ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Murcia — Spain) — Europamur Alimentación SA v Dirección General de Comercio y Protección del Consumidor de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia,

(Case C-295/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices - Scope of that directive - Sale by a wholesaler to retailers - Jurisdiction of the Court - National legislation laying down a general prohibition on selling at a loss - Exceptions based on criteria not provided for by that directive))

(2017/C 424/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Murcia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Europamur Alimentación SA

Defendants: Dirección General de Comercio y Protección del Consumidor de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia

Operative part of the judgment

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 and 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 precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which contains a general prohibition on offering for sale or selling goods at a loss and which lays down grounds of derogation from that prohibition that are based on criteria not appearing in that directive.

(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Ltd

(Case C-164/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 14(2)(b) - Supply of goods - Motor vehicles - Finance lease with an option to purchase))

(2017/C 402/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Defendant: Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The words ‘contract for hire which provides that in the normal course of events ownership is to pass at the latest upon payment of the final instalment’, used in Article 14(2)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as applying to a leasing contract with an option to purchase if it can be inferred from the financial terms of the contract that exercising the option appears to be the only economically rational choice that the lessee will be able to make at the appropriate time if the contract is performed for its full term, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 — Global Steel Wire, SA (C-454/16 P), Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA (C-455/16 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA (C-456/16 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL (C-458/16 P) v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-454/16 P to C-456/16 P to C-458/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Paragraph 35 - Ability to pay - New request for a reduction in the amount of the fine on the ground of inability to pay - Letter of rejection - Action brought against that letter - Admissibility))

(2017/C 437/15)

Language of the cases: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Global Steel Wire, SA (C-454/16 P), Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA (C-455/16 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA (C-456/16 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL (C-458/16 P) (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Tresandi Blanco and V. Romero Algarra, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

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

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
1.

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a legal person claiming that its personality rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by a failure to remove comments relating to that person can bring an action for rectification of that information, removal of those comments and compensation in respect of all the damage sustained before the courts of the Member State in which its centre of interests is located. When the relevant legal person carries out the main part of its activities in a different Member State from the one in which its registered office is located, that person may sue the alleged perpetrator of the injury in that other Member State by virtue of it being where the damage occurred.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Kozuba Premium Selection sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-308/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 12(1) and (2) - Article 135(1)(j) - Taxable transactions - Exemption for the supply of buildings - Concept of ‘first occupation’ - Concept of ‘conversion’))

(2018/C 022/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kozuba Premium Selection sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 12(1)(a) and 135(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the VAT exemption on the supply of buildings subject to the condition that the first occupation thereof arises in the context of a taxable transaction. The same provisions must be interpreted as not precluding such a national law from making that exemption subject to the condition, in the case of the ‘upgrade’ of an existing building, that the costs incurred have not exceeded 30 % of the initial value thereof, provided that that concept of ‘upgrade’ is interpreted in the same way as that of ‘conversion’ in Article 12(2) of Directive 2006/112, namely as meaning that the building concerned must have been subject to substantial modifications intended to modify the use or alter considerably the conditions of occupation.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
1.

Declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to ensure implementation of Commission Decision 2014/539/EU of 27 March 2014 on State aid SA.34572 (13/C ex 13/NN) implemented by Greece for Larco General Mining & Metallurgical Company SA, and by failing to inform the European Commission of the measures taken pursuant to that decision, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 to 5 of that decision and the FEU Treaty;
1.

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, is to be interpreted as meaning that, when the competent institution of a Member State calculates a minimum benefit, such as the guaranteed pension at issue in the main proceedings, it is not inappropriate to apply Article 46(2) or Article 47(1)(d) of the regulation. Such a benefit must be calculated in accordance with Article 50 of the regulation, in conjunction with the provisions of national law, without, however, applying national provisions, such as those in the main proceedings, providing for a pro rata calculation;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Gasorba SL, Josefa Rico Gil, Antonio Ferrándiz González v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos SA

(Case C-547/16) (1)

((Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Agreements between undertakings - Business relationships between service station operators and oil companies - Long-term exclusive supply agreement for fuel - European Commission decision making an undertaking’s commitments binding - Extent to which national courts are bound by a commitment decision adopted by the Commission - Articles 9(1) and 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003))

(2018/C 022/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gasorba SL, Josefa Rico Gil, Antonio Ferrándiz González

Defendant: Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that a commitment decision concerning certain agreements between undertakings, adopted by the European Commission under Article 9(1) of that regulation, does not preclude national courts from examining whether those agreements comply with the competition rules and, if necessary, declaring those agreements void pursuant to Article 101(2) TFEU.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 8 de Barcelona — Spain) — Schweppes SA v Red Paralela SL and Red Paralela BCN SL, formerly Carbòniques Montaner SL

(Case C-291/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 7(1) - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark - Parallel trade marks - Assignment of trade marks in respect of part of the European Economic Area (EEA) - Commercial strategy deliberately promoting the image of a single global trade mark following that assignment - Independent proprietors nonetheless maintaining close commercial and economic relations))

(2018/C 072/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 8 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schweppes SA

Defendants: Red Paralela SL and Red Paralela BCN SL, formerly Carbòniques Montaner SL

Other parties: Orangina Schweppes Holding BV, Schweppes International Ltd, and Exclusivas Ramírez SL,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) 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, read in the light of Article 36 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding the proprietor of a national trade mark from opposing the import of identical goods bearing the same mark originating in another Member State in which that mark, which initially belonged to that proprietor, is now owned by a third party which has acquired the rights thereto by assignment, when, following that assignment,

— the proprietor, either acting alone or maintaining its coordinated trade mark strategy with that third party, has actively and deliberately continued to promote the appearance or image of a single global trade mark, thereby generating or increasing confusion on the part of the public concerned as to the commercial origin of goods bearing that mark,

or

— there exist economic links between the proprietor and that third party, inasmuch as they coordinate their commercial policies or reach an agreement in order to exercise joint control over the use of the trade mark, so that it is possible for them to determine, directly or indirectly, the goods to which the trade mark is affixed and to control the quality of those goods.

(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/26

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtschof — Austria) — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others

(Case C-649/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Scope - Action for liability in tort against the members of a committee of creditors which rejected a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings))

(2018/C 072/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtschof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Valach, Alena Valachová, SC Europa ZV II a.s., SC Europa LV a.s., VAV Parking a.s., SC Europa BB a.s., Byty A s.r.o

Defendants: Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG, Československá obchodná banka a.s., Mesto Banská Bystrica

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to an action for liability in tort brought against the members of a committee of creditors because of their conduct in voting on a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings, and that such an action is therefore excluded from the scope ratione materiae of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v European Food SA, Société des produits Nestlé SA

(Case C-634/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Word mark FITNESS - Dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity))

(2018/C 104/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Food SA (represented by: I. Speciac, avocat), Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and S. Cobet-Nüse, Rechtsanwältinnen and by A. Lambrecht, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/24

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16) v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Joined Cases C-504/16 and C-613/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 1(2) - Article 5 - Parent company - Holding company - Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company - Exemption - Fraud, tax evasion and abuse - Presumption))

(2018/C 072/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16)

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2006/98/EC of 20 November 2006 and Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, where persons have holdings in a non-resident parent company who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption from withholding tax if they received the dividends from a resident subsidiary directly, denies, provided one of the conditions set by that legislation is satisfied, relief from tax on income from capital tax on distributions of profits to that parent company.

(1) OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/4

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-271/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - International air freight forwarding services - Tariff agreement affecting the final price of services))

(2018/C 112/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd (represented by: S. Mobley, A. Stratakis and A. Gamble, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Meessen and P.J.O. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG and Panalpina China Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/8

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — MA.T.I. SUD SpA v Centostazioni SpA (C-523/16), Duemme SGR SpA v Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR) (C-536/16)

(Joined Cases C-523/16 and C-536/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 51 - Rectification of procedural shortfalls in tenders - Directive 2004/17/EC - Clarification of tenders - National legislation making the rectification by tenderers of the documentation submitted subject to the payment of a financial penalty - Principles relating to the award of public works contracts - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality))

(2018/C 142/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MA.T.I. SUD SpA (C-523/16), Duemme SGR SpA (C-536/16)

Intervener: China Taiping Insurance Co. Ltd (C-523/16)

Defendants: Centostazioni SpA (C-523/16), Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR) (C-536/16)

Operative part of the judgment

European Union Law, in particular Article 51 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, the principles relating to the award of public contracts, including the principles of equal treatment and transparency referred to in Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and Article 2 of Directive 2004/18, and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation establishing a mechanism of assistance in compiling the documentation, under which the contracting authority may in a procedure for the award of a public contract, invite any tenderer whose tender is vitiated by serious irregularities within the meaning of that regulation to rectify its tender, subject to the payment of a financial penalty, provided that the amount of that penalty is consistent with the principle of proportionality, which it is for the referring court to determine.

However, those provisions and principles must be interpreted as precluding national legislation establishing a mechanism of assistance in compiling the documentation under which the contracting authority may require a tenderer, on payment of a financial penalty, to remedy the lack of a document which, according to the express provisions in the contract documentation, must result in the exclusion of that tenderer, or to eliminate the irregularities affecting its tender such that any corrections or changes would amount to a new tender.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — ‘ZPT’ AD v Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-518/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 - Article 35 TFEU - De minimis aid in the form of tax relief - National legislation excluding investments in the production of goods intended for export from the benefit of that tax relief))

(2018/C 142/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘ZPT’ AD

Defendants: Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

1) Consideration of the third part of the third question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 1(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] to de minimis aid.

2) Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation No 1998/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which exclude investments in assets used for export-related activities from the benefit of tax relief constituting de minimis aid.

(1) OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
1.

Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;