ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Declares that, by restricting: — under Paragraph 46 of the Law on Administrative Procedure (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz), the annulment of decisions on the ground of procedural defect to where there has been no environmental impact assessment or pre-assessment and to cases where the applicant establishes that there is a causal link between the procedural defect and the outcome of the decision; — in accordance with Paragraph 2(3) of the Law on supplementary provisions governing actions in environmental matters under Directive 2003/35/EC (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz) of 7 December 2006, as amended by the Law of 21 January 2013, the standing to bring proceedings and the scope of the review by the courts to the objections which have already been raised within the time-limit set during the administrative procedure which led to the adoption of the decision; — under Paragraph 5(1) of the Law on supplementary provisions governing actions in environmental matters under Directive 2003/35/EC (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz) of 7 December 2006, as amended by the Law of 21 January 2013, in procedures initiated after 25 June 2005 and closed before 12 May 2011, the standing to bring proceedings of environmental associations to the legal provisions which confer individual public-law rights; — in accordance with Paragraph 2(1), read in conjunction with Paragraph 5(4) of the Law on supplementary provisions governing actions in environmental matters under Directive 2003/35/EC (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz) of 7 December 2006, as amended by the Law of 21 January 2013, in procedures which were initiated after 25 June 2005 and closed before 12 May 2011, the scope of the review by the courts of actions brought by environmental associations to the legal provisions which confer individual public-law rights, and — by excluding, in accordance with Paragraph 5(1) and (4) of the Law on supplementary provisions governing actions in environmental matters under Directive 2003/35/EC (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz) of 7 December 2006, as amended by the Law of 21 January 2013, from the scope of the national legislation administrative procedures initiated before 25 June 2005, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and Article 25 of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Münster — Germany) — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-505/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU - State aid - Aid granted in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU - Decision of a Member State court establishing the validity of the contract granting that aid - Res judicata - Interpretation in conformity with EU law - Principle of effectiveness))

(2016/C 016/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Operative part of the judgment

EU law precludes, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the application of a rule of national law enshrining the principle of res judicata from preventing a national court which has held that contracts forming the subject-matter of the dispute before it constitute State aid, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, implemented in breach of the third sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU, from drawing all the consequences of that breach because of a national judicial decision which has become definitive, which court, without examining whether those contracts constitute State aid, has held that the contracts remain in force.

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015 — European Commission v ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias

(Case C-78/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Contracts relating to EU financial support granted to the Perform and Oasis projects) - Irregularities identified during audits of other projects - Decision of the Commission to suspend reimbursement of the amounts advanced by the recipient - Eligible costs - Distortions of the documents on the file))

(2015/C 429/03)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, B. Conte and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, dikigoroi)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
2.

Article 2(1) and the first and second subparagraphs of Article 10(2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 1999/59, then by Directive 2001/115, must be interpreted as meaning that the value added tax paid when the air ticket was purchased by a passenger who has not used it becomes chargeable on receipt of payment of the ticket price, whether by the airline company itself, by a third party acting in its name and on its behalf, or by a third party acting in its own name but on behalf of the airline company.
2.

Commercial lease agreements, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, may be considered to be an integral part of an agreement having the ‘effect’ of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, from which it is found, after a thorough analysis of the economic and legal context in which the agreements occur and the specificities of the relevant market, that they make an appreciable contribution to the closing-off of that market. The extent of the contribution of each agreement to that closing-off effect depends, in particular, on the position of the contracting parties on that market and the duration of that agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL v État belge

(Case C-335/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value Added Tax - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13A(1)(g) - Exemption for the supply of services closely linked to welfare and social security work, provided by bodies governed by public law or by other organisations recognised as charitable - ‘Supply of services and of goods closely linked to welfare and social security work’ - Organisations recognised as charitable - Serviced residence))

(2016/C 098/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL

Defendant: État belge

Intervening party: AXA Belgium SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13A(1)(g) 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 meaning that, among the services provided by a serviced residence, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whose charitable nature must be assessed by the referring court in the light of, in particular, the factors mentioned in the present judgment, those consisting of the provision of dwellings adapted for elderly persons may benefit from the exemption referred to in that provision. The other services provided by that serviced residence may also benefit from that exemption, provided in particular that the services which serviced residences are obliged to offer pursuant to the relevant national legislation are intended to achieve the support and care of elderly persons and correspond to the services which old people’s homes are also obliged to offer in accordance with national legislation.

It is irrelevant in this respect whether or not the operator of a serviced residence such as that at issue in the main proceedings receives a subsidy or any other form of advantage or financial support from public authorities.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
2.

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State choosing, in order to pursue the objective of the protection of human life and health by means of increasing the price of the consumption of alcohol, the option of legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a minimum price per unit of alcohol for the retail selling of alcoholic drinks and rejecting a measure, such as increased excise duties, that may be less restrictive of trade and competition within the European Union. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is indeed the case having regard to a detailed analysis of all the relevant factors in the case before it. The fact that the latter measure may procure additional benefits and be a broader response to the objective of combating alcohol misuse cannot in itself justify the rejection of that measure.
1.

Article 19(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a split screen that shows the closing credits of a television programme in one column and a list presenting the supplier’s upcoming programmes in the other, in order to separate the programme which is ending from the television advertising break that follows it, does not necessarily have to be combined with, or followed by, an acoustic or optical signal, provided that such a means of separation meets, in itself, the requirements set out in the first sentence of Article 19(1), a matter which is for the referring court to establish.
2.

EU law, in particular Article 101 TFEU and Regulation No 1/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that there is no legal link between the application for immunity which an undertaking submits or is preparing to submit to the European Commission and the summary application submitted to a national competition authority in respect of the same cartel, requiring that authority to assess the summary application in the light of the application for immunity. Whether or not the summary application accurately reflects the content of the application for immunity submitted to the Commission is, in that respect, irrelevant. Where the summary application submitted to a national competition authority has a more limited material scope than the application for immunity submitted to the Commission, that national authority is not required to contact the Commission or the undertaking itself, in order to establish whether that undertaking has found specific examples of unlawful conduct in the sector allegedly covered by the application for immunity, but which is not covered by the summary application.
3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Schwenk Zement KG with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-306/11 and the appeal.
1.

Articles 5, 7, 11(1) and 13 of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing as amended by Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, first, authorises the application of standard customer due diligence measures in so far as the customers are financial institutions whose compliance with due diligence measures is supervised when there is a suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing within the meaning of Article 7(c) of that directive and, secondly, requires the institutions and persons covered by the directive to apply, on a risk-sensitive basis, enhanced customer due diligence measures in situations which by their nature can present a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the directive, such as that of the transfer of funds. Furthermore, even in the absence of such a suspicion or such a risk, Article 5 of Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 allows the Member States to adopt or retain in force stricter provisions where those provisions seek to strengthen the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
2.

In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where land and a building under construction on that land have been acquired with the grant of a right in rem granting its holder a right of use over such immovable property, Article 11A(1)(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that the value of that right in rem to be taken in account in calculating the taxable amount of a supply, within the meaning of Article 5(7)(a) of that directive, corresponds to the value of the amount to be paid in consideration each year for the remainder of the long lease granting the right in rem, as corrected or capitalised according to the same method used to determine the value of the grant of the long leasehold.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Caner Genc v Integrationsministeriet

(Case C-561/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - Standstill clause - Family reunification - National legislation laying down new, more stringent conditions on access to family reunification for family members, who are not economically active, of economically active Turkish nationals who are resident and have a residence permit in the Member State in question - Condition requiring ties sufficient to enable successful integration))

(2016/C 211/20)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caner Genc

Defendant: Integrationsministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

A national measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, making family reunification between a Turkish worker residing lawfully in the Member State concerned and his minor child subject to the condition that the latter have, or have the possibility of establishing, sufficient ties with Denmark to enable him successfully to integrate, when the child concerned and his other parent reside in the State of origin or in another State, and the application for family reunification is made more than two years from the date on which the parent residing in the Member State concerned obtained a permanent residence permit or a residence permit with a possibility of permanent residence constitutes a ‘new restriction’, within the meaning of Article 13 of Decision 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963.

Such a restriction is not justified.

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff v Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe

(Case C-438/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Article 21 TFEU - Freedom to move and reside in the Member States - Law of a Member State abolishing privileges and prohibiting the conferring of new noble titles - Surname of an adult, national of that State, obtained during a habitual residence in another Member State of which that person also holds the nationality - Name comprising tokens of nobility - Residence in the first Member State - Refusal by the authorities of the first Member State to enter the name acquired in the second Member State in the register of civil status - Justification - Public policy - Incompatibility with the essential principles of German law))

(2016/C 287/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff

Defendants: Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of a Member State are not bound to recognise the name of a citizen of that Member State when he also holds the nationality of another Member State in which he has acquired that name which he has chosen freely and which contains a number of tokens of nobility, which are not accepted by the law of the first Member State, provided that it is established, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, that a refusal of recognition is, in that context, justified on public policy grounds, in that it is appropriate and necessary to ensure compliance with the principle that all citizens of that Member State are equal before the law.

(1) OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from Klagenævnet for Udbud — Denmark) — MT Højgaard A/S, Züblin A/S v Banedanmark

(Case C-396/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Jurisdiction of the Court - Status of the referring body as a court or tribunal - Procurement procedure in railway infrastructure sector - Negotiated procedure - Directive 2004/17/EC - Article 10 - Article 51(3) - Principle of equal treatment of tenderers - Group composed of two companies and admitted as such as a tenderer - Tender submitted by one of the two companies, in its own name, the other company having been declared insolvent - Company considered to be capable, by itself, of being admitted as a tenderer - Contract awarded to that company))

(2016/C 260/03)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Klagenævnet for Udbud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MT Højgaard A/S, Züblin A/S

Defendant: Banedanmark

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of equal treatment of economic operators, stated in Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, read together with Article 51 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting entity is not in breach of that principle where it permits one of two economic operators who formed part of a group of undertakings that had, as such, been invited to submit tenders by that contracting entity, to take the place of that group following the group’s dissolution and to take part, in its own name, in a negotiated procedure for the award of a public contract, provided that it is established, first, that that economic operator by itself meets the requirements laid down by the contracting entity and, second, that the continuation of its participation in that procedure does not mean that other tenderers are placed at a competitive disadvantage.

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Silvia Georgiana Câmpean v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș, now Serviciul Fiscal Municipal Mediaş, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-200/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of sincere cooperation - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - National legislation laying down the detailed rules for the repayment of taxes improperly levied with interest - Enforcement of judicial decisions relating to such rights to repayment stemming from the legal order of the Union - Refund payable over a period of five years - Repayment contingent on the existence of funds received from a tax - No possibility of enforcement))

(2016/C 335/03)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Silvia Georgiana Câmpean

Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș, now Serviciul Fiscal Municipal Mediaş, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of sincere cooperation must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting provisions making repayment of a tax which has been held to be contrary to EU law by a judgment of the Court, or whose incompatibility with EU law results from such a judgment, subject to conditions relating specifically to that tax which are less favourable than those that would have applied, in their absence, to such a repayment; it is for the referring court to determine whether that principle has been complied with in the present case.

The principle of equivalence must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing procedural rules which are less favourable for applications for the repayment of a tax based on an infringement of EU law than those applicable to similar actions based on an infringement of domestic law. It is for the referring court to make the necessary checks to ensure compliance with that principle so far as concerns the legislation applicable to the dispute pending before it.

The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a system of repayment with interest of taxes levied in breach of EU law, the amount of which was established by enforceable judicial decisions, such as the system at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the repayment of such taxes by instalments over five years and which makes the execution of such decisions contingent on the availability of funds received in respect of another tax, without the individual having the right to compel public authorities to fulfil their obligations if they do not do so voluntarily. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether legislation such as that which would be applicable in the case at issue in the main proceedings in the absence of such a system of repayment meets the requirements of the principle of effectiveness.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.