ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster — Germany) — EV v Finanzamt Lippstadt

(Case C-685/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 63 to 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Deduction of taxable profits - Shareholdings of a parent company in a capital company whose management and registered office are located in a non-member State - Dividends distributed to the parent company - Tax deductibility subject to stricter conditions than deduction of profits from shareholdings in a non-tax-exempt capital company governed by national law))

(2018/C 408/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EV

Defendant: Finanzamt Lippstadt

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 to 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which subjects a deduction of profits from shareholdings in a capital company with its management and head office in a non-member State to stricter conditions than a deduction of profits from shareholdings in a non-exempt capital company governed by national law.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-586/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Pharmaceutical products - Market for antidepressant medicines (citalopram) - Settlement agreements concerning process patents concluded between a manufacturer of originator medicines holding those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines - Article 101 TFEU - Potential competition - Restriction by object - Characterisation - Calculation of the amount of the fine)

(2021/C 206/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd (represented by: R. Vidal, Solicitor, and B. Kennelly QC, and by L. Penny, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment and D. Bailey, Barristers, and by G. Peretz QC, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes QC, and subsequently by D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and by J. Holmes QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2019 — Balázs-Árpád Izsák, Attila Dabis v European Commission, Hungary, Hellenic Republic, Romania, Slovak Republic

(Case C-420/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Citizens’ initiative - Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative - Article 4(2)(b) - Condition that the proposed initiative does not manifestly fall outside the framework of the European Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties - Burden of proof - Economic, social and territorial cohesion - Article 174 TFEU - Citizens’ initiative ‘Cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and sustainability of the regional cultures’ - Application for registration - Refusal by the Commission)

(2019/C 148/02)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellants: Balázs-Árpád Izsák, Attila Dabis (represented by: D. Sobor, ügyvéd)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, K. Talabér-Ritz, H. Krämer and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agent), Hellenic Republic, Romania (represented by: R.H. Radu, C.R. Canțăr, C.-M. Florescu, L. Lițu and E. Gane, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 May 2016, Iszák and Dabis v Commission (T-529/13, EU:T:2016:282);

2. Annuls Decision C(2013) 4975 final of the Commission of 25 July 2013 concerning the application for registration of the European citizens’ initiative ‘Cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and sustainability of the regional cultures’;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal;

4. Orders Hungary, Romania and the Slovak Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
2.

Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the person concerned has not appeared in person in the relevant proceeding or, as the case may be, in the relevant proceedings for the application of Article 4a(1) of that Framework Decision, as amended, and where neither the information contained in the standard form for a European arrest warrant annexed to that Framework Decision nor the information obtained pursuant to Article 15(2) of that Framework Decision, as amended, provide sufficient evidence to establish the existence of one of the situations referred to in Article 4a(1)(a) to (d) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, the executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant. However, that Framework Decision, as amended, does not prevent that authority from taking account of all the circumstances characterising the case brought before it in order to ensure that the rights of the defence of the person concerned are respected during the relevant proceeding or proceedings.
3.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of online games of chance, if it contains discriminatory rules with regard to operators established in other Member States or if it lays down rules which are not discriminatory but which are applied in a manner which is not transparent or are implemented in such a way as to prevent or hinder an application from certain tenderers established in other Member States;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/5

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie — Poland) — Paweł Hofsoe v LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster AG

(Case C-106/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 11(1)(b) and Article 13(2) - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - Scope ratione personae - Concept of ‘injured party’ - Professional in the insurance sector - Not included))

(2018/C 112/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paweł Hofsoe

Defendant: LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it may not be relied on by a natural person, whose professional activity consists, inter alia, in recovering claims for damages from insurers and who relies on a contract for the assignment of a claim concluded with the victim of a road accident, to bring a civil liability action against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident, which has its registered office in a Member State other than the Member State of the place of domicile of the injured party, before a court of the Member State in which the injured party is domiciled.

(1) OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Case C-34/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Eamonn Donnellan v The Revenue Commissioners (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims — Directive 2010/24/EU — Article 14 — Right to an effective remedy — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Possibility for the requested authority to refuse recovery assistance on the basis that the claim was not duly notified)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Eamonn Donnellan v The Revenue Commissioners

(Case C-34/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims — Directive 2010/24/EU — Article 14 — Right to an effective remedy — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Possibility for the requested authority to refuse recovery assistance on the basis that the claim was not duly notified)’

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eamonn Donnellan

Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding an authority of a Member State from refusing to enforce a request for recovery concerning a claim relating to a fine imposed in another Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that the decision imposing that fine was not properly notified to the person concerned before the request for recovery was made to that authority pursuant to that directive.

( 1 ) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Case C-302/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Bratislave — Slovakia) — PPC Power a.s. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Objectives — Free allocation of allowances — National legislation making transferred and unused allowances subject to taxation)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Bratislave — Slovakia) — PPC Power a.s. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty

(Case C-302/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Objectives — Free allocation of allowances — National legislation making transferred and unused allowances subject to taxation)’

Referring court

Krajský súd v Bratislave (Slovakia)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PPC Power a.s.

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which taxes, at 80 % of their value, greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge which have been sold or not used by the undertakings subject to the greenhouse gas emission trading scheme.

( 1 ) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Case C-83/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — KP v LO (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — 2007 Hague Protocol — Law applicable to maintenance obligations — Article 4(2) — Change in the habitual residence of the creditor — Possibility of the retroactive application of the law of the State of the creditor’s new habitual residence, that law coinciding with the law of the forum — Scope of the terms ‘if the creditor is unable … to obtain maintenance from the debtor’ — Situation where the creditor does not satisfy a formal legislative condition)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — KP v LO

(Case C-83/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — 2007 Hague Protocol — Law applicable to maintenance obligations — Article 4(2) — Change in the habitual residence of the creditor — Possibility of the retroactive application of the law of the State of the creditor’s new habitual residence, that law coinciding with the law of the forum — Scope of the terms ‘if the creditor is unable … to obtain maintenance from the debtor’ — Situation where the creditor does not satisfy a formal legislative condition)’

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KP

Defendant: LO

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(2) of the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/941/EC of 30 November 2009 must be interpreted as meaning that: — the fact that the State of the forum corresponds to the State of the creditor’s habitual residence does not preclude the application of that provision as long as the law designated by the ancillary connecting rule in that provision does not coincide with the one as the law designated by the main connecting rule in Article 3 of that Protocol; — in a situation in which the maintenance creditor, who has changed his usual residence, has brought before the courts of the State of his new habitual residence a maintenance claim against the debtor in respect of a period in the past during which the creditor resided in another Member State, the law of the forum, which is also the law of the State of the creditor’s new habitual residence, can apply provided the courts of the Member State of the forum had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the disputes concerning those parties as to the maintenance relating to that period.

2. The phrase ‘is unable … to obtain maintenance’ in Article 4(2) of the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 must be interpreted as also covering the situation in which the creditor is unable to obtain maintenance under the law of the State of his previous habitual residence on the ground that he does not meet certain conditions imposed by that law.

( 1 ) OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
Case C-190/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Lu Zheng v Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Scope — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Third-country national transporting a significant amount of undeclared cash in his luggage — Obligation to declare the sum being taken out of Spanish territory — Penalties — Proportionality)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Lu Zheng v Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad

(Case C-190/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Scope — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Third-country national transporting a significant amount of undeclared cash in his luggage — Obligation to declare the sum being taken out of Spanish territory — Penalties — Proportionality)’

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lu Zheng

Defendant: Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the failure to comply with an obligation to declare significant sums of cash entering or leaving the territory of that State is punishable with a fine which may be up to double the undeclared amount.

( 1 ) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
1.

Article 4 and the first subparagraph of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with recital 10 of that regulation, must be interpreted to the effect that they impose a general labelling or marking obligation in order to give an indication of the fibre composition of all textile products, including those textile products defined in Article 7 of that regulation.
Case C-2/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v Jesús Crespo Rey (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Paragraph 2 of the section ‘Spain’ in Annex XI — Retirement pension — Method of calculation — Theoretical amount — Relevant contribution basis — Special agreement — Choice of contribution basis — National legislation requiring the worker to make contributions in accordance with the minimum contribution basis)

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v Jesús Crespo Rey

(Case C-2/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Paragraph 2 of the section ‘Spain’ in Annex XI — Retirement pension — Method of calculation — Theoretical amount — Relevant contribution basis — Special agreement — Choice of contribution basis — National legislation requiring the worker to make contributions in accordance with the minimum contribution basis)’

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

Respondent: Jesús Crespo Rey

Other party: Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

Operative part of the judgment

The Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed at Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which obligates a migrant worker who concludes a special agreement with the social security system of that Member State to make contributions in accordance with the minimum contribution basis, with the result that, when the theoretical amount of that worker’s retirement pension is calculated, the competent body of that Member State treats the period covered by that agreement as a period completed in that Member State and will take into consideration, for the purposes of that calculation, only the contributions paid by the worker under that agreement, even though, before exercising his right to free movement, that worker made contributions in that Member State in accordance with contribution bases higher than the minimum, and a non-migrant worker who did not exercise his right to free movement and who concludes such an agreement has the option of making contributions in accordance with contribution bases higher than the minimum.

( 1 ) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

(Case C-96/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Consequences of a disciplinary dismissal found to be ‘unfair’ - Definition of ‘working conditions’ - Temporary worker with a contract of indefinite duration - Difference in treatment between permanent workers and temporary workers with a fixed-term contract or contract of indefinite duration - Reinstatement of the worker or granting of compensation))

(2018/C 328/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi

Defendant: Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

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, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which, when the disciplinary dismissal of a permanent worker in the service of a public authority is declared wrongful, the worker in question must be reinstated, whereas, in the same situation, a worker employed under a temporary contract or a temporary contract of indefinite duration performing the same duties as that permanent worker need not be reinstated but instead may receive compensation.

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘E LATS’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-154/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 311(1)(1) - Special arrangements for second-hand goods - Definition of ‘second-hand goods’ - Goods containing precious metals or precious stones resold by a trader - Processing of those goods after sale - Recovery of the precious metals or precious stones - Concept of ‘precious metals or precious stones’))

(2018/C 319/11)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SIA ‘E LATS’

Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘second-hand goods’ does not cover used goods containing precious metals or precious stones if those goods are no longer capable of performing their initial function and have retained only the functionalities inherent in those metals and stones, which is for the national court to determine taking into account all the objective circumstances relevant in each individual case.

(1) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.