ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — H.J. Mertens v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-655/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 71 - Concept of a ‘partially unemployed frontier worker’ - Refusal of the Member State of residence and of the competent Member State to grant unemployment benefit))

(2015/C 107/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.J. Mertens

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 71(1)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a frontier worker who, immediately after the end of a full-time employment relationship with an employer in a Member State, is employed on a part-time basis by another employer in that same Member State has the status of a partially unemployed frontier worker within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Vasiliki Balazs v Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-401/13), Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj v Attila Balazs (C-432/13)

(Joined Cases C-401/13 and C-432/13) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 7(2)(c) - Applicability of social security conventions between Member States - Repatriated refugee whose country of origin is a Member State - Completion of periods of employment in the territory of another Member State - Application for grant of an old-age benefit - Refusal))

(2015/C 107/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vasiliki Balazs (C-401/13), Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-432/13)

Defendants: Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-401/13), Attila Balazs (C-432/13)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2)(c) of 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 Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a bilateral agreement which relates to the social security benefits of nationals of one of the signatory States who had the status of political refugee in the territory of the other signatory State, which was concluded on a date when one of the two signatory States had not yet acceded to the European Union and which is not listed in Annex III to that regulation does not continue to apply to the situation of political refugees who were repatriated to their State of origin before the bilateral agreement was concluded and the regulation entered into force.

(1) OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-502/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Application of a reduced rate - Supply of digital books or electronic books))

(2015/C 138/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Soulay and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Chatziioakeimidou and A. de Gregorio Merino, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1) Declares that, by applying a rate of value added tax of 3 % to the supply of digital or electronic books, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99, 110 and 114 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC;

(2) Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

(3) Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
1)

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in IPK International v Commission (T-671/11, EU:T:2013:163) to the extent that it orders the default interest payable by the European Commission to IPK International — World Marketing Consultants GmbH to be fixed on the basis of the amount of the principal debt, plus the interest that has already accrued;
2)

Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 September 2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks, read in conjunction with the Annex to that regulation, and Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation concerning the exercise of rights of action before the court or tribunal having jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of acts of a regulatory authority, which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, does not make it possible to confer on an operator, such as E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt, locus standi for the purpose of bringing an action against a decision of that authority relating to the gas network code.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/14

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna v Josef Grünewald

(Case C-559/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Income tax - Deductibility of support payments made in consideration for a gift by way of anticipated succession - Exclusion of non-residents))

(2015/C 138/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna

Defendant: Josef Grünewald

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which does not permit a non-resident taxpayer who has received in that Member State commercial income generated by shares in a business which were transferred to him by a relative in the course of a gift by way of anticipated succession to deduct from that income the annuities which he has paid to that relative in consideration for that gift, whereas that legislation allows a resident taxpayer to make such a deduction.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
2.

A Member State which refuses to recognise the validity of a driving licence in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is competent to lay down the conditions with which the holder of a driving licence must comply in order to recover the right to drive in that Member State’s territory. It is for the referring court to examine whether, in applying its own rules, the Member State in question is not in fact refusing indefinitely to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State. In that context, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether the conditions laid down by the legislation of the first Member State, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objective of Directive 2006/126, which is to improve road safety.
2.

Article 10(c) of Directive 2005/36, as amended by Regulation No 279/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘specific and exceptional reasons’, within the meaning of that provision, refers to the circumstances which gave rise to the fact that the applicant does not hold a formal qualification listed in Annex V, point 5.7.1, to that directive, it being understood that the applicant cannot rely on the fact that he holds professional qualifications which give him access, in his home Member State, to a profession other than that which he wishes to pursue in the host Member State.
1.

Article 1(1)(a) 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 as precluding national legislation that introduces the undertaking and not the establishment as the sole reference unit, where the effect of the application of that criterion is to preclude the information and consultation procedure provided for in Articles 2 to 4 of that directive, when the dismissals in question would have been considered ‘collective redundancies’, under the definition in Article 1(1)(a) of that directive, had the establishment been used as the reference unit.
1.

Article 31(3) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance directive) must be interpreted as not precluding an insurance company, on the basis of general principles of domestic law such as the ‘open and/or unwritten rules’ at issue in the main proceedings, from being required to send to policyholders certain information additional to that listed in Annex II to that directive, provided that the information required is clear, accurate and necessary for the policyholder to understand the essential characteristics of the commitment and that it ensures a sufficient level of legal certainty, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH, DB Schenker Rail GmbH, DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, EFTA Surveillance Authority, Council of the European Union

(Case C-583/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Competition - Rail transport and ancillary services sector - Abuse of dominant position - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Articles 20 and 28(1) - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Commission’s powers of inspection - Fundamental right to the inviolability of the home - No prior judicial authorisation - Effective judicial review - Fortuitous discovery))

(2015/C 279/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH, DB Schenker Rail GmbH, DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG (represented by: W. Deselaers, E. Venot and J. Brückner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and R. Sauer, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, Agents), EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: M. Schneider, X. Lewis and M. Moustakali, Agents), Council of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11, EU:T:2013:404) in so far as it dismissed the actions brought against the second and third inspection decisions C(2011) 2365 of 30 March 2011 and C(2011) 5230 of 14 July 2011;

2. Annuls the decisions of the European Commission C(2011) 2365 of 30 March 2011 and C(2011) 5230 of 14 July 2011;

3. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

4. Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH, DB Schenker Rail GmbH and DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG to bear half of their own costs relating to the present appeal and to pay half of those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings;

5. Orders the European Commission to bear half of its costs relating to the present appeal and to pay half of those incurred by Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH, DB Schenker Rail GmbH and DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG in the present proceedings;

6. Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH, DB Schenker Rail GmbH and DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG to pay the costs relating to Case T-289/11;

7. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to Cases T-290/11 and T-521/11;

8. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs;

9. Orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Joined Cases C-226/13, C-245/13, C-247/13 and C-578/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Stefan Fahnenbrock (C-226/13), Holger Priestoph (C-245/13), Matteo Antonio Priestoph (C-245/13), Pia Antonia Priestoph (C-245/13), Rudolf Reznicek (C-247/13), Hans-Jürgen Kickler (C-578/13), Walther Wöhlk (C-578/13), Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein Versorgungswerk (C-578/13) v Hellenic Republic (References for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 — Article 1(1) — Concept of civil or commercial matters — Liability of the State for ‘acta iure imperii’)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Stefan Fahnenbrock (C-226/13), Holger Priestoph (C-245/13), Matteo Antonio Priestoph (C-245/13), Pia Antonia Priestoph (C-245/13), Rudolf Reznicek (C-247/13), Hans-Jürgen Kickler (C-578/13), Walther Wöhlk (C-578/13), Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein Versorgungswerk (C-578/13) v Hellenic Republic

(Joined Cases C-226/13, C-245/13, C-247/13 and C-578/13) ( 1 )

‛(References for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 — Article 1(1) — Concept of civil or commercial matters — Liability of the State for ‘acta iure imperii’)’

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stefan Fahnenbrock (C-226/13), Holger Priestoph (C-245/13), Matteo Antonio Priestoph (C-245/13), Pia Antonia Priestoph (C-245/13), Rudolf Reznicek (C-247/13), Hans-Jürgen Kickler (C-578/13), Walther Wöhlk (C-578/13), Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein Versorgungswerk (C-578/13)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000. must be interpreted as meaning that legal actions for compensation for disturbance of ownership and property rights, contractual performance and damages, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, brought by private persons who are holders of government bonds against the issuing State, fall within the scope of that regulation in so far as it does not appear that they are manifestly outside the concept of civil or commercial matters.

( 1 ) OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.

OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2015 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE v European Commission

(Case C-506/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Contract granting Community financial assistance for a project in the field of medical collaboration - Commission decision to recover in part an advance payment made - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 363/03)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE (represented by: E. Tzannini, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune, acting as Agent, and E. Petritsi, dikigoros)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Directeur général des finances publiques v Mapfre asistencia compania internacional de seguros y reaseguros SA and Mapfre warranty SpA v Directeur général des finances publiques

(Case C-584/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Turnover tax - Scope - Exemption - Notion of ‘insurance transactions’ - Notion of ‘supply of services’ - Lump sum for a warranty covering breakdowns of a second-hand vehicle))

(2015/C 311/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Directeur général des finances publiques, Mapfre warranty SpA

Defendants: Mapfre asistencia compania internacional de seguros y reaseguros SA, Directeur général des finances publiques

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(B)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services whereby an economic operator which is independent of a second-hand motor-vehicle dealer provides, in return for payment of a lump sum, a warranty covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of that vehicle constitutes an exempt insurance transaction within the meaning of that provision. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the supply of services at issue in the main proceedings is such a supply. The provision of such a supply and the sale of the second-hand vehicle must, in principle, be considered to be distinct and independent supplies, to be treated separately from the point of view of VAT. It is for the referring court to determine whether, having regard to the specific circumstances of the cases in the main proceedings, the sale of a second-hand vehicle and the warranty provided by an independent economic operator to the dealer selling that second-hand vehicle covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of that vehicle are so interconnected that they must be regarded as constituting a single transaction or whether, on the contrary, they are independent transactions.

(1) OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013 in Galp Energía España and Others v Commission (T-462/07, EU:T:2013:459) in so far as it fixes, in paragraph 3 of its operative part, the new amount of the fines imposed on GALP Energía España SA, Petróleos de Portugal SA and GALP Energía SGPS SA by taking account of the finding, made incorrectly by the General Court in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction in the grounds of that judgment, that GALP Energía España SA, Petróleos de Portugal SA and GALP Energía SGPS SA were aware of the participation of the other members of the cartel in the compensation mechanism and that they could also foresee the participation of those other members in the monitoring system, and, therefore, that the appellants could be held liable in that regard;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux — France) — Thierry Delvigne v Commune de Lesparre-Médoc, Préfet de la Gironde

(Case C-650/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 39 and 49 - European Parliament - Elections - Right to vote - Citizenship of the European Union - Retroactive effect of the more lenient criminal law - National legislation providing for the deprivation of the right to vote in the case of a criminal conviction by a final judgment delivered before 1 March 1994))

(2015/C 389/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thierry Delvigne

Defendants: Commune de Lesparre-Médoc, Préfet de la Gironde

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39(2) and the last sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes, by operation of law, from those entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament persons who, like the applicant in the main proceedings, were convicted of a serious crime and whose conviction became final before 1 March 1994.

(1) OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-604/13 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 - Principle of non-retroactivity - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction - Excessive duration of the proceedings))

(2017/C 104/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: H. Janssen and T. Kapp, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt), Council of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA v European Commission

(Case C-616/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Market sharing and price coordination - Excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Excessive duration of the procedure before the European Commission - Appeal on the costs))

(2016/C 296/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, and by A.J. Rivas, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.