ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie — Poland) — Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów

(Case C-357/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 2008/7/EC - Article 2(1)(b) and (c) - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Subjection to capital duty - Contributions of capital to a partnership limited by shares - Classification of such a partnership as a capital company))

(2015/C 205/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as meaning that a partnership limited by shares under Polish law must be regarded as a capital company within the meaning of that provision even if only some of its capital and members are able to satisfy the conditions laid down by that provision.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-317/13 and C-679/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - New psychoactive substance subjected to control measures - Determination of legal basis - Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Secondary legal basis - Consultation of Parliament))

(2015/C 198/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak and A.F. Jensen, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2013/129/EU of 7 March 2013 on subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures and Council Implementing Decision 2013/496/EU of 7 October 2013 on subjecting 5-(2-aminopropyl)indole to control measures;

2. Declares that the effects of Decision 2013/129 and Implementing Decision 2013/496 are to be maintained until the entry into force of new acts intended to replace them;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

4. Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — Valerie Lyttle and Others v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited

(Case C-182/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a) - Meaning of ‘establishment’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))

(2015/C 236/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Industrial Tribunal (Northern Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: Valerie Lyttle, Sarah Louise Halliday, Clara Lyttle, Tanya McGerty

Respondent: Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Limited

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘establishment’ in Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted in the same way as the term in Article 1(1)(a)(i) of that directive.

Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that lays down an obligation to inform and consult workers in the event of the dismissal, within a period of 90 days, of at least 20 workers from a particular establishment of an undertaking, and not where the aggregate number of dismissals across all of the establishments or across some of the establishments of an undertaking over the same period reaches or exceeds the threshold of 20 workers.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/6

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 2015 — Voss of Norway ASA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-445/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a cylindrical bottle))

(2015/C 236/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Voss of Norway ASA (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent), Nordic Spirit AB (publ)

Intervener in support of the appellant: International Trademark Association (represented by T. De Haan, avocat, F. Folmer and S. Klos, advocaten, and S. Helmer, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Voss of Norway ASA to pay the costs;

3. Orders the International Trademark Association to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
1.

Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a patent essential to a standard established by a standardisation body, which has given an irrevocable undertaking to that body to grant a licence to third parties on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms, does not abuse its dominant position, within the meaning of that article, by bringing an action for infringement seeking an injunction prohibiting the infringement of its patent or seeking the recall of products for the manufacture of which that patent has been used, as long as: — prior to bringing that action, the proprietor has, first, alerted the alleged infringer of the infringement complained about by designating that patent and specifying the way in which it has been infringed, and, secondly, after the alleged infringer has expressed its willingness to conclude a licensing agreement on FRAND terms, presented to that infringer a specific, written offer for a licence on such terms, specifying, in particular, the royalty and the way in which it is to be calculated, and — where the alleged infringer continues to use the patent in question, the alleged infringer has not diligently responded to that offer, in accordance with recognised commercial practices in the field and in good faith, this being a matter which must be established on the basis of objective factors and which implies, in particular, that there are no delaying tactics.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — Republic of Estonia v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-508/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Directive 2013/34/EU - Obligations on some forms of undertakings in relation to financial statements - Principles of subsidiarity and proportionality - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 279/06)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: K. Kraavi-Käerdi, Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and M. Allik, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič Bruni and A. Stolfot, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
1)

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Total v Commission (T-548/08, EU:T:2013:434) in so far as it did not bring the fine imposed on Total SA into line with the fine imposed on Total Raffinage Marketing SA by the judgment in Total Raffinage Marketing v Commission (T-566/08, EU:T:2013:423);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — ‘Fast Bunkering Klaipėda’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-526/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value Added Tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 148(a) - Supply of goods - Definition - Exemption - Supply of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels used for navigation on the high seas - Supplies to intermediaries acting in their own name))

(2015/C 354/04)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘Fast Bunkering Klaipėda’

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 148(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption provided for in that provision is not, in principle, applicable to supplies of goods for the fuelling and provisioning to intermediaries acting in their own name, even if, at the date on which the supply is made the ultimate use of the goods is known and duly established and evidence confirming this is submitted to the tax authority in accordance with the national legislation. However, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, that exemption may apply if the transfer to those intermediaries of the ownership in the goods concerned under the procedures laid down by the applicable national law took place at the earliest at the same time when the operators of vessels used for navigation on the high seas were actually entitled to dispose of those goods as if they were the owners, a matter which is for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Council of the European Union v Bank Saderat Iran, European Commission

(Case C-200/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Combating nuclear proliferation - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds of an Iranian bank - Obligation to state reasons - Procedure for the adoption of the act - Manifest error of assessment))

(2016/C 211/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Saderat Iran (represented by: D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister, and by S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie and S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Dismisses the cross-appeal;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Bank Saderat Iran in both sets of proceedings, except for the costs relating to the cross-appeal;

4. Orders Bank Saderat Iran to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation to the cross-appeal.

5. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs of both sets of proceedings.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/4

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen

(Case C-632/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Equal treatment - Income tax - Revenue of non-resident taxpayers subject to taxation at source - Exclusion of any tax deduction related to the taxpayer’s personal circumstances - Justification - Possibility for non-resident taxpayers to opt for the regime applicable to resident taxpayers and to benefit from the relevant tax deductions))

(2016/C 016/04)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Hilkka Hirvonen

Operative part of the judgment

In matters of taxation of income, the refusal to grant non-resident taxpayers, who obtain the majority of their income from the source State and who have opted for the taxation at source regime, the same personal deductions as those granted to resident taxpayers under the ordinary taxation regime does not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 21 TFEU where the non-resident taxpayers are not subject to an overall tax burden greater than that placed on resident taxpayers and on persons in a similar situation whose circumstances are comparable to those of non-resident taxpayers.

(1) OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Roca Sanitario, SA v European Commission

(Case C-636/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of equal treatment - Proportionality - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))

(2017/C 104/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Roca Sanitario, SA (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez and E. Navarro Varona, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Roca Sanitario SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Laufen Austria AG v European Commission

(Case C-637/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of equal treatment - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))

(2017/C 104/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Laufen Austria AG (represented by: E. Navarro Varona, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Laufen Austria v Commission (T-411/10, EU:T:2013:443);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the claim made by Laufen Austria AG for reduction of the fine imposed;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
1)

Declares that, by having failed to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries of the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market in Article 1 of Commission Decision 2009/402/EC of 28 January 2009 on the contingency plans in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France (C 29/05 (ex NN 57/05)) and by having failed to provide the European Commission, within the period prescribed, with the information listed in Article 4 of that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2 to 4 of that decision;
1)

Declares that, by failing to publish the final river basin management plans by 22 December 2009 at the latest and by failing to send a copy of those plans to the Commission by 22 March 2010 at the latest, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1), (2) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Gipuzkoa — Extranjería v Samir Zaizoune

(Case C-38/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Articles 6(1) and 8(1) - National legislation providing, in the event of illegal staying, for either a fine or removal, depending on the circumstances))

(2015/C 205/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Gipuzkoa — Extranjería

Respondent: Samir Zaizoune

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, in particular, Articles 6(1) and Article 8(1), read in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3), must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides, in the event of third-country nationals illegally staying in the territory of that Member State, depending on the circumstances, for either a fine or removal, since the two measures are mutually exclusive.

(1) OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/23

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — H v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-221/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Emoluments applicable to members of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Former member of the Civil Service Tribunal - Application for membership of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) - Decision - Refusal - Appeal procedures - Lateness - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 138/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: H (represented by: S. Sagias, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A.V. Placco, agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders H to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/14

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — European Commission v MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt.

(Case C-15/14 P) (1)

((Appeals - State aid - Agreement between Hungary and the oil and gas company MOL relating to mining fees in connection with the extraction of hydrocarbons - Subsequent amendment to the statutory rules increasing the rate of the fees - Increase in fees not applied to MOL - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Selective nature))

(2015/C 236/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (represented by: N. Niejahr, Rechtsanwältin, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/9

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — SMK kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal

(Case C-97/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 52(c) and 55 - Determination of the place of supply of services - Recipient of the service identified for value added tax purposes in several Member States - Dispatch or transport out of the Member State in which the service has been physically carried out))

(2015/C 213/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SMK kft

Defendants: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal

Operative part of the judgment

Article 55 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in the version in force until 1 January 2010, must be interpreted as not applying in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings in which the recipient of the supplies of services was identified for VAT purposes both in the Member State in which the services were physically carried out and in another Member State, and later only in the other Member State, and the tangible movable property to which those services related was dispatched or transported out of the Member State in which the services were physically carried out not following the supplies of services but following the later sale of the goods.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/13

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL v AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV

(Case C-147/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(1)(b) - Effects - Rights conferred by a Community trade mark - Identical or similar signs - Prohibition of use - Likelihood of confusion - Assessment - Taking into consideration the use of a language other than an official language of the European Union))

(2015/C 279/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL

Defendants: AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess the likelihood of confusion that may exist between a Community trade mark and a sign which cover identical or similar goods and which both contain a dominant Arabic word in Latin and Arabic script, those words being visually similar, in circumstances where the relevant public for the Community trade mark and for the sign at issue has a basic knowledge of written Arabic, the meaning and pronunciation of those words must be taken into account.

(1) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.