ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-530/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Railway safety — Directive 2004/49/EC — Failure to adopt to provisions necessary to ensure the independence of the investigating body)

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-530/16) ( 1 )

‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Railway safety — Directive 2004/49/EC — Failure to adopt to provisions necessary to ensure the independence of the investigating body)’

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and K. Majcher, acting as Agents, and by T. Warchol, ekspert)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the investigating body is independent, in terms of its organisation and decision-making, of railway undertakings and rail infrastructure managers controlled by the Minister for Transport, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive).

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
1.

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted, first, as not applying to a business practice consisting in assigning or purchasing a consumer’s debt, without any provision for such an assignment having been made in the loan agreement concluded with the consumer, without giving the consumer prior notice of that assignment, without his consent and without giving him the opportunity to buy back and thereby extinguish his debt by reimbursing to the assignee the price it paid in respect of that assignment, plus the applicable interest, expenses and costs. Secondly, that directive does not apply to national provisions, such as those contained in Article 1535 of the Código Civil (Civil Code) and Articles 17 and 540 of Ley 1/2000 de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Civil Procedure Code) of 7 January 2000, which regulate that opportunity to buy back a debt and govern the replacement of the assignor by the assignee in ongoing proceedings.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Spika’ UAB, ‘Senoji Baltija’ AB, ‘Stekutis’ UAB, ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ UAB v Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

(Case C-540/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 - Article 16(6) and Article 17 - Allocation of fishing opportunities - National legislation laying down a method based on objective and transparent criteria - Inequalities in the conditions of competition between operators in the sector - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 16 and 20 - Freedom to conduct a business - Equal treatment - Proportionality))

(2018/C 319/03)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants:‘Spika’ UAB, ‘Senoji Baltija’ AB, ‘Stekutis’ UAB, ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ UAB

Respondent: Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

Interveners: Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija, ‘Sedija’ BUAB, V. Malinausko gamybinė-komercinė firma ‘Stilma’, ‘Starkis’ UAB, ‘Banginis’ UAB, ‘Baltijos šprotai’ UAB, ‘Monistico’ UAB, ‘Ramsun’ UAB, ‘Rikneda’ UAB, ‘Laivitė’ AB, ‘Baltijos jūra’ UAB, ‘Baltlanta’ UAB, ‘Grinvita’ UAB, ‘Strimelė’ UAB, ‘Baltijos žuvys’ BUAB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(6) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC, and Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which that Member State adopts a method of allocation of fishing opportunities which, while being based on a transparent and objective allocation criterion, may create a difference in treatment between operators having fishing vessels flying that Member State’s flag, provided that that method pursues one or more general interests recognised by the European Union and respects the principle of proportionality.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Sebastian W. Kreuziger v Land Berlin

(Case C-619/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual leave - National legislation providing for the loss of annual leave not taken and of the payment in lieu thereof, where the worker did not submit a request for leave before the termination of the employment relationship))

(2019/C 16/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sebastian W. Kreuziger

Respondent: Land Berlin

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it entails that, in the event that the worker did not ask to exercise his right to paid annual leave prior to the termination of the employment relationship, that worker loses — automatically and without prior verification of whether the employer had in fact enabled him, in particular through the provision of sufficient information, to exercise his right to leave prior to the termination of that relationship — the days of paid annual leave to which he was entitled under EU law on the date of the termination of that relationship, and, accordingly, his right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) — United Kingdom — Rafal Prefeta v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-618/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 45 TFEU - 2003 Act of Accession - Chapter 2 of Annex XII - Whether a Member State may derogate from Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 and Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC - Polish national who has not completed a period of 12 months’ registered work in the host Member State))

(2018/C 408/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Rafal Prefeta

Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Operative part of the judgment

Chapter 2 of Annex XII to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted as permitting, during the transitional period provided for by that act, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to exclude a Polish national, such as Mr Rafal Prefeta, from the benefits of Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, when that person has not satisfied the requirement imposed by national law of having completed an uninterrupted 12-month period of registered work in the United Kingdom.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Merck KGaA v European Commission, Generics (UK) Ltd

(Case C-614/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Pharmaceutical products - Market for antidepressant medicines (citalopram) - Settlement agreements concerning process patents concluded between a manufacturer of originator medicines holding those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines - Article 101 TFEU - Potential competition - Restriction by object - Characterisation - Calculation of the amount of the fine)

(2021/C 206/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Merck KGaA (represented by: B. Bär-Bouyssière and S. Smith, Solicitors, and by R. Kreisberger QC, and D. Mackersie, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Vecchi, F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment and D. Bailey, Barristers, and by G. Peretz QC, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel), Generics (UK) Ltd

Intervener in support of the defendents: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery, and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes QC, and subsequently by D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and by J. Holmes QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

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

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
6.

In a situation where the system, laid down by Directive 2003/49, of exemption from withholding tax on interest paid by a company resident in a Member State to a company resident in another Member State is not applicable because there is found to be fraud or abuse, within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive, application of the freedoms enshrined in the FEU Treaty cannot be relied on in order to call into question the legislation of the first Member State governing the taxation of that interest. Outside such a situation, Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as: — not precluding, in principle, national legislation under which a resident company which pays interest to a non-resident company is required to withhold tax on that interest at source whilst such an obligation is not owed by that resident company when the company which receives the interest is also a resident company, but as precluding national legislation that prescribes such withholding of tax at source if interest is paid by a resident company to a non-resident company whilst a resident company that receives interest from another resident company is not subject to the obligation to make an advance payment of corporation tax during the first two tax years and is therefore not required to pay corporation tax relating to that interest until a date appreciably later than the date for payment of the tax withheld at source; — precluding national legislation under which the resident company that owes the obligation to withhold tax at source on interest paid by it to a non-resident company is obliged, if the tax withheld is paid late, to pay default interest at a higher rate than the rate which is applicable in the event of late payment of corporation tax that is charged, inter alia, on interest received by a resident company from another resident company; — precluding national legislation providing that, where a resident company is subject to an obligation to withhold tax at source on the interest which it pays to a non-resident company, account is not taken of the expenditure in the form of interest, directly related to the lending at issue, which the latter company has incurred whereas, under that national legislation, such expenditure may be deducted by a resident company which receives interest from another resident company for the purpose of establishing its taxable income.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas

(Case C-270/17 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Reasons for optional non-execution - Article 4a(1) introduced by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA - Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order - ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ - Person concerned having appeared in person at first instance - Appeal proceedings involving a re-examination of the substance of the case - Arrest warrant providing no information making it possible to check whether the rights of the defence of the person convicted were upheld during the appeal proceedings))

(2017/C 374/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Tadas Tupikas

Operative part of the judgment

Where the issuing Member State has provided for a criminal procedure involving several degrees of jurisdiction which may thus give rise to successive judicial decisions, at least one of which has been handed down in absentia, the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, within the meaning of Article 4a(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 relating only to the instance at the end of which the decision is handed down which finally rules on the guilt of the person concerned and imposes a penalty on him, such as a custodial sentence, following a re-examination, in fact and in law, of the merits of the case.

An appeal proceeding, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in principle falls within that concept. It is nonetheless up to the referring court to satisfy itself that it has the characteristics set out above.

(1) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanţelor Publice

(Case C-76/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties - Article 30 TFEU - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Charge applied to exported petroleum products - Charge not passed on to the consumer - Tax burden for the taxpayer - Reimbursement of the sums paid by the taxpayer))

(2018/C 142/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu

Defendants: Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanţelor Publice

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular Article 30 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that the taxpayer, who in fact pays the charge having an equivalent effect contrary to that article, must be able to obtain reimbursement of the sums which it has paid by way of that charge, even in a situation where the payment mechanism for the charge has been designed in national legislation so that the charge is passed on to the consumer.

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 83/6

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-58/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Period 2013-2020 - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 3(h) - Concept of ‘process emissions sub-installation’ - Emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon - Liquid waste - Excluded))

(2018/C 083/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: INEOS Köln GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(h) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes from the concept of ‘process emissions sub-installation’, within the meaning of that provision, greenhouse gas emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon in a liquid state.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Case C-81/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — Zabrus Siret SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Right to a refund of VAT — Transactions relating to a tax period that has already been the subject of a tax inspection which has concluded — National legislation — Possibility for the taxable person to correct tax returns which have already been covered by a tax inspection — Precluded — Principle of effectiveness — Fiscal neutrality — Legal certainty)

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — Zabrus Siret SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava

(Case C-81/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Right to a refund of VAT — Transactions relating to a tax period that has already been the subject of a tax inspection which has concluded — National legislation — Possibility for the taxable person to correct tax returns which have already been covered by a tax inspection — Precluded — Principle of effectiveness — Fiscal neutrality — Legal certainty)’

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zabrus Siret SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167, 168, 179, 180 and 182 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, and the principles of effectiveness, fiscal neutrality and proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, by way of derogation from the five-year limitation period imposed by national law for the correction of value added tax (VAT) returns, prevents, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a taxable person from making such a correction in order to claim his right of deduction on the sole ground that that correction relates to a period that has already been the subject of a tax inspection.

( 1 ) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Case C-363/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 — Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA v Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME), Cepsa Química SA, Indorama Ventures Poland sp. z o.o., Lotte Chemical UK Ltd, Ottana Polimeri Srl, UAB Indorama Polymers Europe, UAB Neo Group, UAB Orion Global pet, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW), Caiba SA, Coca-Cola Enterprises Belgium (CCEB), Danone, Nestlé Waters Management & Technology, Pepsico International Ltd, Refresco Gerber BV (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Thailand and Taiwan — Implementing Decision 2013/226/EU — Decision to terminate the expiry review proceeding without imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty — Non-contractual liability — Causal link — Obligation to state reasons)

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 — Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA v Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME), Cepsa Química SA, Indorama Ventures Poland sp. z o.o., Lotte Chemical UK Ltd, Ottana Polimeri Srl, UAB Indorama Polymers Europe, UAB Neo Group, UAB Orion Global pet, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW), Caiba SA, Coca-Cola Enterprises Belgium (CCEB), Danone, Nestlé Waters Management & Technology, Pepsico International Ltd, Refresco Gerber BV

(Case C-363/17 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — Dumping — Imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Thailand and Taiwan — Implementing Decision 2013/226/EU — Decision to terminate the expiry review proceeding without imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty — Non-contractual liability — Causal link — Obligation to state reasons)’

Parties

Appellants: Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME), Cepsa Química SA, Indorama Ventures Poland sp. z o.o., Lotte Chemical UK Ltd, Ottana Polimeri Srl, UAB Indorama Polymers Europe, UAB Neo Group, UAB Orion Global pet, Council of the European Union (represented by H. Marcos Fraile, Agent, and B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat), European Commission, European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW), Caiba SA, Coca-Cola Enterprises Belgium (CCEB), Danone, Nestlé Waters Management & Technology, Pepsico International Ltd, Refresco Gerber BV

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA and Novapet SA to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.