ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 439/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS) v Yesmoke Tobacco SpA

(Case C-428/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Directives 95/59/EC and 2011/64/EU - Structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco - Establishment of an excise duty - Principle establishing one rate of excise duty for all cigarettes - Possibility for the Member States of establishing a minimum amount of excise duty - Cigarettes in the lowest price category - National legislation - Specific category of cigarettes - Excise duty set at 115 %))

(2014/C 439/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS)

Respondent: Yesmoke Tobacco SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 7(2) and 8(6) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, rather than establishing an identical minimum excise duty that is applicable to all cigarettes, establishes a minimum excise duty that is applicable only to cigarettes with a retail selling price lower than that of cigarettes in the most popular price category.

(1) OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 439/12

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ferrol — Spain) — Ministerio de Defensa, Navantia SA v Concello de Ferrol

(Case C-522/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Competition - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Property tax on immovable property - Tax exemption))

(2014/C 439/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ferrol

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministerio de Defensa, Navantia SA

Defendant: Concello de Ferrol

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 107(1) TFEU, the exemption from property tax of a plot of land belonging to the State and made available to an undertaking whose capital is wholly State-owned and which produces, from that plot of land, goods and services that may be traded between Member States on markets open to competition may constitute State aid prohibited by that provision. It is for the referring court, however, to determine whether, in the light of all the relevant evidence in the dispute before it, assessed by reference to the interpretative guidance provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union, that tax exemption falls to be categorised as State aid within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Mac GmbH v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

(Case C-108/13) (1)

((Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Plant protection products - Marketing authorisation - Parallel import - Requirement for a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC in the exporting State))

(2015/C 007/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mac GmbH

Defendant: Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a parallel import authorisation may not be granted for a plant protection product which does not have, in the exporting Member State, a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, even though that product has a parallel import authorisation and may be regarded as identical to a product covered by a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with that directive in the importing Member State.

(1) OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/6

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-273/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland))

(2014/C 462/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

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

(1) OJ C 215 of 27.7.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Oviedo — Spain) — Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo

(Case C-416/13) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21 - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2(2), 4(1) and 6(1) - Discrimination on grounds of age - National provision - Condition of recruitment of local police officers - Fixing of a maximum age of 30 - Justification)

(2015/C 016/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mario Vital Pérez

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Oviedo

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(2), 4(1) and 6(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which sets the maximum age for recruitment of local police officers at 30 years.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders v David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-408/13)

(Joined Cases C-400/13 and C-408/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Cooperation in civil matters - Regulation No 4/2009 - Article 3 - Jurisdiction to rule on an action relating to a maintenance obligation in respect of a person resident in another Member State - National legislation establishing a centralisation of jurisdiction))

(2015/C 065/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring courts

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders (C-400/13), Barbara Huber (C-408/13)

Defendants: David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Manfred Huber (C-408/13)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which establishes a centralisation of judicial jurisdiction in matters relating to cross-border maintenance obligations in favour of a first instance court which has jurisdiction for the seat of the appeal court, except where that rule helps to achieve the objective of a proper administration of justice and protects the interests of maintenance creditors while promoting the effective recovery of such claims, which is, however, a matter for the referring courts to verify.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden

(Case C-413/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Substantive scope - Collective labour agreement - Provision laying down minimum rates for independent service providers - Definition of ‘undertaking’ - Definition of ‘employee’))

(2015/C 046/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media

Defendant: Staat der Nederlanden

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of EU law, it is only when self-employed service providers who are members of one of the contracting employees’ organisations and perform for an employer, under a works or service contract, the same activity as that employer’s employed workers, are ‘false self-employed’, in other words, service providers in a situation comparable to that of those workers, that a provision of a collective labour agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which sets minimum fees for those self-employed service providers, does not fall within the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is so.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
1)

The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated whenever the prices of air services are shown, including when they are shown for the first time.
2)

Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national authorities and courts to refuse a taxable person, in the context of an intra-Community supply, the benefit of the rights to deduction of, exemption from or refund of value added tax, even in the absence of provisions of national law providing for such refusal, if it is established, in the light of objective factors, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that, by the transaction relied on as a basis for the right concerned, it was participating in evasion of value added tax committed in the context of a chain of supplies.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Oost-Brabant, zittingsplaats ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against N.F. Gielen, M.M.J. Geerings, F.A.C. Pruijmboom, A.A. Pruijmboom,

(Case C-369/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Drug precursors - Monitoring of trade between the Member States - Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 - Monitoring of trade between the European Union and third countries - Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 - Concept of ‘scheduled substance’ - Substance ‘alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile’ (APAAN) - Scheduled substance ‘1-phenyl-2-propanone’ (BMK)))

(2015/C 118/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Oost-Brabant, zittingsplaats ’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

N.F. Gielen, M.M.J. Geerings, F.A.C. Pruijmboom, A.A. Pruijmboom,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors and Article 2(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors must be interpreted as meaning that the classification of ‘scheduled substance’, within the meaning of those provisions, does not apply to a substance, such as alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile, which is not referred to in Annex I to Regulation No 273/2004 or the Annex to Regulation No 111/2005, even if it may, by readily applicable or economically viable means, within the meaning of those regulations, easily be converted into a substance referred to in those annexes.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Georg Felber v Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

(Case C-529/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) and (2) - Difference of treatment on grounds of age - Civil service - Pension scheme - National legislation precluding the taking into account of periods of school education completed before the age of 18))

(2015/C 107/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georg Felber

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the crediting of periods of school education completed by a civil servant before the age of 18 for the purpose of the grant of pension entitlement and the calculation of the amount of his retirement pension, in so far as that legislation is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and labour market policy and constitutes an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim.

(1) OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria — Portugal) — Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA v Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT)

(Case C-343/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rules on mergers of public limited liability companies - Directive 78/855/EEC - Merger by acquisition - Article 19 - Effects - Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company - Infringement by the company being acquired prior to its acquisition - Administrative decision confirming infringement post-acquisition - National law - Transfer of the acquired company’s liability for administrative offences - Lawfulness))

(2015/C 138/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA

Defendant: Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(1) of Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2009/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a ‘merger by acquisition’ in Article 3(1) of the directive results in the transfer to the acquiring company of the obligation to pay a fine imposed by final decision adopted after the merger by acquisition for infringements of employment law committed by the acquired company prior to that merger.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
2.

Article 3(1) and (7) of Directive 96/71, read in the light of Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that: — it does not preclude a calculation of the minimum wage for hourly work and/or for piecework which is based on the categorisation of employees into pay groups, as provided for by the relevant collective agreements of the host Member State, provided that that calculation and categorisation are carried out in accordance with rules that are binding and transparent, a matter which it is for the national court to verify; — a daily allowance such as that at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as part of the minimum wage on the same conditions as those governing the inclusion of the allowance in the minimum wage paid to local workers when they are posted within the Member State concerned; — compensation for daily travelling time, which is paid to the workers on condition that their daily journey to and from their place of work is of more than one hour’s duration, must be regarded as part of the minimum wage of posted workers, provided that that condition is fulfilled, a matter which it is for the national court to verify; — coverage of the cost of those workers’ accommodation is not to be regarded as an element of their minimum wage; — an allowance taking the form of meal vouchers provided to the posted workers is not to be regarded as part of the latter’s minimum salary; and — the pay which the posted workers must receive for the minimum paid annual holidays corresponds to the minimum wage to which those workers are entitled during the reference period.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin — Finland) — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy

(Case C-533/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Article 4(1) - Prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work - Justification - Grounds of general interest - Obligation to review - Scope))

(2015/C 155/05)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Työtuomioistuin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry

Defendants: Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work must be interpreted as meaning that:

— the provision is addressed only to the competent authorities of the Member States, imposing on them an obligation to review in order to ensure that any potential prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work are justified, and, therefore,

— the provision does not impose an obligation on national courts not to apply any rule of national law containing prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work which are not justified on grounds of general interest within the meaning of Article 4(1).

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/17

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Les Laboratoires Servier SA v Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-691/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 89/105/EEC - Article 6(2) - Establishment of a list of medicinal products reimbursed by the health insurance funds - Amendment of the conditions of reimbursement of a medicinal product when renewing its inclusion in such a list - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 138/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Les Laboratoires Servier SA

Defendant: Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to state reasons set out in that provision is applicable to a decision which reinstates a product in the list of medicinal products covered by the health insurance system, but which limits the reimbursement of that product to a specific category of patients.

(1) OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.
2.

Declares that, by prohibiting, by virtue of Articles 47a(1) and (2) and 48(3) of the Law on electronic communications, providers of televisual content whose programmes are not broadcast in Bulgaria and persons connected therewith from participating in the public procurement procedure for the award of rights of use of the terrestrial digital broadcasting radio spectrum and to provide corresponding services, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009; Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Article 2(2) and 4(2) of Directive 2002/77;
1.

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that the communication, by a professional to a consumer, of erroneous information, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified as a ‘misleading commercial practice’, within the meaning of that directive, even though that information concerned only one single consumer;