ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — proceedings brought by Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf

(Case C-558/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Succession and European Certificate of Succession - Scope - Ability to include the surviving spouse’s share in the European Certificate of Succession))

(2018/C 142/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf

Other party: Sven Mahnkopf

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prescribes, on the death of one of the spouses, a fixed allocation of the accrued gains by increasing the surviving spouse’s share of the estate falls within the scope of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
1.

Article 8 of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, as adjusted by Decision 95/1/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the Council of the European Union of 1 January 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the capital gain resulting from an exchange of securities falling within the scope of that directive is established when the transaction occurs, but is taxed in the year in which the event putting an end to the deferred taxation occurs: in this case, the transfer of the securities received in exchange.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/15

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (C-596/16), Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca (C-597/16)

(Joined Cases C-596/16 and C-597/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/6/EC - Insider dealing - Penalties - National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts - Res judicata attached to a final criminal judgment relating to administrative proceedings - Final criminal judgment ordering acquittal in respect of insider dealing - Effectiveness of the penalties - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Criminal nature of the administrative sanction - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle - Conditions))

(2018/C 166/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Enzo Di Puma (C-596/16), Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (C-597/16)

Defendants: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (C-596/16), Antonio Zecca (C-597/16)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), read in the light of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation in accordance with which proceedings for an administrative fine of a criminal nature may not be brought following a final criminal judgment of acquittal ruling that the acts capable of constituting a violation of the legislation relating to insider dealing, on the basis of which those proceedings had also been initiated, were not established.

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Case C-320/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille — France) — Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Services in the field of transport — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Directive 98/34/EC — Information society services — Rule on information society services — Definition — Intermediation service making it possible, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, to put non-professional drivers using their own vehicle in contact with persons who wish to make urban journeys — Criminal penalties)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille — France) — Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS

(Case C-320/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Services in the field of transport — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Directive 98/34/EC — Information society services — Rule on information society services — Definition — Intermediation service making it possible, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, to put non-professional drivers using their own vehicle in contact with persons who wish to make urban journeys — Criminal penalties)’

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Lille

Party to the main criminal proceedings

Uber France SAS

Other party to the proceedings: Nabil Bensalem

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, and Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law that lays down criminal penalties for the organisation of a system for putting customers in contact with persons carrying passengers by road for remuneration using vehicles with fewer than 10 seats, without being authorised to do so, concerns a ‘service in the field of transport’ in so far as it applies to an intermediation service that is provided by means of a smartphone application and forms an integral part of an overall service the principal element of which is the transport service. Such a service is excluded from the scope of application of those directives.

( 1 ) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Case C-677/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid — Spain) — Lucía Montero Mateos v Agencia Madrileña de Atención Social de la Consejería de Políticas Sociales y Familia de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Definition of ‘employment conditions’ — Comparability of situations — Justification — Definition of ‘objective grounds’ — Compensation in the event of termination of an employment contract of indefinite duration on objective grounds — No compensation on expiry of a fixed-term ‘interinidad’ contract)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid — Spain) — Lucía Montero Mateos v Agencia Madrileña de Atención Social de la Consejería de Políticas Sociales y Familia de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid

(Case C-677/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Definition of ‘employment conditions’ — Comparability of situations — Justification — Definition of ‘objective grounds’ — Compensation in the event of termination of an employment contract of indefinite duration on objective grounds — No compensation on expiry of a fixed-term ‘interinidad’ contract)’

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lucía Montero Mateos

Defendant: Agencia Madrileña de Atención Social de la Consejería de Políticas Sociales y Familia de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed 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 not precluding national legislation which does not provide for any compensation to be paid to workers employed under a fixed-term contract entered into in order to cover a post temporarily while the selection or promotion procedure to fill the post permanently takes place, such as the temporary replacement contract at issue in the main proceedings, on expiry of the term for which that contract was concluded, whereas compensation is payable to permanent workers where their employment contract is terminated on objective grounds.

( 1 ) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Case C-370/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Novara — Italy) — Bruno Dell’Acqua v Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Protocol No 7 — Article 1 — Whether or not prior authorisation from the Court is necessary — Structural Funds — EU financial assistance — Attachment proceedings against a national authority to attach sums deriving from that assistance)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Novara — Italy) — Bruno Dell’Acqua v Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia

(Case C-370/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Protocol No 7 — Article 1 — Whether or not prior authorisation from the Court is necessary — Structural Funds — EU financial assistance — Attachment proceedings against a national authority to attach sums deriving from that assistance)’

Referring court

Tribunale di Novara

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bruno Dell’Acqua

Defendant: Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia

Intervening parties: Renato Quattrocchi, Antonella Pozzoli, Loris Lucini, Diego Chierici, Nicoletta Malaraggia, Elio Zonca, Sonia Fusi, Danilo Cattaneo, Alberto Terraneo, Luigi Luzzi

Operative part of the judgment

The last sentence of Article 1 of Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that prior authorisation from the Court is not necessary when a third party initiates attachment proceedings seeking to attach a claim against a Member State body that owes a corresponding debt to the debtor of the third party where that debtor is a beneficiary of funds granted for the purpose of implementing projects co-financed by the European Social Fund.

( 1 ) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Case C-208/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — Federal Republic of Germany v Dirk Andres (liquidator in the insolvency of Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH), European Commission Appeal — State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying certain losses forward to future tax years (‘restructuring clause’) — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Person individually concerned — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Determination of the reference framework — Legal classification of the facts

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — Federal Republic of Germany v Dirk Andres (liquidator in the insolvency of Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH), European Commission

(Case C-208/16 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeal — State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying certain losses forward to future tax years (‘restructuring clause’) — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Person individually concerned — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Determination of the reference framework — Legal classification of the facts’

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dirk Andres (liquidator in the insolvency of Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH) (represented by: W. Niemann, S. Geringhoff, and P. Dodos, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck-Putz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the cross-appeal;

2. annuls paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 February 2016, Heitkamp BauHolding v Commission (T-287/11, EU:T:2016:60);

3. annuls Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel);

4. orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs relating both to the proceedings at first instance and to the appeal proceedings, the costs incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany relating to appeal proceedings and the costs incurred by Mr Dirk Andres, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH, relating to both the proceedings at first instance and to the appeal proceedings.

( 1 ) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Case C-5/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Decision (EU) 2015/1814 — Determination of legal basis — No taking into account of the effects of a measure — Article 192(1) TFEU — Article 192(2)(c) TFEU — Measures significantly affecting a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply — Principle of sincere cooperation — Article 15 TEU — Powers of the European Council — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of proportionality — Impact assessment)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-5/16) ( 1 )

‛(Action for annulment — Decision (EU) 2015/1814 — Determination of legal basis — No taking into account of the effects of a measure — Article 192(1) TFEU — Article 192(2)(c) TFEU — Measures significantly affecting a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply — Principle of sincere cooperation — Article 15 TEU — Powers of the European Council — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of proportionality — Impact assessment)’

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and K. Rudzińska, acting as Agents, and by I. Tatarewicz, ekspert)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Tamás and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm, A. Sikora, and K. Pleśniak, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: M. Wolff, J. Nymann-Lindegren and C. Thorning, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis and M. A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, G. de Bergues, J. Traband, T. Deleuil and S. Ghiandoni, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, A. C. Becker, E. White and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise eV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-488/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Word mark NEUSCHWANSTEIN - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Indication of geographical origin - Distinctive character - Article 52(1)(b) - Bad faith))

(2018/C 399/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise eV (represented by: B. Bittner, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis, A. Schifko and D. Walicka, acting as Agents), Freistaat Bayern (represented by: M. Müller, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise eV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-135/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Scheme for the support of renewable electricity sources and energy-intensive users - Decision (EU) 2015/1585 - Validity in the light of Article 107 TFEU - Admissibility - Failure by the applicants in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment))

(2018/C 328/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), by decision of 23 February 2016, is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Reggio Calabria — Italy) — Fortunata Silvia Fontana v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Reggio Calabria

(Case C-648/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 273 - Tax adjustment - Method of calculating the taxable amount by extrapolation - Right to deduct VAT - Presumption - Principles of neutrality and proportionality - National law basing the calculation of VAT on presumed turnover))

(2019/C 25/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Reggio Calabria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fortunata Silvia Fontana

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Reggio Calabria

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises tax authorities, in the event of serious differences between declared revenue and revenue estimated on the basis of sector studies, to use extrapolation, based on such sector studies, in order to determine the amount of turnover achieved by a taxable person and, consequently, to carry out a tax adjustment requiring the payment of additional value added tax (VAT), provided that that legislation and its application enable the taxable person, in compliance with the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and the right of defence, to challenge the results obtained by that method, on the basis of all of the evidence to the contrary available to him, and to exercise his right of deduction in accordance with the provisions in Title X of Directive 2006/2012, which it is for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
6.

Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32 read in conjunction with the reference to the appeal procedure contained in Article 40(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a court before which an action has been brought against a decision refusing international protection is, in principle, required to examine, as ‘further representations’ and having asked the determining authority for an assessment of those representations, grounds for granting international protection or evidence which, whilst relating to events or threats which allegedly took place before the adoption of the decision of refusal, or even before the application for international protection was lodged, have been relied on for the first time during those proceedings. That court is not, however, required to do so if it finds that those grounds or evidence were relied on in a late stage of the appeal proceedings or are not presented in a sufficiently specific manner to be duly considered or, in respect of evidence, it finds that that evidence is not significant or insufficiently distinct from evidence which the determining authority was already able to take into account.