ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/16

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain)) — María del Pilar Planes Bresco v Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón

(Joined Cases C-333/15 and C-334/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Agricultural Policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Articles 43 and 44 - Payment entitlements based on areas - Hectares eligible for area aid - Permanent pasture - National legislation making the eligibility of permanent pasture areas which exceed the forage areas initially taken into account for the purposes of determining the payment entitlements subject to conditions that they be used for the purposes of rearing livestock on the farm))

(2016/C 296/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María del Pilar Planes Bresco

Defendant: Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2006 of 19 December 2006 must be interpreted to the effect that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prevents areas of permanent pasture declared by a farmer which exceed the area of permanent pasture initially taken into account for determining the amount of her payment entitlements per hectare being taken into account as hectares eligible for area aid for an agricultural year, unless the farmer demonstrates that those areas are actually being used for the purposes of rearing livestock on her farm in that agricultural year.

(1) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/16

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Lidl GmbH & Co. KG v Freistaat Sachsen

(Case C-134/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Marketing standards - Fresh pre-packaged poultrymeat - Obligation to indicate the total price and the price per weight unit on the pre-packaging or on a label attached thereto - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business - Proportionality - Second subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU - Non-discrimination))

(2016/C 335/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lidl GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Freistaat Sachsen

Operative part of the judgment

1. Consideration of the first question referred has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 5(4)(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 of 16 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultry meat, in the light of the freedom to conduct a business, as provided by Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2. Consideration of the second question referred has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 5(4)(b) of Regulation No 543/2008 in the light of the principle of non-discrimination referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU.

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/20

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-210/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and No 1698/2005 - Early retirement of farmers and farm workers - Definitive cessation of all commercial farming activity))

(2016/C 335/26)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Szmytkowska and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

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

(1) OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

(Case C-102/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Scope ratione materiae - Recovery of sum not due - Unjust enrichment - Debt arising from the unjustified repayment of a fine for infringement of competition law))

(2016/C 350/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

Defendant: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

Operative part of the judgment

An action for recovery of sums not due on the ground of unjust enrichment, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has its origin in the repayment of a fine imposed in competition law proceedings does not fall within ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

(1) OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — TNS Dimarso NV v Vlaams Gewest

(Case C-6/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public supply contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 53(2) - Award criteria - Most economically advantageous tender - Method of evaluation - Weighting rules - Obligation for the contracting authority to specify in the call for tenders the weighting of the award criteria - Scope of the obligation))

(2016/C 335/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TNS Dimarso NV

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Operative part of the judgment

Article 53(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in the light of the principle of equal treatment and of the consequent obligation of transparency, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a public service contract to be awarded pursuant to the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender in the opinion of the contracting authority, that authority is not required to bring to the attention of potential tenderers, in the contract notice or the tender specifications relating to the contract at issue, the method of evaluation used by the contracting authority in order to specifically evaluate and rank the tenders. However, that method may not have the effect of altering the award criteria and their relative weighting.

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/22

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — Pensa Pharma SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Ferring BV, Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S

(Case C-442/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Word mark PENSA PHARMA - Figurative mark pensa - Applications for a declaration of invalidity of the holders of the word marks pentasa - Declaration of invalidity - Proceedings before EUIPO - Change in the subject matter of the proceedings - New plea before the General Court))

(2016/C 419/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Pensa Pharma SA (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Ferring BV, Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, and D. Slopek, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Pensa Pharma SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Vattenfall Europe Generation AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-457/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Temporal scope - Time when the emissions trading obligation arises - Article 3 - Annexe I - Concept of ‘installation’ - Combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW))

(2016/C 350/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vattenfall Europe Generation AG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

In so far as Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 includes the ‘combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW’ in the list of categories of activities to which that directive applies, it must be interpreted as meaning that the emissions trading obligation of an installation for the generation of electricity starts on the date of the first emissions of greenhouse gases, and thus potentially before the date of the first generation of electricity.

(1) OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Microsoft Mobile Sales International Oy, formerly Nokia Italia SpA and Others v Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MIBAC) and Others

(Case C-110/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Exclusive right of reproduction - Exceptions and limitations - Article 5(2)(b) - Private copying exception - Fair compensation - Conclusion of agreements governed by private law to determine the criteria for exemption from payment of fair compensation - Request for reimbursement of compensation confined to the final user))

(2016/C 419/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Microsoft Mobile Sales International Oy, formerly Nokia Italia SpA, Hewlett-Packard Italiana Srl, Telecom Italia SpA, Samsung Electronics Italia SpA, Dell SpA, Fastweb SpA, Sony Mobile Communications Italy SpA, Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

Defendants: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MIBAC), Società italiana degli autori ed editori (SIAE), Istituto per la tutela dei diritti degli artisti interpreti esecutori (IMAIE), in liquidation, Associazione nazionale industrie cinematografiche audiovisive e multimediali (ANICA), Associazione produttori televisivi (APT)

Interveners: Assotelecomunicazioni (Asstel), Vodafone Omnitel NV, H3G SpA, Movimento Difesa del Cittadino, Assoutenti, Adiconsum, Cittadinanza Attiva, Altroconsumo

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular, Article 5(2)(b) 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 precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that, on the one hand, subjects exemption from payment of the private copying levy for producers and importers of devices and media intended for use clearly unrelated to private copying to the conclusion of agreements between an entity which has a legal monopoly on the representation of the interests of authors of works, and those liable to pay compensation, or their trade associations, and, on the other hand, provides that the reimbursement of such a levy, where it has been unduly paid, may be requested only by the final user of those devices and media.

(1) OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.
1.

Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding the application of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by the authorities of the Member State concerned in such a way that: — the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public health sector is deemed to be justified by ‘objective grounds’, within the meaning of that clause, on the ground that those contracts are founded on legal provisions allowing them to be renewed in order to ensure the provision of certain services of a temporary, auxiliary or extraordinary nature when, in fact, those needs are fixed and permanent; — there is no obligation on the competent authority to create additional permanent posts in order to bring an end to the employment of occasional regulated staff and it is permitted to fill the permanent posts created by hiring ‘temporary’ staff, so that the precarious situation of workers is perpetuated, where there is a structural deficit of regulated staff posts in that sector in the Member State concerned.
2.

Article 9(3) of Regulation No 593/2008 must be interpreted as precluding overriding mandatory provisions other than those of the State of the forum or of the State where the obligations arising out of the contract have to be or have been performed from being applied, as legal rules, by the court of the forum, but as not precluding it from taking such other overriding mandatory provisions into account as matters of fact in so far as this is provided for by the national law that is applicable to the contract pursuant to the regulation. This interpretation is not affected by the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi — Poland) — Naczelnik Urzędu Celnego I w Łodzi v G. M., M. S.

(Case C-303/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Technical regulations in the gambling sector - Directive 98/34/EC - Concept of ‘technical regulation’ - Obligation on Member States to notify the European Commission of all draft technical regulations - Inapplicability of rules classifiable as technical regulations not notified to the Commission))

(2016/C 462/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Naczelnik Urzędu Celnego I w Łodzi

Defendants: G. M., M. S.

Intervener in support of the defendants: Colin Wiliams sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 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 the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not fall within the scope of the concept of a ‘technical regulation’, within the meaning of that directive, subject to obligatory notification under Article 8(1) of that directive, the penalty for failure to fulfil that obligation being that such a regulation is inapplicable.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — DHL Express (Austria) GmbH v Post-Control-Kommission, Bundesminister für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

(Case C-2/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 97/67/EC - Article 9 - Postal services in the European Union - Obligation to make a financial contribution to the operational costs of the postal sector’s regulatory authority - Scope))

(2017/C 014/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DHL Express (Austria) GmbH

Defendant: Post-Control-Kommission, Bundesminister für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2), second subparagraph, fourth indent, 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 as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on all postal service providers, including those which do not provide postal services falling within the scope of the universal service, the obligation to contribute to the financing of the national regulatory authorities responsible for that sector.

(1) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Pau — France) — Criminal proceedings against Association des utilisateurs et distributeurs de l’agrochimie européenne (Audace) and Others

(Case C-114/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions - Parallel imports of veterinary medicinal products - Directive 2001/82/EC - Article 65 - National system of prior authorisation - Livestock farmers excluded from simplified marketing authorisation procedure - Obligation to hold a wholesale trading authorisation - Obligation to have an establishment within the Member State of import - Pharmacovigilance obligations))

(2017/C 006/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Pau

Parties in the main proceedings

Association des utilisateurs et distributeurs de l’agrochimie européenne (Audace), Association des éleveurs solidaires, Cruzalebes EARL, Des deux rivières EARL, Mounacq EARL, Soulard Max EARL, Francisco Xavier Erneta Azanza, Amestoya GAEC, La Vinardière GAEC reconnu, Lagunarte GAEC, André Jacques Iribarren, Ramuntcho Iribarren, Phyteron 2000 SAS, Cataloune SCL

intervening party: Conseil national de l’Ordre des vétérinaires, formerly Conseil supérieur de l’Ordre des vétérinaires, Syndicat national des vétérinaires d’exercice libéral, Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which restricts access to parallel imports of veterinary medicinal products to wholesale distributors holding the authorisation laid down in Article 65 of Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 and which, consequently, excludes from access to such imports the livestock farmers wishing to import veterinary medicinal products for the needs of their own livestock farms;

2. Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which requires livestock farmers who import in parallel veterinary medicinal products for the needs of their own livestock farms to have an establishment in the Member State of destination and to fulfil all the pharmacovigilance obligations laid down in Articles 72 to 79 of Directive 2001/82, as amended by Regulation No 596/2009.

(1) OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Mohamed Daouidi v Bootes Plus SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial, Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-395/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 1 to 3 - Prohibition of all discrimination based on a disability - Whether a ‘disability’ exists - Concept of ‘long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments’ - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 3, 15, 21, 30, 31, 34 and 35 - Dismissal of a worker who is temporarily unable to work, within the definition of national law, for an indeterminate period of time))

(2017/C 030/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohamed Daouidi

Defendants: Bootes Plus SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial, Ministerio Fiscal

Operative part of the judgment

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 fact that the person concerned finds himself or herself in a situation of temporary incapacity for work, as defined in national law, for an indeterminate amount of time, as the result of an accident at work, does not mean, in itself, that the limitation of that person’s capacity can be classified as being ‘long-term’, within the meaning of the definition of ‘disability’ laid down by that directive, read in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009;

— the evidence which makes it possible to find that such a limitation is ‘long-term’ includes the fact that, at the time of the allegedly discriminatory act, the incapacity of the person concerned does not display a clearly defined prognosis as regards short-term progress or the fact that that incapacity is likely to be significantly prolonged before that person has recovered; and

— in the context of the verification of that ‘long-term’ nature, the referring court must base its decision on all of the objective evidence in its possession, in particular on documents and certificates relating to that person’s condition, established on the basis of current medical and scientific knowledge and data.

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015, p. 19.