ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber

(Case C-438/12) (1)

((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 22(1) - Exclusive jurisdiction - Disputes in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property - Nature of the right of pre-emption - Article 27(1) - Lis pendens - Concept of proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties - Relationship between Articles 22(1) and 27(1) - Article 28(1) - Related actions - Criteria for assessing whether to stay proceedings))

2014/C 159/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Irmengard Weber

Defendant: Mechthilde Weber

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht München — Interpretation of Articles 22(1), 27, 28 and 35(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Lis pendens — Proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties brought in the courts of different Member States — Interpretation of ‘the same cause of action’ and ‘the same parties’ — Situation in which the first action was brought by a third party against both parties and the second action was brought by one of those parties against the other

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 22(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, must be interpreted as meaning that there falls within the category of proceedings which have as their object ‘rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision an action such as that brought in the present case before the courts of another Member State, seeking a declaration of invalidity of the exercise of a right of pre-emption attaching to that property and which produces effects with respect to all the parties;

2) Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, before staying its proceedings in accordance with that provision, the court second seised is required to examine whether, by reason of a failure to take into consideration the exclusive jurisdiction laid down in Article 22(1) thereof, the decision of the court first seised will be recognised in the other Member States in accordance with Article 35(1) of that regulation

(1) OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
2.

Article 5(3) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of unlawful comparative advertising or unfair imitation of a sign protected by a Community trade mark, prohibited by the law against unfair competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb) of the Member State in which the court seised is situated, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the place where the event giving rise to the damage resulting from the infringement of that law occurred, for a court in that Member State where the presumed perpetrator who is sued there did not himself act there. By contrast, in such a case, that provision does allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the place of occurrence of damage, to hear an action for damages based on that national law brought against a person established in another Member State and who is alleged to have committed, in that State, an act which caused or may cause damage within the jurisdiction of that court.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Luxembourg) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Ulrike Wiering, Markus Wiering

(Case C-347/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Family benefits - Allowance for bringing up a family - ‘Elterngeld’ - ‘Kindergeld’ - Calculation of the supplementary allowance))

2014/C 202/03

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

Defendants: Ulrike Wiering, Markus Wiering

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Interpretation of Articles 1(u)(i), 4(1)(h) and 76 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 (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) — Interpretation of Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 160) — Concept of ‘family benefit’ — Worker residing in Germany and carrying out his profession in Luxembourg — Aggregation of rights to family benefits — Calculation of the differential allowance paid by Luxembourg — Account taken of the German education allowances ‘Elterngeld’ and ‘Kindergeld’

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(u)(i) and 4(1)(h) 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, in the version 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, and Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, for the purpose of calculating the supplementary allowance to which a migrant worker may be entitled in his or her Member State of employment, it is not possible to take account of all the family benefits received by the worker’s family under the legislation of the Member State of residence since, subject to verifications to be carried out by the referring court, ‘Elterngeld’, provided for under German law, is not a benefit of the same kind, within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation No 1408/71, as ‘Kindergeld’, provided for under German law, or the family allowances provided for under Luxembourg law.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
1.

By failing to make available to the European Commission an amount of EUR 7 85 078,50 corresponding to levies on surplus stocks of non-exported sugar following the accession of Portugal to the European Community, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC, Article 254 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties, Article 7 of Council Decision 85/257/EEC, Euratom of 7 May 1985 on the Communities’ system of own resources, Articles 4, 7 and 8 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 579/86 of 28 February 1986 laying down detailed rules relating to stocks of products in the sugar sector in Spain and Portugal on 1 March 1986, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3332/86 of 31 October 1986, and Articles 2, 11 and 17 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources
4)

In circumstances such as those of the cases before the referring court, EU law — and, in particular, Article 17 of Directive 2000/78 — does not require civil servants who have been discriminated against to be retrospectively granted an amount equal to the difference between the pay actually received and that corresponding to the highest step in their grade; It is for the referring court to ascertain whether all the conditions, laid down by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, are met for the Federal Republic of Germany to have incurred liability under EU law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Valimar’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna

(Case C-374/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Russia - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Articles 2(8) and (9) and 11(2), (3), (9) and (10) - Interim review - Expiry review of the anti-dumping measures - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 - Determination of the export price on the basis of sales to third countries - Reliability of export prices - Taking into consideration of price undertakings - Change in circumstances - Application of a methodology which is different from that used at the time of the original investigation))

2014/C 421/02

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Valimar’ OOD

Respondent: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 of 30 October 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Russian Federation, and repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Thailand and Turkey.

(1) OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia — Italy) — Davide Gullotta, Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. Sas v Ministero della Salute, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania

(Case C-497/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Principle of non-discrimination - Abuse of dominant position - Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 294/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Davide Gullotta, Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. Sas

Defendants: Ministero della Salute, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania

Operative part of the judgment

The questions referred by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia (Italy), by decision of 9 October 2012, and maintained by that court, are inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Verband Österreichischer Banken und Bankiers

(Case C-476/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Principle of non-discrimination - Collective agreement providing for a dependent child allowance - Calculation of allowance paid to part-time workers in accordance with the principle of pro rata temporis))

(2015/C 007/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund

Defendant: Verband Österreichischer Banken und Bankiers

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, which is annexed 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 meaning that the principle pro rata temporis applies to the calculation of the amount of a dependent child allowance paid by an employer to a part-time worker pursuant to a collective agreement such as that applicable to the employees of Austrian banks and bankers.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/18

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-139/13) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Area of freedom, security and justice - Standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States - Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 - Biometric passport - Inclusion of digital fingerprints - Failure to implement - Failure to issue within the prescribed periods)

2014/C 93/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Maidani and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1) — Biometric passports containing digital fingerprints — Failure to issue such passports within the prescribed periods laid down by that regulation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by having failed to implement, in the prescribed period, the technical specifications relating to issuing biometric passports containing digital fingerprints, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 156, 01.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bozen — Italy) — Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer v Katerina Pokorná

(Case C-322/13) (1)

((Citizenship of the Union - Principle of non-discrimination - Language rules applicable to civil proceedings))

2014/C 151/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Bozen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer

Defendant: Katerina Pokorná

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Bolzano/Landesgericht Bozen — Interpretation of Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union — Language regime applicable to civil proceedings — Derogation for nationals — Extension of that derogation to EU nationals in the same situation as nationals

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which grant the right to use a language other than the official language of that State in civil proceedings brought before the courts of a Member State which are situated in a specific territorial entity, only to citizens of that State who are domiciled in the same territorial entity.

(1) OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/13

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-52/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/114/EC - Concepts of ‘misleading advertising’ and ‘comparative advertising’ - National legislation providing that misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising are two separate unlawful acts))

2014/C 135/14

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint

Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Interveners: Cg srl, Tacoma srl

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21) — Unfair business practices between traders — Concept of ‘misleading advertising and comparative advertising’ — National legislation which not only prohibits advertising that is at the same time misleading and based on unlawful comparison but also provides that misleading advertising and comparative advertising are two separate offences.

Operative part of the judgment

With regard to the protection afforded to traders, Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is to be interpreted as referring to misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising as two independent infringements and to the effect that, in order to prohibit and penalise misleading advertising, it is not necessary that that latter at the same time should constitute unlawful comparative advertising.

(1) OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.
2.

Taxable persons may rely on Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 before national courts against the Member State to obtain a reduction of their taxable amount for value added tax. While Member States may provide that the exercise of the right to a reduction of that taxable amount is conditional on compliance with certain formalities which serve to prove in particular that, after the transaction was concluded, part or all of the consideration was definitely not received by the taxable person and that the taxable person was able to rely on one of the situations referred to in Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112, the measures thus adopted cannot exceed what is necessary for that proof, which is for the national court to ascertain.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/9

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Ordre des architectes v État belge

(Case C-365/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/36/EC - Articles 21 and 49 - Recognition of professional qualifications - Access to the profession of architect - Exemption from professional traineeship))

2014/C 194/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ordre des architectes

Defendant: État belge

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 21, 46 and 49 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) — Access to and pursuit of the profession of architect — Enrolment in the Ordre des architectes — National legislation restricting enrolment to holders of evidence of formal qualifications issued in Belgium on completion of a professional traineeship of a 2 year duration — Prohibition on requiring holders of an architect’s diploma obtained in another Member State to have completed such a traineeship or to have equivalent experience

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 21 and 49 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 279/2009 of 6 April 2009, must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State from requiring the holder of a professional qualification obtained in the home Member State and listed in point 5.7.1 of Annex V, or in Annex VI, to that directive to undertake a traineeship, or to prove that he possesses equivalent professional experience, in order to be authorised to practise the profession of architect.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/6

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 — Electrabel SA v European Commission

(Case C-84/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Concentration of undertakings - Commission decision - Order for payment of a fine - Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Control of concentrations between undertakings - Article 14(3) - Criteria to be taken into account in determining the amount of the fine - Taking into account the duration of the infringement - Principle of non-retroactivity of the law - Application of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Obligation to state reasons))

2014/C 292/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Electrabel SA (represented by: M. Pittie and P. Honoré, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, V. Di Bucci and A. Bouquet, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Electrabel SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.
1.

Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 of January 2011 and by Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, when taking a decision on whether to grant a derogation requested under that provision with a view to bringing an action challenging the lawfulness of restrictive measures imposed by the European Union, the competent national authority does not enjoy an absolute discretion, but must exercise its powers in a manner which upholds the rights provided for in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and observes the indispensable nature of legal representation in bringing such an action before the General Court of the European Union. The competent national authority may verify that the funds release of which is requested are intended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services. It may also set the conditions it deems appropriate in order to guarantee, inter alia, that the objective of the sanction imposed is not frustrated and the derogation granted is not distorted.