ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-203/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — Dirk Andres, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeal — State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying certain losses forward to future tax years (‘restructuring clause’) — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Person individually concerned — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Determination of the reference framework — Legal classification of the facts)

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

(Case C-203/16 P) ( 1 )

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

Parties

Appellant: Dirk Andres, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH (represented by: W. Niemann, S. Geringhoff and P. Dodos, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck-Putz, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the cross-appeal;

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

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

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

5. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings.

( 1 ) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Case C-163/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product — Concept of ‘shape’ — Colour — Position on a part of the product — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 2 — Article 3(1)(e)(iii))

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV

(Case C-163/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product — Concept of ‘shape’ — Colour — Position on a part of the product — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 2 — Article 3(1)(e)(iii))’

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS

Defendant: Van Haren Schoenen BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a sign consisting of a colour applied to the sole of a high-heeled shoe, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not consist exclusively of a ‘shape’, within the meaning of that provision.

( 1 ) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
2.

Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/23 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where the successful tenderer for a service contract for the management of a municipal school of music ceases that activity two months before the end of the current academic year, proceeding to dismiss the staff, the new contractor taking over the activity at the beginning of the next academic year, it appears that the dismissal of the employees was made for ‘economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes in the workforce’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that the circumstances which gave rise to the dismissal of all the employees and the delayed appointment of a new service provider are not a deliberate measure intended to deprive those employees of the rights conferred on them by Directive 2001/23, which it will be for the referring court to ascertain.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘TTL’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

(Case C-553/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Corporate taxation - Payments made by a company resident in a Member State to non-resident companies for the leasing of rail tankers - Obligation to charge withholding tax on income from a domestic source paid to a non-resident company - Non-compliance - Double taxation conventions - Charging the resident company default interest for non-payment of the withholding tax - Interest payable from the expiry of the statutory time limit for payment until the date on which evidence that the double taxation convention is applicable is furnished - Irrecoverable interest))

(2018/C 328/06)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘TTL’ EOOD

Respondent: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

Intervener: Varhovna administrativna prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby the payment of income by a resident company to a company established in another Member State is, in principle, subject to withholding tax, except where otherwise provided in the double taxation convention entered into between those two Member States, if that legislation requires the resident company, which neither deducts nor pays that sum to the tax authorities of the first Member State, to pay irrecoverable default interest for the period from the expiry of the time limit for payment of the income tax up to the date on which the non-resident company proves that the requirements for the application of the double taxation convention have been fulfilled, even though, in accordance with that convention, the non-resident company is not liable to pay any tax in the first Member State or the amount thereof is lower than that normally payable under the tax law of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
1.

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the event that the worker did not ask to exercise his right to paid annual leave during the reference period concerned, that worker loses, at the end of that period — automatically and without prior verification of whether the employer had in fact enabled him to exercise that right, in particular through the provision of sufficient information — the days of paid annual leave acquired under those provisions in respect of that period, and, accordingly, his right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in the event that the employment relationship is terminated. It is, in that regard, for the referring court to determine, taking into consideration the whole body of domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, whether it can arrive at an interpretation of that right capable of ensuring the full effectiveness of EU law.
—

the obligation of professional secrecy provided for in paragraph 1 of that article, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be guaranteed and implemented in such a way as to reconcile it with the rights of the defence. Accordingly, it is for the competent national court, when a competent authority invokes that obligation in order to refuse to disclose documents in its possession that are not in the file concerning the person who is the subject of a measure adversely affecting him, to ascertain whether that information is objectively connected to the complaints upheld against him and, if this should be the case, to weigh up the interest of the person in question in having access to the information necessary for him to be in a position to exercise fully his rights of defence and the interests in connection with maintaining the confidentiality of the information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, before taking a decision whether to communicate each of the requested pieces of information.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Arrow Group ApS, Arrow Generics Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-601/16 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 206/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Arrow Group ApS, Arrow Generics Ltd (represented by: C. Firth, S. Kon and C. Humpe, Solicitors)

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 European Commission: 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 Arrow Group ApS and Arrow Generics 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.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Republic of Lithuania

(Case C-621/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Rules on languages - Open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Notice of competition - Administrators (AD 5) - Administrators (AD 6) in the field of data protection - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competitions to English, French and German - Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) - Regulation No 1 - Staff Regulations - Discrimination based on language - Justification - Interests of the service - Judicial review)

(2019/C 187/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Republic of Lithuania

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Italian Republic;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M.A.S., M.B.

(Case C-42/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 325 TFEU - Judgment of 8 September 2015, Taricco and Others (C-105/14, EU:C:2015:555) - Criminal proceedings for infringements relating to value added tax (VAT) - National legislation laying down limitation periods liable to prevent the prosecution of infringements - Activities affecting the financial interests of the EU - Obligation to disapply any provisions of national law liable to have an adverse effect on the fulfilment of the Member States’ obligations under EU law - Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law))

(2018/C 052/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte costituzionale

Parties to the main proceedings

M.A.S., M.B.

Intervener: Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri

Operative part of the judgment

Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU must be interpreted as requiring the national court, in criminal proceedings for infringements relating to value added tax, to disapply national provisions on limitation, forming part of national substantive law, which prevent the application of effective and deterrent criminal penalties in a significant number of cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union, or which lay down shorter limitation periods for cases of serious fraud affecting those interests than for those affecting the financial interests of the Member State concerned, unless that disapplication entails a breach of the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law because of the lack of precision of the applicable law or because of the retroactive application of legislation imposing conditions of criminal liability stricter than those in force at the time the infringement was committed.

(1) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Maria Tirkkonen

(Case C-9/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Tendering procedure for public contracts for farm advisory services - Whether or not there is a public contract - Scheme for obtaining services open to any economic operator who satisfies previously established conditions - Scheme not subsequently open to other economic operators))

(2018/C 142/16)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Maria Tirkkonen

Intervener: Maaseutuvirasto

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a farm advisory scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, through which a public entity admits all the economic operators who meet the suitability requirements set out in the invitation to tender and who pass the examination referred to in that invitation to tender, even if no new operator can be admitted during the limited validity period of that scheme, does not constitute a public contract within the meaning of that directive.

(1) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/6

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Calabria — Italy) — Lloyd’s of London v Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente della Calabria

(Case C-144/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Directive 2004/18/EC - Reasons for exclusion from a tendering procedure - Insurance services - Participation of several Lloyd’s of London syndicates in the same tendering procedure - Signature of tenders by the Lloyd’s of London General Representative for the country concerned - Principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination - Proportionality))

(2018/C 123/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Calabria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lloyd’s of London

Defendant: Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente della Calabria

Operative part of the judgment

The principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination which derive from Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and are referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow two syndicates of Lloyd’s of London to be excluded from participation in the same procedure for the award of a public service contract for insurance merely because their respective tenders were each signed by the General Representative of Lloyd’s of London for that Member State, but instead allows their exclusion if it appears, on the basis of unambiguous evidence, that their tenders were not drawn up independently.

(1) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Case C-97/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Protection of nature — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Special Protection Area (SPA) — Classification as SPAs of the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of the bird species listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147 — Important Bird Area (IBA) — IBA Rila — Partial classification of IBA Rila as an SPA)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-97/17) ( 1 )

‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Protection of nature — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Special Protection Area (SPA) — Classification as SPAs of the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of the bird species listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147 — Important Bird Area (IBA) — IBA Rila — Partial classification of IBA Rila as an SPA)’

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: E. Petranova and L. Zaharieva, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to include the entire Important Bird Area covering the Rila Mountains as a Special Protection Area, the Republic of Bulgaria did not classify as SPAs the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of the species listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on wild birds, so that that Member State failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of that directive.

2. Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case C-13/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé and des Droits des femmes, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, formerly Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Article 10(2) — Assessment of the safety of cosmetic products — Qualifications of the safety assessor — Recognition of equivalent training courses — Disciplines similar to pharmacy, toxicology or medicine — Member States’ discretion)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé and des Droits des femmes, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, formerly Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique

(Case C-13/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Article 10(2) — Assessment of the safety of cosmetic products — Qualifications of the safety assessor — Recognition of equivalent training courses — Disciplines similar to pharmacy, toxicology or medicine — Member States’ discretion)’

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération des entreprises de la beauté

Defendant: Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé and des Droits des femmes, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, formerly Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that the recognition of equivalence of courses, laid down in that provision, can cover courses other than those delivered in third countries.

2. Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1223/2009 must be interpreted as conferring on each Member State the power to determine disciplines that are ‘similar’ to pharmacy, toxicology or medicine, as well as levels of qualification satisfying the requirements of that regulation, on condition that it complies with the objectives laid down by that regulation, consisting, in particular, in guaranteeing that the person entrusted with the assessment of the safety of cosmetic products has a qualification that enables him to ensure a high level of protection of human health.

( 1 ) OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Case C-463/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 June 2018 — Ori Martin SA v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Action for damages — Inadequate reasoning in a judgment of the Court of Justice in appeal proceedings — Distortion of the nature of a claim for damages)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 June 2018 — Ori Martin SA v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-463/17 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — Action for damages — Inadequate reasoning in a judgment of the Court of Justice in appeal proceedings — Distortion of the nature of a claim for damages)’

Parties

Appellant: Ori Martin SA (represented by: G. Belotti, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á. M. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ori Martin SA to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

( 1 ) OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.