ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/16

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Samantha Elrick v Bezirksregierung Köln

(Case C-275/12) (1)

(Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Right of free movement and residence - National of a Member State - Studies pursued in another Member State - Education or training grant - Conditions - Duration of course greater than or equal to two years - Obtaining a vocational qualification)

2013/C 367/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Samantha Elrick

Defendant: Bezirksregierung Köln

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Interpretation of Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Entitlement to a ‘BAföG’ education or training grant — Member State legislation providing for such entitlement in respect of a certain course, of one year’s duration, pursued in that Member State, but excluding such entitlement for a comparable course pursued in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that makes the award of an education or training grant, to a national resident in that Member State, for a course pursued in another Member State, subject to the requirement that the course in question lead to a vocational qualification equivalent to that provided by a vocational school in the State awarding the grant, following a course of at least two years’ duration, whereas an education or training grant would have been awarded if the national had chosen to undertake, in the State awarding the grant, a course equivalent to that which she wished to pursue in another Member State, and which is of less than two years’ duration.

(1) OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

(Case C-66/12) (1)

(Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union - Staff Regulations - Action for annulment - Communication COM(2011) 829 final - Proposal COM(2011) 820 final - Action for failure to act - Submission of proposals on the basis of Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Failure of the Commission - Application devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

2014/C 39/06

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Thorning, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, acting as Agent, and by C. Toland BL and A. Joyce, Solicitor), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kalniņš and A. Nikolajeva, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, and R. Palmer, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and J.P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Communication from the Commission (COM(2011) 829 final of 24 November 2011 on the refusal to submit proposals on the basis of the ‘exception clause’ contained in Article 10 to Annex XI of the Staff Regulations — Commission proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, as from 1st July 2011, the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applying thereto — Action for failure to act — Unlawful failure by the Commission to submit proposals on the basis of Article 10 to Annex XI of the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action;

2. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI) v Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte

(Case C-473/12) (1)

(Processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 10 and 11 - Obligation to inform - Article 13(1)(d) and (g) - Exceptions - Scope of exceptions - Private detectives acting for the supervisory body of a regulated profession - Directive 2002/58/EC - Article 15(1))

2014/C 9/19

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI)

Defendants: Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte

Intervening parties: Union professionnelle nationale des détectives privés de Belgique (UPNDP), Association professionnelle des inspecteurs et experts d’assurances ASBL (APIEA), Conseil des ministres

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 11(1) and 13(1)(d) and (g) 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 (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) and of Article 6(3) TEU — Whether there is full harmonisation — Option for a Member State to provide for a restriction of, or an exception to, the obligation to inform the person concerned immediately — Scope of the exception to that obligation — Whether the professional activities of private detectives are included — If not, whether Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC is compatible with Article 6(3) TEU, more specifically with the principle of equality and non-discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) 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 meaning that Member States have no obligation, but have the option, to transpose into their national law one or more of the exceptions which it lays down to the obligation to inform data subjects of the processing of their personal data.

The activity of a private detective acting for a professional body in order to investigate breaches of ethics of a regulated profession, in this case that of estate agent, is covered by the exception in Article 13(1)(d) of Directive 95/46.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Walter Endress v Allianz Lebensversicherungs AG

(Case C-209/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Directives 90/619/EEC and 92/96/EEC - Direct life assurance - Right of cancellation - Lack of information on the conditions governing the exercise of that right - Expiry of the cancellation period one year after payment of the first premium - Conformity with Directives 90/619/EEC and 92/96/EEC)

2014/C 52/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Walter Endress

Defendant: Allianz Lebensversicherungs AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50), in conjunction with Article 31(1) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1) — Annuity — Right of cancellation of the policy-holder — Time-limit — Obligation to provide the policy-holder with information — National legislation under which the policy-holder loses the right of cancellation one year after payment of the first premium even if he has not been correctly informed of the conditions of exercising the right.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992, read in conjunction with Article 31 of the latter directive, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a right of cancellation lapses one year at the latest after payment of the first premium, where the policy-holder has not been informed about the right of cancellation.

(1) OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/13

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — HARK GmbH & Co KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-450/12) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 7307 and 7321 - Stove pipe sets - Notions of ‘parts’ of stoves and ‘tube or pipe fittings’)

2014/C 45/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HARK GmbH & Co KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of 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 (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1) — Interpretation of headings 7307 and 7321 — Classification of stove pipe sets.

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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a stove pipe set, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which comprises a right-angled tubular elbow component in steel with an external diameter of 154 mm and external dimensions of 495 mm x 595 mm, which is covered in heat-resistant paint and has a closing flap to allow internal cleaning, a chimney connection and an appropriate surround, must be classified under Combined Nomenclature heading 7321 as a part, in steel, of a stove.

(1) OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV (C-241/12), Belgian Shell NV (C-242/12)

(Joined Cases C-241/12 and C-242/12) (1)

(Environment - Waste - Concept - Directive 2006/12/EC - Shipments of waste - Information from the competent national authorities - Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 - Discarding of a substance or object or intention or requirement to discard it)

2014/C 52/16

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank te Rotterdam

Parties in the main proceedings

Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV (C-241/12), Belgian Shell NV (C-242/12)

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1) and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1) — Concept of ‘waste’ — Shipment of Ultra Light Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) by vessel from the Netherlands to Belgium — ULSD mixed accidentally, when the vessel was being loaded, with Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) — Product no longer corresponding to the specifications agreed upon by the buyer and the vendor — Buyer who became aware of that fact at the time of delivery in Belgium — Diesel taken back by the vendor and shipped to the Netherlands — Purchase price refunded to the buyer — Vendor having the intention of placing the diesel back on the market, whether or not after mixing it with another product — Inclusion or non-inclusion in the concept of waste.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2557/2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a consignment of diesel accidentally mixed with another substance is not covered by the concept of ‘waste’, provided that the holder of that consignment does actually intend to place that consignment, mixed with another product, back on the market, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Leidseplein Beheer BV, H.J.M. de Vries v Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull Nederland BV

(Case C-65/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Rights conferred by a trade mark - Trade mark with a reputation - Protection extended to non-similar goods or services - Use by a third party, without due cause, of a sign identical with or similar to the trade mark with a reputation - Definition of ‘due cause’)

2014/C 93/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Leidseplein Beheer BV, H.J.M. de Vries

Defendants: Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull Nederland BV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Rights conferred by the mark — Trade mark with a reputation — Protection extended to non-similar goods or services — Use by a third party, without due cause, of a sign identical with, or similar to, the trade mark with a reputation which enables that third party to take unfair advantage of, or which causes detriment to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark — Concept of due cause.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark with a reputation may be obliged, pursuant to the concept of ‘due cause’ within the meaning of that provision, to tolerate the use by a third party of a sign similar to that mark in relation to a product which is identical to that for which that mark was registered, if it is demonstrated that that sign was being used before that mark was filed and that the use of that sign in relation to the identical product is in good faith. In order to determine whether that is so, the national court must take account, in particular, of:

— how that sign has been accepted by, and what its reputation is with, the relevant public;

— the degree of proximity between the goods and services for which that sign was originally used and the product for which the mark with a reputation was registered; and

— the economic and commercial significance of the use for that product of the sign which is similar to that mark.

(1) OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-571/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Articles 70(1) and 78 - Customs declarations - Partial examination of goods - Sampling - Incorrect code - Application of the results to identical goods covered by earlier customs declarations after release - Post-release examination - Impossible to request a further examination of the goods))

2014/C 112/11

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 70(1), and of Article 78(2), of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Application of the results of the examinations of part of the goods in a customs declaration also to identical goods included in other declarations — Whether such a practice by the customs authorities is permissible — Post-clearance examination — Application of the results of the examinations also to declarations which can no longer be verified.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 70(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, since it applies only to goods covered by ‘a [single] declaration’ where those goods are examined by the customs authorities before those authorities grant the release of those goods, that provision does not permit those authorities, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, to apply the results of the partial examination of goods covered by a customs declaration to goods covered by earlier customs declarations which have already been released by those authorities;

However, Article 78 of that Code is to be interpreted as meaning that it permits the customs authorities to apply the results of a partial examination of goods covered by a customs declaration, carried out by way of sampling of them, to goods covered by earlier customs declarations submitted by the same customs declarant, which were not and can no longer be examined since the release has been granted, where those goods are identical, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/10

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-385/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - National tax legislation establishing an exceptional tax on the turnover of store retail trade - Retail store chains - Existence of a discriminatory effect - Indirect discrimination)

2014/C 93/15

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Székesfehérvári Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Interpretation of Articles 18 TFEU, 26 TFEU, 49 TFEU, 54 TFEU, 55 TFEU, 56 TFEU, 63 TFEU, 65 TFEU and 110 TFEU — National tax legislation creating a special tax on the store retail trade sector — Progressive tax calculated on the basis of net turnover — Threshold tax rate resulting in greater impact on retail food trade undertakings owned by foreigners than on those owned by nationals.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State relating to tax on the turnover of store retail trade which obliges taxable legal persons constituting, within a group, ‘linked undertakings’ within the meaning of that legislation, to aggregate their turnover for the purpose of the application of a steeply progressive rate, and then to divide the resulting amount of tax among them in proportion to their actual turnover, if — and it is for the referring court to determine whether this is the case — the taxable persons covered by the highest band of the special tax are ‘linked’, in the majority of cases, to companies which have their registered office in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/10

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, Karsten Fräßdorf

(Case C-548/12) (1)

((Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1) and (3) - Civil liability claim - Tortious or contractual nature))

2014/C 135/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marc Brogsitter

Defendants: Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, Karsten Fräßdorf

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Krefeld — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction — Action brought before a court with jurisdiction in matters of tort or delict — Situation in which the tortious or delictual act was committed in the course of the performance of the contract between the tortfeasor and the victim and the court pertaining to the place of performance of the underlying obligation is situated in another Member State — Determination of the court with jurisdiction.

Operative part of the judgment

Civil liability claims such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are made in tort under national law, must nonetheless be considered as concerning ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of the terms of the contract, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.