ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 439/12

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Douane Advies Bureau Rietveld v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-541/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and common customs tariff - Tariff classification - Heading 3822 - Concept of ‘diagnostic or laboratory reagents’ - Indicators of exposure to a predetermined target temperature))

(2014/C 439/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Douane Advies Bureau Rietveld

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Operative part of the judgment

Heading 3822 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that temperature indicators, such as the products marketed under the names ‘WarmMark’ and ‘ColdMark’, which, by the effect of a change in colour caused by the variation in volume of the liquids that they contain, indicate, irreversibly, whether a temperature higher or lower than a specified threshold has been reached, are not covered by that heading.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/10

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane, Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane v ADL American Dataline Srl

(Case C-546/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8471 and 8518 - Loudspeakers reproducing sound by transforming an electromagnetic signal into sound waves, which can be connected only to a computer and marketed separately))

(2015/C 007/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Agenzia delle Dogane, Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane

Defendant: ADL American Dataline Srl

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that goods such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are connected to a computer equipped with the operating system ‘MAC OS 9’ or a more advanced system, must be classified as loudspeakers in subheading 8518 22 90 of that nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/9

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency

(Case C-453/13) (1)

((Protection of health - Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 - Hygiene rules for food of animal origin - Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 - Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ - Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 - Prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Consumer protection - Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs))

(2014/C 462/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen, on the application of: Newby Foods Ltd

Defendant: Food Standards Agency

Operative part of the judgment

Points 1.14 and 1.15 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin must be interpreted as meaning that the product obtained by the mechanical removal of meat from flesh-bearing bones after boning or from poultry carcases must be classified as ‘mechanically separated meat’ within the meaning of that point 1.14, since the process used results in a loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure which is greater than that which is strictly confined to the cutting point, irrespective of the fact that the technique used does not alter the structure of the bones used. Such a product cannot be classified as a ‘meat preparation’ within the meaning of that point 1.15.

(1) OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
1.

Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be able to postpone by a maximum of five years the deadline specified by the directive for achieving conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide specified in Annex XI thereto, a Member State is required to make an application for postponement and to establish an air quality plan when it is objectively apparent, having regard to existing data, and notwithstanding the implementation by that Member State of appropriate pollution abatement measures, that conformity with those values cannot be achieved in a given zone or agglomeration by the specified deadline. Directive 2008/50 does not contain any exception to the obligation flowing from Article 22(1);
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Annett Altmann and Others v Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

(Case C-140/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2004/39/EC - Article 54 - Obligation of professional secrecy incumbent on national financial supervisory authorities - Information concerning a fraudulent investment firm in compulsory liquidation)

(2015/C 016/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Annett Altmann, Torsten Altmann, Hans Abel, Waltraud Apitzsch, Uwe Apitzsch, Simone Arnold, Barbara Assheuer, Ingeborg Aubele, Karl-Heinz Aubele

Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

Intervening party:Frank Schmitt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 54(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, in administrative proceedings, a national supervisory authority may rely on the obligation to maintain professional secrecy against a person who, in a case not covered by criminal law and not in a civil or commercial proceeding, requests it to grant access to information concerning an investment firm which is in judicial liquidation, even where that firm’s main business model consisted in large scale fraud and wilful harming of investors’ interests and several executives of that firm have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

(1) OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — František Ryneš v Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů

(Case C-212/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 95/46/EC - Protection of individuals - Processing of personal data - Concept of ‘in the course of a purely personal or household activity’))

(2015/C 046/07)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: František Ryneš

Defendant: Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people is stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitors a public space, does not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Sean Ambrose McCarthy, Helena Patricia McCarthy Rodriguez, Natasha Caley McCarthy Rodriguez v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-202/13) (1)

((Citizenship of the European Union - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of a Member State - Right of entry - Third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen and in possession of a residence card issued by a Member State - National legislation requiring an entry permit to be obtained prior to entry into national territory - Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 1 of the Protocol (No 20) on the application of certain aspects of Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to the United Kingdom and to Ireland))

(2015/C 065/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: Sean Ambrose McCarthy, Helena Patricia McCarthy Rodriguez, Natasha Caley McCarthy Rodriguez

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Operative part of the judgment

Both Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC and Article 1 of the Protocol (No 20) on the application of certain aspects of Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to the United Kingdom and to Ireland must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to require, in pursuit of an objective of general prevention, family members of a citizen of the European Union who are not nationals of a Member State and who hold a valid residence card, issued under Article 10 of Directive 2004/38 by the authorities of another Member State, to be in possession, pursuant to national law, of an entry permit, such as the EEA (European Economic Area) family permit, in order to be able to enter its territory.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
2)

The provisions of Directive 92/50, and in particular the general principles of freedom of competition, non-discrimination and proportionality which underlie that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a public hospital, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, participating in a tendering procedure to submit a tender which cannot be matched by any competitors as a result of the public funding which it receives. However, in the course of the examination of the abnormally low character of a tender on the basis of Article 37 of that directive, the contracting authority may take into consideration the existence of public funding which such an entity receives in the light of the option to reject that tender.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato

(Case C-463/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gambling - National rules - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences with a period of validity shorter than that of previous licences - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))

(2015/C 107/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd

Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato

Intervening parties: Intralot Italia SpA, SNAI SpA, Galassia Game Srl, Eurobet Italia Srl unipersonale, Lottomatica Scommesse Srl, Sisal Match Point SpA, Cogetech Gaming Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded previously because of the reorganisation of the system by way of an alignment of licence expiry dates.

(1) OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright

(Case C-419/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4 - Distribution right - Exhaustion rule - Concept of ‘object’ - Transfer of the image of a protected work from a paper poster to a painter’s canvas - Replacement of the medium - Impact on exhaustion))

(2015/C 107/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Art & Allposters International BV

Defendant: Stichting Pictoright

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) 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 meaning that the rule of exhaustion of the distribution right set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29 does not apply in a situation where a reproduction of a protected work, after having been marketed in the European Union with the copyright holder’s consent, has undergone an alteration of its medium, such as the transfer of that reproduction from a paper poster onto a canvas, and is placed on the market again in its new form.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/16

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances v Gérard de Ruyter

(Case C-623/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 4 - Substantive scope - Levies on income from assets - General social contribution - Social debt repayment contribution - Social levy - Additional contribution to the social levy - Participation in the financing of compulsory social security schemes - Direct and sufficiently relevant link with some branches of social security))

(2015/C 138/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Defendant: Gérard de Ruyter

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 and as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that levies on income from assets, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, have, when they contribute to the financing of compulsory social security schemes, a direct and relevant link with some of the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of that regulation and thus fall within the scope of the regulation, even though those levies are imposed on the income from assets of taxable persons, irrespective of the pursuit by them of any professional activity.

(1) OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-134/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Infrared thermal imagers))

(2015/C 118/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question referred has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Regulation (EU) No 314/2011 of 30 March 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
1.

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, must be interpreted to the effect that the persons covered by it include an employed person who, like Mr Kik, is a national of a Member State, in which he resides and in which his income is subject to tax, is employed on a pipe-laying vessel flying the flag of a third State and operating in various parts of the world, in particular above the part of the continental shelf adjacent to certain Member States, was previously employed by an undertaking established in his Member State of residence, changes employer and thereafter is employed by an undertaking established in Switzerland, whilst continuing to reside in the same Member State and to sail on the same vessel.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-144/13), Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV (C-154/13), Nobel Biocare Nederland BV (C-160/13)

(Joined Cases C-144/13, C-154/13 and C-160/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Deductions - Exemptions - Supplies of dental prostheses))

(2015/C 138/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: VDP Dental Laboratory NV (C-144/13), Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-154/13, C-160/13)

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-144/13), X BV (C-154/13), Nobel Biocare Nederland BV (C-160/13)

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2007/75/EC of 20 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the exemption from value added tax provided for by national law is incompatible with Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, Article 168 does not permit a taxable person both to benefit from that exemption and to exercise the right to deduct tax.

2) Article 140(a) and (b) and Article 143(a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax for which they provide applies to the intra-Community acquisition and the final importation of dental prostheses supplied by dentists and dental technicians where the Member State of the supply or importation has not implemented the transitional rules provided for in Article 370 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75.

3) Article 140(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in that provision also applies where the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses originates from a Member State which has implemented the derogating and transitional arrangements provided for in Article 370 of that directive.

(1) OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 April 2015 — Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union

(Case C-630/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from the regime - Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded - Set of indicia))

(2015/C 205/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Issam Anbouba (represented by: M.-A. Bastin, J.-M. Salva and S. Orlandi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro, R. Liudvinaviciute and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Issam Anbouba to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
2.

The Framework Agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997, set out in the Annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State which provides that the contribution gaps existing within the reference period for calculating a contributory invalidity pension, after a period of part-time employment, are taken into account by using the minimum contribution bases applicable at any time, reduced as a result of the reduction coefficient of that employment, whereas, if those gaps follow full-time employment, there is no provision for such a reduction.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/12

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-682/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Public health - List of food additives approved for use in foods - Steviol glycosides - Conditions of admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings))

(2015/C 236/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Grünheid and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH to pay the costs

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.