not been properly completed, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-471/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Special scheme for taxing the profit margin - Concept of ‘second-hand goods’ - Sales of parts removed from end-of-life vehicles))

(2017/C 070/09)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that used parts, from end-of-life motor vehicles purchased by a vehicle reuse undertaking from a private individual, intended to be sold as spare parts, constitute ‘second-hand goods’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that the supplies of such parts, effected by a taxable dealer, are subject to the application of the profit margin scheme.

(1) OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/3

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 January 2017 — Timab Industries, Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) v European Commission

(Case C-411/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for animal feed phosphates - Allocation of sales quotas, coordination of prices and conditions of sale and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Appellants’ withdrawal from the settlement procedure - Unlimited jurisdiction - Protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment - Reasonable length of proceedings))

(2017/C 063/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Timab Industries, Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) (represented by: N. Lenoir, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Timab Industries and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Hansen & Rosenthal KG, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-90/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Evidence of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction - Distortion of evidence - Obligation to state reasons - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Principle of legality - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of proportionality))

(2017/C 112/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Hansen & Rosenthal KG, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH (represented by: J. Schulte, M. Dallmann and K. Künstner, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dimsisses the appeal;

2. Orders Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/15

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-283/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax legislation - Income tax - National of a Member State receiving income in that Member State and in a non-Member State, and residing in another Member State - Tax advantage to take account of his personal and family circumstances))

(2017/C 104/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, the tax legislation of which permits the deduction of ‘negative income’ relating to a dwelling, from refusing the benefit of that deduction to a self-employed non-resident where that person receives, within that Member State, 60 % of his total income and does not receive, within the Member State where his dwelling is located, income that enables him to qualify for an equivalent right to deduct.

2. The injunction imposed by the answer to the first question concerns any Member State of activity within which a self-employed person receives income enabling him to claim there an equivalent right of deduction, in proportion to the share of that income received within each Member State of activity. In that regard, a ‘Member State of activity’ is any Member State that has the power to tax such income from the activities of a non-resident as is received within its territory, irrespective of where the activities are actually performed.

3. The fact that the non-resident taxpayer concerned receives part of his taxable income not within a Member State, but within a non-Member State, is of no relevance to the answer to the second question.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — GE Healthcare GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-173/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Community Customs Code - Article 32(1)(c) - Determination of the customs value - Royalties or licence fees in respect of the goods being valued - Meaning - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 160 - ‘Condition of sale’ of the goods being valued - Payment of royalties or licence fees to an undertaking related to both the seller and the buyer of the goods - Article 158(3) - Adjustment and apportionment measures))

(2017/C 144/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GE Healthcare GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 32(1)(c) 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, must be interpreted as, first, not requiring the amount of royalties or licence fees to be determined at the time when a licence agreement was concluded or when the customs debt was incurred in order for those royalties or licence fees to be regarded as related to the goods being valued and, second, allowing such royalties or licence fees to be ‘related to the goods being valued’ even if those royalties or licence fees relate only partly to those goods.

2. Article 32(1)(c) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and Article 160 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1875/2006 of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that royalties or licence fees are a ‘condition of sale’ of the goods being valued where, within a single group of undertakings, those royalties or licence fees are required to be paid by an undertaking related to both the seller and the buyer and were paid to that same undertaking.

3. Article 32(1)(c) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and Article 158(3) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 1875/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment and apportionment measures, referred to in those provisions respectively, may be applied where the customs value of the goods at issue has been determined, not on the basis of Article 29 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended, but on the basis of the alternative method laid down in Article 31 of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
3.

The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2988/95 must be understood as meaning that, as regards proceedings resulting in the adoption of administrative measures for the recovery of claims for interest, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the limitation period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) starts to run from the date on which the irregularity which gives rise to the recovery of the aid and amounts not due, on the basis of which that interest is calculated, was committed, that is, on the date of the factor constituting that irregularity, namely, either the date of the act or omission or the date of the prejudice, which occurs last.