ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wuppertal — Germany) — proceedings brought by Mircea Florian Freitag

(Case C-541/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Article 21 TFEU - Freedom to move and reside in the Member States - Individual having the nationality of both the Member State in which he resides and the Member State in which he was born - Change of surname in the Member State of birth not carried out during a period of habitual residence - Name corresponding to birth name - Application for the entry of that name in the civil register of the Member State of residence - Rejection of that application - Reason - Name not acquired during a period of habitual residence - Existence of other procedures in national law to have that name recognised))

(2017/C 249/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wuppertal

Parties to the main proceedings

Mircea Florian Freitag

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the registry office of a Member State from refusing to recognise and enter in the civil register the name legally acquired by a national of that Member State in another Member State, of which he is also a national, and which is the same as his birth name, on the basis of a provision of national law which makes the possibility of having such an entry made, by declaration to the registry office, subject to the condition that that name must have been acquired during a period of habitual residence in that other Member State, unless there are other provisions of national law which effectively allow the recognition of that name.

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
1.

Freedom of establishment must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which both a non-resident company conducting an economic activity in that Member State through a permanent establishment and a resident company, including the resident subsidiary of a non-resident company, are subject to a tax such as the ‘fairness tax’ when they distribute dividends which, as a result of the use of certain tax advantages provided for by the national tax system, are not included in their final taxable profits, provided that the method of determining the taxable amount of that tax does not in fact lead to that non-resident company being treated in a less advantageous manner than a resident company, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2017 — European Commission v Patrick Breyer, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-213/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Article 15(3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Scope - Application for access to written submissions filed by the Republic of Austria in the case in which judgment was given on 29 July 2010, Commission v Austria (C-189/09, not published, EU:C:2010:455) - Documents in the possession of the European Commission - Protection of court proceedings))

(2017/C 300/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Patrick Breyer (represented by: M. Starostik, Rechtsanwalt), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, R. Coesme and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Breyer;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
1.

Article 9(1) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted to the effect that a postal items service such as the one at issue in the main proceedings does not fall within the scope of the universal service if it does not involve the permanent provision of a postal service of specified quality at all points in the territory at affordable prices for all users. The provision of a postal items service which does not fall within the scope of the universal service may be subjected only to the issuing of a general authorisation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 — Easy Sanitary Solutions BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Group Nivelles NV

(Joined Cases C-361/15 P and C-405/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 5 - Novelty - Article 6 - Individual character - Article 7 - Disclosure to the public - Article 63 - Powers of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the taking of evidence - Burden of proof on the applicant for a declaration of invalidity - Requirements relating to the reproduction of an earlier design - Design for a shower drainage channel - Dismissal of an application for a declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal))

(2017/C 392/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Easy Sanitary Solutions BV (represented by: F. Eijsvogels, advocaat) (C-361/15 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by S. Bonne and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents) (C-405/15 P)

Other party to the proceedings: Group Nivelles NV (represented by: H. Jonkhout, advocaat)

Intervener in support of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-405/15 P): United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by J. Kraehling and C.R. Brodie, acting as Agents, and by N. Saunders, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals in the Cases C-361/15 P and C-405/15 P;

2. Orders Easy Sanitary Solutions BV to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Group Nivelles NV and by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in Case C-361/15 P;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and also to pay the costs incurred by Group Nivelles NV in Case C-405/15 P;

4. Orders EUIPO to pay a third of the costs incurred by Easy Sanitary Solutions BV in Case C-405/15 P, the remaining two thirds of those costs being borne by Easy Sanitary Solutions BV;

5. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs in Case C-405/15 P.

(1) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/9

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — LG Electronics Inc. v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-588/15 P and C-622/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices relating to prices, markets sharing, customer allocation and production limitation - Rights of the defence - Sending of the statement of objections only to the parent companies of a joint venture and not to the joint venture itself - Fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Point 13 - Determining the value of sales relating to an infringement - Intragroup sales of the relevant product outside the European Economic Area (EEA) - Account to be taken of the sales within the EEA of final products in which the relevant product has been installed - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 382/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: LG Electronics Inc. (represented by: G. Van Gerven and T. Franchoo, advocaten), Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk, J.K. de Pree and S. Molin, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, V. Bottka and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders LG Electronics Inc. and Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016

OJ C 27, 25.1.2016
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — European Commission v TV2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

(Case C-656/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Public broadcasting service - Measures implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish broadcaster TV2/Danmark - Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’s))

(2018/C 005/05)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, T. Maxian Rusche and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat), Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: M. Honoré and S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg, advokater)

Intervener in support of the applicant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: C. Zatschler, M. Schneider, Í. Isberg and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2015, TV2/Danmark v Commission (T-674/11, EU:T:2015:684), to the extent that it annulled Commission Decision 2011/839/EU of 20 April 2011 on the measures implemented by Denmark (C 2/03) for TV2/Danmark in that the European Commission held that the advertising revenue for the years 1995 and 1996 paid to TV2/Danmark through the TV2 Fund constituted State aid;

2. Dismisses the action brought by TV2/Danmark A/S seeking the annulment of Decision 2011/839;

3. Orders TV2/Danmark A/S to bear its own costs and to pay all the costs incurred by the European Commission and Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd both at first instance and in relation to this appeal;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
Case C-574/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Varese — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Mauro Scialdone (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 4(3) TEU — Article 325(1) TFEU — Directive 2006/112/EC — PFI Convention — Penalties — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Failure to pay, within the time limit prescribed by law, the VAT resulting from an annual tax return — National legislation imposing a custodial sentence only where the amount of unpaid VAT exceeds a certain criminalisation threshold — National legislation imposing a lower criminalisation threshold for a failure to pay withholding income tax)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Varese — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Mauro Scialdone

(Case C-574/15) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 4(3) TEU — Article 325(1) TFEU — Directive 2006/112/EC — PFI Convention — Penalties — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Failure to pay, within the time limit prescribed by law, the VAT resulting from an annual tax return — National legislation imposing a custodial sentence only where the amount of unpaid VAT exceeds a certain criminalisation threshold — National legislation imposing a lower criminalisation threshold for a failure to pay withholding income tax)’

Referring court

Tribunale di Varese

Party in the main proceedings

Mauro Scialdone

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, and Article 325(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that failure to pay, within the time limit prescribed by law, the value added tax (VAT) resulting from the annual tax return for a given financial year constitutes a criminal offence punishable by a custodial sentence only when the amount of unpaid VAT exceeds a criminalisation threshold of EUR 250000, whereas a criminalisation threshold of EUR 150000 is laid down for the offence of failing to pay withholding income tax.

( 1 ) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL

(Case C-434/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Article 58(1) TFEU - Services in the field of transport - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Directive 2000/31/EC - Directive 98/34/EC - Information society services - Intermediation service to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys - Requirement for authorisation))

(2018/C 072/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi

Defendant: Uber Systems Spain SL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU, read together with Article 58(1) TFEU, as well as Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, and Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of Council of 20 July 1998, to which Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) refers, must be interpreted as meaning that an intermediation service such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the purpose of which is to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys, must be regarded as being inherently linked to a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified as ‘a service in the field of transport’ within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU. Consequently, such a service must be excluded from the scope of Article 56 TFEU, Directive 2006/123 and Directive 2000/31.

(1) OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
1)

declares that, since the Hellenic Republic failed to submit a report on cost-optimal levels, as is laid down in Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/31/ΕU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, as supplemented by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 (2) of 16 January 2012 establishing a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/31.
(1)

Declares that, by failing to have established a national electronic register of road transport undertakings which complies fully and which is interconnected with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/14

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-417/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Figurative mark - Representation of a white and blue square-shaped packaging - Distinctive character))

(2017/C 213/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: I. Rohr and P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/4

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — József Lingurár v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter

(Case C-315/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - EAFRD financing - Rural development support - Natura 2000 payments - Eligibility limited to private owners - Forest area partially owned by the State))

(2017/C 161/05)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: József Lingurár

Defendant: Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of Article 42(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) must be interpreted as meaning that, when a forest area eligible for Natura 2000 support is owned in part by the State and in part by a private owner, account must be taken of the ratio of the size of the part owned by the State to the size of the part owned by that private owner in calculating the amount of support to be paid to the latter.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/11

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 1 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Piotr Zarski v Andrzej Stadnicki

(Case C-330/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Combating late payments in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Commercial lease contracts of indefinite duration - Late rent payments - Contracts concluded before the period for transposing that directive had expired - National rules - Exclusion of such contracts from the temporal scope of that directive))

(2017/C 249/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Piotr Zarski

Respondent: Andrzej Stadnicki

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(4) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may exclude from the scope of that directive late payments in the performance of a contract concluded before 16 March 2013, even where those late payments occur after that date.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
2.

Article 11(2) and (3) of Directive 86/653 must be interpreted as meaning that the clause of a contract for commercial agency pursuant to which the agent is required to refund, on a pro-rata basis, a part of his commission in the event of partial non-execution of the contract concluded between the principal and the third party does not constitute a ‘derogation to the detriment of the commercial agent’, for the purposes of that Article 11(3), if the part of the commission subject to the refund obligation is proportionate to the extent to which that contract has not been executed and on condition that that non-execution is not due to a reason for which the principal is to blame.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Werner Fries v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

(Case C-190/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 - Annex I, point FCL.065(b) - Holders of a pilot’s licence who have attained the age of 65 prohibited from acting as pilots of aircraft engaged in commercial air transport - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 15 - Freedom of occupation - Article 21 - Equal treatment - Discrimination on grounds of age - Commercial air transport - Concept))

(2017/C 283/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Werner Fries

Defendant: Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1. Consideration of the first and second questions has revealed nothing that might affect the validity of point FCL.065(b) in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in the light of Article 15(1) or Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

2. Point FCL.065(b) in Annex I to Regulation No 1178/2011 must be interpreted as prohibiting the holder of a pilot’s licence who has attained the age of 65 neither from acting as a pilot in ferry flights, operated by an air carrier carrying no passengers, cargo or mail, nor from working as an instructor and/or examiner on board an aircraft, without being part of the flight crew.

(1) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/17

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — T.KUP SAS v Belgische Staat

(Case C-349/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 - Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 - Expiry review of anti-dumping measures - Unrelated importers - Sampling - European Union interest))

(2017/C 277/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: T.KUP SAS

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the questions referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People's Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.