ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Envirotec Denmark ApS v Skatteministeren

(Case C-550/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Reverse charge mechanism - Article 198(2) - Gold material or semi-manufactured products - Meaning - Article 199(1)(d) and Annex VI - Used materials, waste and scrap - Ingots resulting from the melting down of various objects and scrap used to enable the extraction of gold and with a purity in gold of 325 thousandths or greater))

(2016/C 260/04)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Envirotec Denmark ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeren

Operative part of the judgment

Article 198(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the supply of ingots, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of a random, rough alloy obtained from the fusion of scrap and various metal objects containing gold, and other metals, materials and substances, and which, depending on the ingot, have a gold content of approximately 500 or 600 thousandths.

(1) OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Citroën Commerce GmbH v Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW)

(Case C-476/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 98/6/EC and 2005/29/EC - Consumer protection - Advertisement containing an indication of price - Concepts of ‘offer’ and ‘price inclusive of taxes’ - Obligation to include in the price of a motor vehicle the additional costs necessarily incurred in connection with the transfer of the vehicle))

(2016/C 335/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Citroën Commerce GmbH

Defendant: Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers, read in conjunction with Article 1 and Article 2(a) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that costs in connection with the transfer of a motor vehicle from the manufacturer to the dealer, which are payable by the consumer, must be included in the selling price of that vehicle indicated in an advertisement made by the trader when, having regard to all the features of that advertisement, in the eyes of the consumer it sets out an offer concerning that vehicle. It is for the referring court to determine whether all those conditions are satisfied.

(1) OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Estrella Rodríguez Sánchez v Consum Sociedad Cooperativa Valenciana

(Case C-351/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2010/18/EU - Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC - Reconciliation of professional and family life - Return from maternity leave of a worker member - Request for a reduction of working hours and for a change in work pattern - Situation which does not fall within the scope of Clause 6(1) of the revised Framework Agreement - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling))

(2016/C 305/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Estrella Rodríguez Sánchez

Defendant: Consum Sociedad Cooperativa Valenciana

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Social Court No 33, Barcelona, Spain) is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/9

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa

(Case C-596/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Compensation for termination of a contract of employment - Compensation not provided for by the national legislation for temporary employment contracts - Difference of treatment as compared with permanent workers))

(2016/C 419/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ana de Diego Porras

Defendant: Ministerio de Defensa

Operative part of the judgment

1. Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘employment conditions’ covers the compensation that the employer must pay to an employee on account of the termination of his fixed-term employment contract.

2. Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which fails to provide any compensation for termination of a contract of employment to a worker employed under a temporary replacement contract while allowing such compensation to be granted, inter alia, to comparable workers employed under a contract of indefinite duration. The mere fact that the worker has carried out his work on the basis of a temporary replacement contract cannot constitute an objective ground justifying the failure to grant such compensation to that worker.

(1) OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — H v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina

(Case C-455/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Decision 2009/906/CFSP - European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina - National staff member on secondment - Redeployment in a regional office of that mission - Final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU - First paragraph of Article 275 TFEU - Actions for annulment and compensation - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature - Article 263 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU))

(2016/C 343/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and F. Naert, Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, G. Gattinara and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents), European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 10 July 2014 in H v Council and Others (T-271/10, not published, EU:T:2014:702);

2. Dismisses H’s action as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the European Commission and the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

3. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the substance of the action in so far as it is directed against the Council of the European Union;

4. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.
1.

Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the applicant for authorisation to place a plant protection product or biocide on the market, did not, during the procedure for obtaining that authorisation, request that information submitted under that procedure be treated as confidential on the basis of Article 14 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, Article 19 of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market or Article 33(4) and Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC does not preclude the competent authority, which has received, following the closure of that procedure, a request for access to the information submitted on the basis of Directive 2003/4 by a third party, from examining the applicant’s objection to that request for access and refusing it, if necessary, pursuant to point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of that directive on the ground that the disclosure of that information would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information.
3.

Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their nationality, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that a period of employment — completed pursuant to the legislation of that Member State by an employed worker who was not a national of a Member State during that period but who, when he requests the payment of an old-age pension, falls within the scope of Article 1 of that regulation — is not to be taken into consideration by that Member State for the determination of that worker’s pension rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017 — Intel Corp. v European Commission, Association for Competitive Technology Inc., Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir)

(Case C-413/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of a dominant position - Loyalty rebates - Commission’s jurisdiction - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 19))

(2017/C 374/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Intel Corp. (represented by: D. Beard QC, and by A. Parr and R. Mackenzie, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Di Bucci, M. Kellerbauer and N. Khan, acting as Agents), Association for Competitive Technology Inc. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat), Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 June 2014, Intel v Commission (T-286/09, EU:T:2014:547);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Orders that the costs be reserved.

(1) OJ C 295, 10.11.2014.
2.

Article 12(2)(c) and Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that acts constituting participation in the activities of a terrorist group, such as those of which the defendant in the main proceedings was convicted, may justify exclusion of refugee status, even though it is not established that the person concerned committed, attempted to commit or threatened to commit a terrorist act as defined in the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. For the purposes of the individual assessment of the facts that may be grounds for a finding that there are serious reasons for considering that a person has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, has instigated such acts or has otherwise participated in such acts, the fact that that person was convicted, by the courts of a Member State, on a charge of participation in the activities of a terrorist group is of particular importance, as is a finding that that person was a member of the leadership of that group, and there is no need to establish that that person himself or herself instigated a terrorist act or otherwise participated in it.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/19

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Firma Theodor Pfister v Landkreis Main-Spessart

(Case C-58/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Health inspections - Official feed and food controls - Financing of controls - Inspection costs relating to slaughter - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Directive 85/73/EEC - Possibility of levying fees covering the actual cost of inspection, exceeding the fees set by that directive))

(2016/C 068/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Firma Theodor Pfister

Defendant: Landkreis Main-Spessart

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as authorising, for the transitional period of 2007, the levying of fees for the costs occasioned by inspections and controls relating to meat hygiene so as to cover the costs incurred by the competent authority, in accordance with Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 97/79/EC of 18 December 1997.

(1) OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/12

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Salutas Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hanover

(Case C-124/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 3004 - Effervescent tablets containing 500 mg of calcium - Level of substance per recommended daily dose significantly higher than the recommended daily allowance to maintain general health or well-being))

(2016/C 145/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salutas Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hanover

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 the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 must be interpreted as meaning that a product, such as effervescent tablets with a calcium content of 500 mg per tablet that is used for the prevention and treatment of a calcium deficiency and to support a special therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, and for which the maximum recommended daily dose for adults indicated on the label is 1 500 mg, falls within heading 3004 of that nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — État belge, SPF Finances v NN (L) International SA, formerly ING International SA, successor to the rights and obligations of ING Dynamic SA

(Case C-48/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Freedom to provide services - Directive 69/335/EEC - Articles 2, 4, 10 and 11 - Directive 85/611/EEC - Articles 10 and 293 EC - Annual tax on undertakings for collective investment - Double taxation - Penalties applicable to collective investment undertakings governed by foreign law))

(2016/C 260/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge, SPF Finances

Defendant: NN (L) International SA, formerly ING International SA, successor to the rights and obligations of ING Dynamic SA

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 2, 4, 10 and 11 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State imposing an annual tax on undertakings for collective investment, such as the tax at issue in the main proceedings, which makes undertakings for collective investment governed by foreign law marketing units in that Member State subject to that tax.

2. Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), read, if appropriate, in conjunction with Article 10 EC and Article 293, second indent, EC, must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State imposing an annual tax on UCIs, such as the tax at issue in the main proceedings, which makes UCIs governed by foreign law marketing units in that Member State subject to that tax, provided that that legislation is applied in a non-discriminatory way.

3. Article 56 EC must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State imposing an annual tax on UCIs, such as the tax at issue in the main proceedings, which makes UCIs governed by foreign law marketing units in that Member State subject to that tax.

4. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as Article 162(2) of the Inheritance Tax Code, as amended by the Programme Law of 22 December 2003, by which a Member State imposes a specific penalty, namely the prohibition, ordered by a court, of making future investments of its units in that Member State, on UCIs governed by foreign law in the event of non-compliance by the latter with the obligation to file the annual declaration necessary for the recovery of a tax on UCIs or in the event of non-payment of that tax.

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of Pál Aranyosi (C-404/15), Robert Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU)

(Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Grounds for refusal to execute - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 4 - Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment - Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State))

(2016/C 211/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Pál Aranyosi (C-404/15), Robert Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3), Article 5 and Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence with respect to detention conditions in the issuing Member State that demonstrates that there are deficiencies, which may be systemic or generalised, or which may affect certain groups of people, or which may affect certain places of detention, the executing judicial authority must determine, specifically and precisely, whether there are substantial grounds to believe that the individual concerned by a European arrest warrant, issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence, will be exposed, because of the conditions for his detention in the issuing Member State, to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, in the event of his surrender to that Member State. To that end, the executing judicial authority must request that supplementary information be provided by the issuing judicial authority, which, after seeking, if necessary, the assistance of the central authority or one of the central authorities of the issuing Member State, under Article 7 of the Framework Decision, must send that information within the time limit specified in the request. The executing judicial authority must postpone its decision on the surrender of the individual concerned until it obtains the supplementary information that allows it to discount the existence of such a risk. If the existence of that risk cannot be discounted within a reasonable time, the executing judicial authority must decide whether the surrender procedure should be brought to an end.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
1.

Article 15(2) and (8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector must be interpreted as meaning that it does not confer on a sugar producer the right to be reimbursed for production levies paid on the quantities of sugar under A and B quotas which were still stored on 30 June 2006, as the production levy system was not renewed after that date by Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector.