ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesas — Latvia) — ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ SIA v ‘Swedbank’ AS

(Case C-156/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/47/EC - Scope - Definition of ‘financial collateral’, ‘relevant financial obligations’ and ‘provision’ of financial collateral - Whether it is possible to enforce financial collateral notwithstanding the commencement of insolvency proceeding - Current account agreement including a financial collateral clause))

(2017/C 014/06)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ SIA

Defendant:‘Swedbank’ AS

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements is to be interpreted as conferring on the taker of financial collateral, such as the collateral at issue in the main proceedings, whereby monies deposited in a bank account are pledged to the bank to cover all the account holder’s debts to the bank, the right to enforce the collateral, notwithstanding the commencement of insolvency proceedings in respect of the collateral provider, only if, first, the monies covered by the collateral were deposited in the account in question before the commencement of those proceedings or those monies were deposited on the day of commencement, the bank having proved that it was not aware, nor should have been aware, that those proceedings had commenced and, second, the account holder was prevented from disposing of those monies after they had been deposited in that account.

(1) OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Noémie Depesme (C-401/15), Saïd Kerrou (C-401/15), Adrien Kauffmann (C-402/15), Maxime Lefort (C-403/15) v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

(Joined Cases C-401/15 to C-403/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement of persons - Worker’s rights - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Financial aid for the pursuit of higher education studies - Requirement of a parent-child relationship - Concept of ‘child’ - Child of a spouse or registered partner - Contribution towards the maintenance of that child))

(2017/C 046/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Noémie Depesme (C-401/15), Saïd Kerrou (C-401/15), Adrien Kauffmann (C-402/15), Maxime Lefort (C-403/15)

Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a child of a frontier worker, who is able to benefit indirectly from the social advantages referred to in the latter provision, such as study finance granted by a Member State to the children of workers pursuing or who have pursued an activity in that Member State, means not only a child who has a child-parent relationship with that worker, but also a child of the spouse or registered partner of that worker, where that worker supports that child. The latter requirement is the result of a factual situation, which it is for the national authorities and, if appropriate, the national courts, to assess, and it is not necessary for them to determine the reasons for that contribution or make a precise estimation of its amount.

(1) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015, p. 27.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 August 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Jürgen Webb-Sämann v Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH)

(Case C-454/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/94/EC - Article 8 - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Provisions related to social security - Scope - Measures necessary to protect immediate or prospective entitlements of employees under supplementary pension schemes - Obligation to provide for a right to have outstanding pension contributions excluded from the scope of insolvency proceedings - Absence))

(2017/C 030/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jürgen Webb-Sämann

Defendant: Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require that, in the event of employer insolvency, money withheld from a former employee’s salary converted into pension contributions, which that employer should have paid into a pension fund on behalf of that employee, be excluded from the scope of insolvency proceedings.

(1) OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.
1.

Article 6(1) and Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests and in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the use of standard contract terms with content identical to that of terms that have been declared unlawful by a judicial decision having the force of law and entered in a national register of unlawful standard contract terms from being regarded, in relation to another seller or supplier which was not a party to the proceedings culminating in the entry in that register, as an unlawful act, provided, which it is for the referring court to verify, that that seller or supplier has an effective judicial remedy against the decision declaring the terms compared to be equivalent in terms of the question whether, in the light of all relevant circumstances particular to each case, those terms are materially identical, having regard in particular to their harmful effects for consumers, and against the decision fixing the amount of the fine imposed, where applicable.
6.

The principles of good faith, equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the submission of applications for compensation for the loss in the previous financial year by the operator responsible for a universal service subject to a time limit of three months running from the expiry of the period within which that operator is required to send an annual report to the competent national authority, provided that that time limit is no less favourable than that provided for in national law for an analogous application and that it is not such as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred on undertakings by Directive 2002/22, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Gerrit van Vemde

(Case C-582/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Mutual recognition of judgments - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Scope - Article 28 - Transitional provision - Concept of ‘issue of the final judgment’))

(2017/C 078/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party in the main proceedings

Gerrit van Vemde

Intervening parties: Openbaar Ministerie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that it covers only judgments which became final before the date specified by the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/3

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Appeal Commissioners — Ireland) — National Roads Authority v The Revenue Commissioners

(Case C-344/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 13(1), second subparagraph - Activity of managing road infrastructure and making it available on payment of a toll - Activities engaged in by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority - Presence of private operators - Significant distortions of competition - Existence of actual or potential competition))

(2017/C 070/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Appeal Commissioners

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: National Roads Authority

Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such that in the main proceedings, a body governed by public law which carries on an activity consisting in providing access to a road on payment of a toll may not be regarded as competing with private operators who collect tolls on other toll roads pursuant to an agreement with the public law body concerned under national statutory provisions.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v British Film Institute

(Case C-592/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 13A(1)(n) - Exemptions for certain cultural services - No direct effect - Determination of the exempt cultural services - Discretion of the Member States))

(2017/C 112/13)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondent: British Film Institute

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13A(1)(n) 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, exempting ‘certain cultural services’, must be interpreted as not being of direct effect, so that in the absence of transposition that provision may not be relied on directly by a body governed by public law or other cultural body recognised by the Member State concerned supplying cultural services.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/16

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-392/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 51 TFEU - Connection with the exercise of official authority))

(2017/C 104/24)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the notarial profession, Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

2. Orders Hungary to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs

(1) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, TV2/Danmark A/S

(Case C-660/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 106(2) TFEU - Measures taken by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish public service broadcaster TV2/Danmark - Compensation for the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market))

(2017/C 144/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: M. Honoré and S.E. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg, advokater)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and by L. Flynn and B. Stromsky, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, Agent, assisted by R. Holdgaard, advokat), TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and TV2/Danmark A/S;

3. Declares that the Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
1.

Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (‘service of documents’), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which, in the event that a judicial document, served on a defendant residing in the territory of another Member State, has not been drafted or accompanied by a translation either in a language which that defendant understands, or in the official language of the requested Member State or, where there are several official languages in that Member State, in the official language or one of the official languages of the place where service is to be effected, the omission of the standard form set out in Annex II to that regulation renders such service invalid, even if such invalidity must be invoked by that defendant within a specified period or at the beginning of the proceedings and before any defence on the merits. The regulation requires, on the other hand, that such an omission be corrected in accordance with the provisions laid down in that regulation, by communicating the standard form set out in Annex II of that regulation to the person concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sahar Fahimian v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-544/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2004/114/EC - Article 6(1)(d) - Conditions of admission of third country nationals - Refusal of admission - Concept of ‘threat to public security’ - Margin of discretion))

(2017/C 168/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sahar Fahimian

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

intervener: Stadt Darmstadt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service must be interpreted as meaning that the competent national authorities, where a third country national has applied to them for a visa for study purposes, have a wide discretion in ascertaining, in the light of all the relevant elements of the situation of that national, whether he represents a threat, if only potential, to public security. That provision must also be interpreted as not precluding the competent national authorities from refusing to admit to the territory of the Member State concerned, for study purposes, a third country national who holds a degree from a university which is the subject of EU restrictive measures because of its large scale involvement with the Iranian Government in military or related fields, and who plans to carry out research in that Member State in a field that is sensitive for public security, if the elements available to those authorities give reason to fear that the knowledge acquired by that person during his research may subsequently be used for purposes contrary to public security. It is for the national court hearing an action brought against the decision of the competent national authorities to refuse to grant the visa sought to ascertain whether that decision is based on sufficient grounds and a sufficiently solid factual basis.

(1) OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA

(Case C-188/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment - Discrimination based on religion or belief - Genuine and determining occupational requirement - Meaning - Customer’s wish not to have services provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf))

(2017/C 151/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH)

Defendant: Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the willingness of an employer to take account of the wishes of a customer no longer to have the services of that employer provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf cannot be considered a genuine and determining occupational requirement within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.
3.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘reasonable measures’ which an air carrier must take in order to reduce or even prevent the risks of collision with a bird and thus be released from its obligation to compensate passengers under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 include control measures preventing the presence of such birds provided that, in particular at the technical and administrative levels, such measures can actually be taken by that air carrier, that those measures do not require it to make intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking and that that carrier has shown that those measures were actually taken as regards the flight affected by the collision with a bird, it being for the referring court to satisfy itself that those conditions have been met.
1.

The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as covering the sale of a multimedia player, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on which there are pre-installed add-ons, available on the internet, containing hyperlinks to websites — that are freely accessible to the public — on which copyright-protected works have been made available to the public without the consent of the right holders.
1.

Article 17 of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, as amended by Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to investigations which are for the national court, that directive applies ratione temporis to the environmental damage that occurred after 30 April 2007 but which was caused by the operation of a facility authorised in accordance with the law governing matters relating to water and put into operation before that date;
4.

Article 1(1) and Article 5 of Directive 2011/16 must be interpreted as meaning that verification by the requested authority to which a request for information has been submitted by the requesting authority pursuant to that directive is not limited to the procedural regularity of that request but must enable the requested authority to satisfy itself that the information sought is not devoid of any foreseeable relevance having regard to the identity of the taxpayer concerned and that of any third party asked to provide the information, and to the requirements of the tax investigation concerned. Those provisions of Directive 2011/16 and Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action brought by a relevant person against a penalty imposed on that person by the requested authority for non-compliance with an information order issued by that authority in response to a request for information sent by the requesting authority pursuant to Directive 2011/16, the national court not only has jurisdiction to vary the penalty imposed but also has jurisdiction to review the legality of that information order. As regards the condition of legality of that information order, which relates to the foreseeable relevance of the requested information, the courts’ review is limited to verification that the requested information manifestly has no such relevance.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG

(Case C-566/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of workers - Principle of non-discrimination - Election of workers’ representatives to the supervisory board of a company - National legislation restricting the right to vote and to stand as a candidate to employees of establishments located in the national territory))

(2017/C 300/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Konrad Erzberger

Defendant: TUI AG

intervening parties: Vereinigung Cockpit e.V., Betriebsrat der Tui AG/Tui Group Services GmbH, Frank Jakobi, Andreas Barczewski, Peter Bremme, Dierk Hirschel, Michael Pönipp, Wilfried H. Rau, Carola Schwirn, Anette Stempel, Ortwin Strubelt, Marcell Witt, Wolfgang Flintermann, Stefan Weinhofer, ver.di -Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the workers employed in the establishments of a group located in the territory of that Member State are deprived of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections of workers’ representatives to the supervisory board of the parent company of that group, which is established in that Member State, and as the case may be, of the right to act or to continue to act as representative on that board, where those workers leave their employment in such an establishment and are employed by a subsidiary belonging to the same group established in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.