ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1)

declares that by requiring, in Article 31 of Ministerial Decree FOM/734/2007 of 20 March 2007 implementing the Law on the Regulation of Inland Transport in respect of authorisations for the transport of goods by road for vehicles with a maximum authorised mass exceeding 3,5 tons, that, in order to obtain an authorisation for the private, own-account transport of goods, no more than five months must have elapsed since the first registration of the first vehicle of an undertaking’s fleet, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 TFEU;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 — Ballast Nedam NV v European Commission

(Case C-612/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Setting of the gross price for road pavement bitumen - Setting of a rebate for road builders - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 27 - Rights of the defence - Reduction of the fine))

2014/C 151/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Ballast Nedam NV (represented by: A. Bosman and E. Oude Elferink, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, Agents, and by F. Tuytschaever, avocat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of 27 September 2012 in Case T-361/06 Ballast Nedam v Commission, by which the General Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed an action brought by Ballast Nedam for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerned Ballast Nedam; and, in the alternative, for partial annulment of that decision, to the extent that it sets the duration of the infringement with respect to Ballast Nedam, and reduction of the fine imposed on Ballast Nedam.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment in Case T-361/06 Ballast Nedam v Commission to the extent that it rejects the plea in law raised by Ballast Nedam NV relating to the infringement of Article 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [81 EC] and [82 EC] and of the rights of the defence during the administrative procedure which led to Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article [81 EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands));

2. Annuls Article 1(a) of Decision C(2006) 4090 final to the extent that it concerns Ballast Nedam NV’s infringement of Article 81 EC during the period from 21 June 1996 to 30 September 2000;

3. Annuls Article 2(a) of Decision C(2006) 4090 final to the extent that it sets the amount of the fine payable by Ballast Nedam NV at EUR 4,65 million;

4. Sets the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Ballast Nedam NV under Article 2(a) of Decision C(2006) 4090 final at EUR 3,45 million;

5. Orders the European Commission to pay all costs relating to the present appeal;

6. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance.

(1) OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.
1.

Articles 203 and 204 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, read in conjunction with Article 859(2)(c) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 444/2002 of 11 March 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that merely exceeding the time-limit for presentation, set under Article 356(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 444/2002, does not lead to a customs debt being incurred for removal from customs supervision of the goods in question within the meaning of Article 203 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, but to a customs debt being incurred on the basis of Article 204 of that regulation and that it is not necessary, for a customs debt to be incurred under Article 204 of that regulation, that the interested parties supply to the customs authorities information on the reasons for exceeding the time-limit set under Article 356 of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Article No 444/2002, or on the location of the goods during the time which elapsed between that time-limit and the time at which they were actually presented at the customs office of destination.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2014 — Council of the European Union v Sophie in ’t Veld

(Case C-350/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(1)(a), second indent of Article 4(2), and Article 4(6) - Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service concerning the opening of negotiations for the conclusion of an international agreement - Exceptions to the right of access - Protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Protection of legal advice - Decision partially refusing access))

2014/C 292/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Berman, B. Driessen and C. Fekete, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sophie in ’t Veld (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Blockx, advocaten), European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of Sophie in ’t Veld: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

3) Orders the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV (C-24/12), TBG Limited (C-27/12) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Joined Cases C-24/12 and C-27/12) (1)

((Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Payment of dividends from a Member State to an overseas territory of the same State - Scope of EU law - Special European Union-OCTs arrangements))

2014/C 253/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X BV (C-24/12), TBG Limited (C-27/12)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 63 TFEU and 64 TFEU — Territorial scope — Movements of capital from a Member State to one of its overseas territories — Whether or not the overseas territory is to be regarded as a third country

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as not precluding a tax measure of a Member State which restricts movements of capital between that Member State and its own overseas country and territory whilst pursuing the objective of combating tax avoidance in an effective and proportionate manner.

(1) OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/6

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd, Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)

(Case C-602/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - First indent of Article 2(7)(c) - Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 - Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China - Market economy treatment - Costs of major inputs substantially reflecting market values - State subsidy for the steel sector in general - Effect))

2014/C 409/07

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd, Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and S. Boelaert, Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents), European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (represented by: J. Bourgeois, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISLB (EIFI) in the present proceedings;

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

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
1)

declares that — by keeping in operation on the island of Zakinthos, at Griparaiika, in the area of Kalamaki (Greece), a landfill site which is malfunctioning, which is full and which does not observe the conditions and requirements of the environmental legislation of the European Union laid down in Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, and Articles 8, 9, 11(1)(a), 12 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, and — by renewing the landfill permit for the site in question without complying with the procedure that is laid down by Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Commission v Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe

(Joined Cases C-404/12 P and C-405/12 P) (1)

(Appeals - Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 - Regulation setting maximum residue levels for pesticides - Request for internal review of that regulation, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention)

(2015/C 073/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, P. Oliver and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe (represented by: A. van den Biesen, advocaat)

Intervener in support of the appellants: Czech Republic (represented by D. Hadroušek, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the cross-appeal;

2) Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission (T-338/08, EU:T:2012:300);

3) Dismisses the application for annulment lodged by Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe before the General Court of the European Union;

4) Orders Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe to pay jointly and severally the costs incurred at first instance and in the appeals by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

5) Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
1.

Declares that, by failing to provide for: — the collection of urban waste waters in the agglomeration of Basse-Terre, with a population equivalent of more than 15 000, and — the treatment of urban waste waters in the agglomerations of Ajaccio-Sanguinaires, Basse-Terre, Bastia-Nord, Cayenne-Leblond and Saint-Denis, with a population equivalent of more than 15 000, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4(1) and 4(3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/17

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Antonio Márquez Samohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra

(Case C-190/13) (1)

((Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Universities - Associate lecturers - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 5(1) - Measures to prevent the abusive use of fixed-term contracts - Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying such contracts - Clause 3 - Concept of ‘employment contract of indefinite duration’ - Penalties - Right to compensation - Difference in treatment between permanent workers))

2014/C 135/18

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Antonio Márquez Samohano

Defendant: Universitat Pompeu Fabra

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Interpretation of clauses 3 and 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Employment contracts concluded with the public administration — University professors — Absence of measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term employment contracts.

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 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 rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allow universities to renew successive fixed-term employment contracts concluded with associate lecturers, with no limitation as to the maximum duration and the number of renewals of those contracts, where such contracts are justified by an objective reason within the meaning of clause 5(1)(a), which is a matter for the referring court to verify. However, it is also for that court to ascertain that, in the main proceedings, the renewal of the successive fixed-term employment contracts at issue was actually intended to cover temporary needs and that rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings were not, in fact, used to meet fixed and permanent needs in terms of employment of teaching staff.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Cartier parfums — lunettes SAS, Axa Corporate Solutions assurances SA v Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transports SARL, Inko Trade s.r.o., Jaroslav Matěja, Groupama Transport

(Case C-1/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 27(2) - Lis pendens - Article 24 - Prorogation of jurisdiction - Establishment of jurisdiction of the court first seised by reason of appearance being entered without objection by the parties or the adoption of a final judgment))

2014/C 112/14

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Cartier parfums — lunettes SAS, Axa Corporate Solutions assurances SA

Defendants: Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transports SARL, Inko Trade s.r.o., Jaroslav Matěja, Groupama Transport

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 27(2) 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 (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) — Lis pendens — Establishment of the jurisdiction of the court first seised because neither party has claimed that it lacks jurisdiction or because it has adopted a decision which is irrevocable for any reason whatsoever.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(2) 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, except in the situation where the court second seised has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of that regulation, the jurisdiction of the court first seised must be regarded as being established, within the meaning of that provision, if that court has not declined jurisdiction of its own motion and none of the parties has contested its jurisdiction prior to or up to the time at which a position is adopted which is regarded in national procedural law as being the first defence on the substance submitted before that court.

(1) OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

(Case C-209/13) (1)

((Common system of financial transaction tax - Authorisation of enhanced cooperation under Article 329(1) TFEU - Decision 2013/52/EU - Action for annulment in respect of infringement of Articles 327 TFEU and 332 TFEU and of customary international law))

2014/C 194/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and S. Behzadi Spencer, acting as Agents, and by M. Hoskins QC, P. Baker QC and V. Wakefield, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-M. Colaert, F. Florindo Gijón and A. de Gregorio Merino, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller and K. Petersen, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent), Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes, J. Menezes Leitão and A. Cunha, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard and R. van de Westelaken, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Smulders and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2013/52/EU of 22 January 2013 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax (OJ 2013 L 22, p. 11) — Infringement of Articles 327 TFEU and 332 TFEU

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Köln v Kronos Titan GmbH (C-43/13), Hauptzollamt Krefeld v Rhein-Ruhr Beschichtungs-Service GmbH (C-44/13)

(Joined Cases C-43/13 and C-44/13) (1)

((Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products - Products not listed in Directive 2003/96/EC - Meaning of ‘equivalent heating fuel or motor fuel’))

2014/C 159/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Hauptzollamt Köln (C-43/13), Hauptzollamt Krefeld (C-44/13)

Respondents: Kronos Titan GmbH (C-43/13), Rhein-Ruhr Beschichtungs-Service GmbH (C-44/13)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 2(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Taxation of energy products other than those for which a level of taxation is specified in the directive — Meaning of equivalent heating fuel or motor fuel — Possibility of applying to a product used as heating fuel the tax rate laid down for a product which has the closest chemical composition, where that product is subject to a higher rate of taxation than that laid down for heating fuel since it may be used as motor fuel

Operative part of the judgment

The condition, laid down in Article 2(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, according to which energy products other than those for which a level of taxation is specified in the directive are to be taxed according to use, at the rate for the equivalent heating fuel or motor fuel, must be construed as meaning that it must be determined, first, whether the product at issue is used as heating fuel or motor fuel, before identifying, secondly, for which of the motor fuels or the heating fuels, as the case may be, listed in the corresponding table in Annex I to that directive the product at issue is in fact a substitute in terms of use or, failing that, which of those motor fuels or those heating fuels is, by its properties and intended use, the closest to it.

(1) OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě, Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Strojírny Prostějov, a.s. (C-53/13), ACO Industries Tábor s.r.o. (C-80/13) v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Joined Cases C-53/13 and C-80/13) (1)

((Freedom to provide services - Temporary employment agency - Secondment of workers by an agency established in another Member State - Restriction - Undertaking using the workforce - Tax on the income of those workers withheld at source - Obligation - Payment to national budget - Obligation - Situation of workers seconded by a national agency - Absence of such obligations))

2014/C 282/13

Language of the case: Czech

Referring courts

Krajský soud v Ostravě, Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Strojírny Prostějov, a.s. (C-53/13), ACO Industries Tábor s.r.o. (C-80/13)

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU precludes legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which companies established in one Member State using workers employed and seconded by temporary employment agencies established in another Member State, but operating in the first Member State through a branch, are obliged to withhold tax and to pay to the first Member State an advance payment on the income tax due by those workers, whereas the same obligation is not imposed on companies established in the first Member State which use the services of temporary employment agencies established in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.