ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/18

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Concurrence SARL v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl

(Case C-618/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Tort, delict or quasi-delict - Selective distribution network - Prohibition on online resale outside a network - Action for an injunction prohibiting unlawful interference - Connecting factor))

(2017/C 053/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Concurrence SARL

Defendants: Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted, for the purpose of conferring the jurisdiction given by that provision to hear an action to establish liability for infringement of the prohibition on resale outside a selective distribution network resulting from offers, on websites operated in various Member States, of products covered by that network, as meaning that the place where the damage occurred is to be regarded as the territory of the Member State which protects the prohibition on resale by means of the action at issue, a territory on which the appellant alleges to have suffered a reduction in its sales.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
2.

The provisions of Directive 2004/18, in particular those of Article 2 of and Annex VII A, point 17, thereto, read in the light of the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency which derives from that, must be interpreted as precluding a contracting authority from deciding to award a public contract to a tenderer which has been guilty of grave professional misconduct on the ground that the exclusion of that tenderer from the award procedure would be contrary to the principle of proportionality, even though, according to the tender conditions of that contract, a tenderer which has been guilty of grave professional misconduct must necessarily be excluded, without consideration of the proportionality of that sanction.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 — Toshiba Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-623/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation - Concept of ‘economic unit’ between two companies - Concept of ‘decisive influence’ - Joint control by two parent companies - Distortion of evidence))

(2017/C 070/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J.F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, J. Jourdan, avocat, and A. Kadri, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against Joszef Grundza

(Case C-289/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Article 7 - Condition of double criminality - Article 9 - Ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement based on the lack of double criminality - National of the executing State convicted in the issuing State for failure to comply with a decision issued by a public authority))

(2017/C 063/03)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Party in the main proceedings

Joszef Grundza

Intervening party: Krajská prokuratúra Prešov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(3) and Article 9(1)(d) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of double criminality must be considered to be met, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, where the factual elements underlying the offence, as reflected in the judgment handed down by the competent authority of the issuing State, would also, per se, be subject to a criminal sanction in the territory of the executing State if they were present in that State.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH v Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH

(Case C-641/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2006/115/EC - Article 8(3) - Exclusive right of broadcasting organisations - Communication to the public - Places accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee - Communication of broadcasts by TV sets installed in hotel rooms))

(2017/C 112/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH

Defendant: Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(3) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be interpreted as meaning that the communication of television and radio broadcasts by means of TV sets installed in hotel rooms does not constitute a communication made in a place accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee.

(1) OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Maxcom Ltd, Chin Haur Indonesia PT, Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Joined Cases C-247/15 P, C-253/15 P and C-259/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 - Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia - Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Article 18 - Lack of cooperation - Evidence - Body of consistent evidence))

(2017/C 104/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-247/15 P)

Appellant: Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia PT (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), Council of the European Union, (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)

(Case C-253/15 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia PT (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), Council of the European Union, (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

(Case C-259/15 P)

Appellant: Council of the European Union, (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia PT (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents), Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 March 2015, Chin Haur Indonesia v Council, (T-412/13, EU:T:2015:163);

2. Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Chin Haur Indonesia PT before the General Court of the European Union in Case T-412/13;

3. Orders Chin Haur Indonesia PT to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Maxcom Ltd and the Council of the European Union in both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-412/13 and the appeal proceedings;

4. Orders Chin Haur Indonesia PT to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in relation to the appeal in Case C-253/15 P;

5. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings in Cases C-247/15 P and C-259/15 P and the proceedings at first instance in Case T-412/13.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/10

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission

(Case C-615/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 13 - Determination of the value of sales relating to the infringement))

(2017/C 144/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd (represented by: M. Struys, A. Fall, L. Eskenazi and C. Erol, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, G. Meessen and H. van Vliet, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Samsung SDI Co. Ltd and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz — Germany) — Alphonse Eschenbrenner v Bundesagentur für Arbeit

(Case C-496/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7 - Equal treatment - Frontier worker subject to income tax in the Member State of residence - Benefit paid by the Member State of employment in the event of the employer’s insolvency - Detailed rules for the calculation of the insolvency benefit - Notional taking into account of the income tax of the Member State of employment - Insolvency benefit lower than the previous net remuneration - Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation))

(2017/C 121/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alphonse Eschenbrenner

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFUE and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the amount of the insolvency benefit awarded by a Member State to a frontier worker who is not subject to income tax in that State, and for whom that benefit, under the provisions applicable to him, is not taxable, from being determined by deducting income tax, as it applies in that State, from the remuneration used to calculate that benefit, with the consequence that that frontier worker, unlike persons working and residing in that State, does not receive a benefit corresponding to his previous net remuneration. The fact that that worker does not have a claim against his employer corresponding to the part of his previous gross salary which he has not received because of that deduction has no effect in that regard.

(1) OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.
3.

Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 and from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted, having regard to the Explanatory Notes to the CN concerning those subheadings, as meaning that video footage of more than 30 minutes recorded in separate files each lasting less than 30 minutes must be considered to be a recording of at least 30 minutes of a single piece of video footage, irrespective of whether the user is unable to perceive the transition from one file to the next during the playback of those files or, conversely, whether he must, in principle, during that playback, open each of the files separately.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Tele2 (Netherlands) BV, Ziggo BV, Vodafone Libertel BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

(Case C-536/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 25(2) - Directory enquiry services and directories - Directive 2002/58/EC - Article 12 - Directories of subscribers - Making available personal data concerning subscribers for the purposes of the provision of publicly available directory enquiry services and directories - Subscriber’s consent - Distinction on the basis of the Member State in which publicly available directory enquiry services and directories are provided - Principle of non-discrimination))

(2017/C 151/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tele2 (Netherlands) BV, Ziggo BV, Vodafone Libertel BV

Defendant: Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

Intervening parties: European Directory Assistance NV

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘requests’ in that article, covers also requests made by an undertaking, established in a Member State other than that in which the undertakings which assign telephone numbers to subscribers are established, which requests the relevant information possessed by those undertakings in order to provide publicly available telephone directory enquiry services and directories in that Member State and/or in other Member States.

2. Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, must be interpreted as precluding an undertaking which assigns telephone numbers to subscribers, and which is obliged under national legislation to request those subscribers’ consent to the use of data relating to them for the purposes of supplying directory enquiry services and directories, from differentiating in the request for those subscribers’ consent to that use according to the Member State in which the undertakings requesting the information referred to in that provision provide those services.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV v Akcros Chemicals Ltd, European Commission

(Case C-516/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin stabilisers and in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Whether the unlawful conduct of the subsidiaries may be attributed to the parent company - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 25(1) - Limitation period for the imposition of penalties on subsidiaries - Effects on the legal position of the parent company))

(2017/C 202/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV (represented by: C. Swaak and R. Wesseling, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Akcros Chemicals Ltd, European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere — Italy) — criminal proceedings against Massimo Orsi (C-217/15), Luciano Baldetti (C-350/15)

(Joined Cases C-217/15 and C-350/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2 and 273 - National legislation providing for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same offences, relating to the non-payment of value added tax - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Identity of the accused or penalised person - Absence))

(2017/C 168/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

Party in the main proceedings

Massimo Orsi (C 217/15), Luciano Baldetti (C 350/15)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits criminal proceedings to be brought for non-payment of value added tax, after the imposition of a definitive tax penalty with respect to the same act or omission, where that penalty was imposed on a company with legal personality, while those criminal proceedings were brought against a natural person.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

OJ C 311 21.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against U

(Case C-420/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 45 TFEU - Freedom of movement for workers - Obligation to register a vehicle belonging to a person resident in Belgium and intended to be used in Italy))

(2017/C 249/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Party in the main, criminal proceedings

U

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, in accordance with which a worker residing there is required to register in that Member State a motor vehicle which he owns, but which is already registered in another Member State and is intended essentially for use in that latter State.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/7

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Litdana’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-624/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 314 - Margin scheme - Conditions under which it is applicable - Refusal by the national tax authorities to grant a taxable person the right to apply the margin scheme - References on the invoices relating both to the application of the margin scheme by the supplier and to exemption from VAT - Margin scheme not applied by the supplier to the supply - Indications giving grounds for suspecting an infringement or fraud in the supply))

(2017/C 239/09)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Litdana’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Third party: Klaipėdos apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 314 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as precluding the competent authorities of a Member State from denying a taxable person the right to apply the margin scheme where he received an invoice that includes references relating both to the margin scheme and to exemption from value added tax (VAT), even if it is apparent from a subsequent check carried out by those authorities that the taxable dealer supplying the second-hand goods had not actually applied that scheme to the supply of those goods, unless it is established by the competent authorities that the taxable person did not act in good faith or did not take every reasonable measure in his power to satisfy himself that the transaction carried out by him does not result in his participation in tax evasion — a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
1.

The second paragraph of Article 133 of Council Directive 2006/112 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State from providing that compliance with the condition laid down in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 133 of that directive is a prerequisite for the grant of a VAT exemption to bodies governed by public law that supply services closely linked to sport or physical education, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of that directive, even though, on the one hand, on 1 January 1989 that Member State did not apply VAT to all those supplies of services and, on the other, the supplies of services at issue were not exempted from VAT before the requirement of compliance with that condition was imposed.