ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/15

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Verona — Italy) — Livio Menini, Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa

(Case C-75/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures - Directive 2008/52/EC - Directive 2013/11/EU - Article 3(2) - Applications by consumers to set an order aside in the context of payment order proceedings instituted by a credit institution - Right of access to the judicial system - National legislation providing for mandatory recourse to a mediation procedure - Obligation to be assisted by a lawyer - Condition for the admissibility of proceedings before the courts))

(2017/C 277/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Verona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Livio Menini, Maria Antonia Rampanelli

Defendant: Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prescribes recourse to a mediation procedure, in disputes referred to in Article 2(1) of that directive, as a condition for the admissibility of legal proceedings relating to those disputes, to the extent that such a requirement does not prevent the parties from exercising their right of access to the judicial system.

On the other hand, that directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, in the context of such mediation, consumers must be assisted by a lawyer and that they may withdraw from a mediation procedure only if they demonstrate the existence of a valid reason in support of that decision.

(1) OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Acacia Srl

(Case C-433/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 81 and 82 - Action for a declaration of non-infringement - Jurisdiction of Community design courts of the Member State where the defendant is domiciled))

(2017/C 293/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

Defendant: Acacia Srl

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 24 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 to the effect that a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court seised, raised in the defendant’s first submission in the alternative to other objections of procedure raised in the same submission, cannot be considered to be acceptance of the jurisdiction of the court seised, and therefore does not lead to prorogation of jurisdiction pursuant to that article.

2) Article 82 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted to the effect that actions for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of that regulation must, when the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State, be brought before the Community design courts of that Member State, except where there is prorogation of jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 23 or Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, and with the exception of the cases of litis pendens and related actions referred to in those regulations.

3) The rule on jurisdiction in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to actions for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of Regulation No 6/2002.

4) The rule on jurisdiction set out in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to actions for a declaration of abuse of a dominant position and of unfair competition that are connected to actions for declaration of non-infringement of a Community design, in so far as granting those applications presupposes that the action for a declaration of non-infringement is allowed.

(1) OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
2.

Article 1(7)(c) of Regulation No 800/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an undertaking satisfied the conditions for being subject to collective insolvency proceedings according to national law, which is for the referring court to establish, is sufficient to prevent State aid being granted to it under that regulation or, if such aid has already been granted to it, to hold that it could not be granted in accordance with that regulation provided that those conditions were satisfied on the date on which that aid was granted. However, aid granted to an undertaking in compliance with Regulation No 800/2008 and, in particular, Article 1(6) thereof, cannot be withdrawn solely on the ground that that undertaking has been subject to collective insolvency proceedings subsequent to the date on which that aid was granted to it.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/15

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra — Portugal) — Superfoz — Supermercados Lda v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-519/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Official controls of feed and food - Funding of official controls - Articles 26 and 27 - General taxation - Fees or charges - Charge on retail food outlets))

(2017/C 309/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Superfoz — Supermercados Lda

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 26 and 27 of Regulation No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014, must be interpreted as not precluding the imposition of a charge, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on retail food outlets only, where the revenue from that charge is not used specifically to finance official controls that have been caused by, or that are for the benefit of, those chargeable persons.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP, Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd

(Case C-56/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) - EU word mark PORT CHARLOTTE - Application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark - Protection conferred on the earlier designations of origin ‘Porto’ and ‘Port’ under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and under national law - Exhaustive nature of the protection conferred on those designations of origin - Article 118m of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Concepts of ‘use’ and ‘evocation’ of a protected designation of origin))

(2017/C 382/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado and O. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: European Commission (represented by B. Eggers, I. Galindo Martín, J. Samnadda and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, advogado), Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, avocate)

Intervener in support of Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and A. Alves, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 November 2015, Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CHARLOTTE) (T-659/14, EU:T:2015:863);

2. Dismisses the action brought by Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto IP in Case T-659/14 against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4);

3. Orders Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto IP to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd in both sets of judicial proceedings;

4. Orders the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
Case C-278/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Frank Sleutjes (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2010/64/EU — Article 3(1) — Right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings — Translation of ‘essential documents’ — Definition of essential documents — Penalty order issued following a simplified unilateral procedure and imposing on the addressee a fine for a minor offence)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Frank Sleutjes

(Case C-278/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2010/64/EU — Article 3(1) — Right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings — Translation of ‘essential documents’ — Definition of essential documents — Penalty order issued following a simplified unilateral procedure and imposing on the addressee a fine for a minor offence)’

Referring court

Landgericht Aachen

Party in the main proceedings

Frank Sleutjes

Intervening party: Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that a measure, such as an order provided for in national law for imposing sanctions in relation to minor offences and delivered by a judge following a simplified unilateral procedure, constitutes a ‘document which is essential’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive, of which a written translation must, in accordance with the formal requirements laid down in that provision, be provided to suspected or accused persons who do not understand the language of the proceedings in question, for the purposes of enabling them to exercise their rights of defence and thus of safeguarding the fairness of the proceedings.

( 1 ) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate v Federal Express Europe Inc.

(Case C-273/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption from VAT - Article 86(1)(b) and Article 144 - Relief from import duties for goods of negligible value or of a non-commercial character - Exemption of the supply of services relating to the importation of goods - National legislation levying VAT on the transport costs of documents and goods of negligible value despite their being ancillary to non-taxable goods))

(2017/C 402/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant: Federal Express Europe Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 144 in conjunction with Article 86(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which requires, for the application of an exemption from value added tax for ancillary services, including transport services, not only that their value is included in the taxable amount, but also that value added tax has in fact been charged on those services at the customs stage at the time of importation.

(1) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 — Global Steel Wire, SA (C-457/16 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL (C-459/16 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA (C-460/16 P), Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA (C-461/16 P) v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-457/16 P and C-459/16 P to C-461/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent company - Definition of ‘undertaking’ - Evidence for the finding of an economic unit - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence - Successive undertakings - Amount of the fine - Ability to pay - Conditions - Observance of the rights of the defence))

(2017/C 437/16)

Language of the cases: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Global Steel Wire, SA (C-457/16 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL (C-459/16 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA (C-460/16 P), Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA (C-461/16 P) (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Tresandi Blanco and V. Romero Algarra, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents, assisted by L. Ortiz Blanco and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Global Steel Wire SA, Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL, Trefilerías Quijano SA and Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Ypourgos Esoterikon, Ypourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton v Maria-Eleni Kalliri

(Case C-409/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 76/207/EEC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Discrimination on the ground of sex - Competition for entry to the police school of a Member State - Law of that state imposing a minimum physical height requirement on all candidates for admission to that competition))

(2017/C 424/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ypourgos Esoterikon, Ypourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

Defendant: Maria-Eleni Kalliri

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes candidates’ admission to the competition for entry to the police school of that Member State subject, whatever their sex, to a requirement that they are of a physical height of at least 1,70 m, since that law works to the disadvantage of a far greater number of women compared with men and that law does not appear to be either appropriate or necessary to achieve the legitimate objective that it pursues, which it is for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/12

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — AZ v Minister Finansów

(Case C-499/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Discretion of the Member States to apply a reduced rate to certain supplies of goods and services - Annexe III, point 1 - Foodstuffs - Pastry goods and cakes - Best-before date or use-by date - Principle of fiscal neutrality))

(2018/C 005/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AZ

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude — provided that the principle of fiscal neutrality is complied with, which is for the referring court to ascertain — national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the application of the reduced VAT rate to fresh pastry goods and cakes depend solely on the criterion of their ‘best-before date’ or their ‘use-by date’.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/7

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — SolarWorld AG v Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)

(Case C-205/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Subsidies - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 - Article 2 - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive countervailing duty - Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking - Severability))

(2018/C 005/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and M. J. Beck, Solicitor), Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and N. Tuominen, Avocată), European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix, T. Maxian Rusche and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents), China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and A. Scalini, avocats, F. Di Gianni, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders SolarWorld AG to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 232, 27.06.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/11

Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Pamplona — Spain) — Wilber López Pastuzano v Delegación del Gobierno en Navarra

(Case C-636/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 12 - Adoption of a decision to expel a long-term resident - Matters to be taken into consideration - National legislation - Failure to take those matters into consideration - Whether compatible))

(2018/C 052/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Pamplona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wilber López Pastuzano

Defendant: Delegación del Gobierno en Navarra

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, as interpreted by some of the courts of that Member State, does not provide for the application of the requirements of protection against the expulsion of a third-country national who is a long-term resident to all administrative expulsion decisions, regardless of the legal nature of that measure or of the detailed rules governing it.

(1) OJ C 46,13.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/14

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Entertainment Bulgaria System EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’, Sofia

(Case C-507/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168(a), Article 169(a), Article 214(1)(d) and (e), and Articles 289 and 290 - Deductibility of input value added tax (VAT) due or paid - Output transactions carried out in other Member States - Tax deduction scheme in the Member State in which the right to deduct is exercised))

(2018/C 022/18)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Entertainment Bulgaria System EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’, Sofia

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that it does preclude Member State legislation that prevents a taxable person, established in the territory of that Member State, deducting input value added tax due or paid in that Member State in respect of services provided by taxable persons established in other Member States and used to provide services in Member States other than the Member State in which that taxable person is established, on the ground that that taxable person is identified for value added tax purposes by virtue of one of the two cases referred to in Article 214(1)(d) and (e) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/162. However, Article 168(a) and Article 169(a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/162, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State that prevents a taxable person, established in the territory of that Member State and eligible there for a tax deduction scheme, exercising its right to deduct input value added tax due or paid in that Member State for services provided by taxable persons established in other Member States and used to provide services in Member States other than the Member State in which that taxable person is established.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.