ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai törvényszék — Hungary) — Eurospeed Ltd v Szegedi törvényszék

(Case C-287/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Driver’s liability for infringements of the obligation to use a tachograph))

(2016/C 296/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Gyulai törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eurospeed Ltd

Defendant: Szegedi törvényszék

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, instead of or in addition to the transport undertaking employing the driver, holds the driver liable for infringements of that regulation which he has himself committed.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited

(Case C-559/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Recognition and enforcement of provisional and protective measures - Concept of ‘public policy’))

(2016/C 260/05)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rūdolfs Meroni

Defendant: Recoletos Limited

Third parties: Aivars Lembergs, Olafs Berķis, Igors Skoks, Genādijs Ševcovs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(1) 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, considered in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the recognition and enforcement of an order issued by a court of a Member State, without a prior hearing of a third person whose rights may be affected by that order, cannot be regarded as manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which enforcement is sought or manifestly contrary to the right to a fair trial within the meaning of those provisions, in so far as that third person is entitled to assert his rights before that court.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov

(Case C-614/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Content of a request for a preliminary ruling - National rule providing that the national court is to be disqualified because it stated a provisional opinion in the request for a preliminary ruling when setting out the factual and legal context - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(1)))

(2016/C 335/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Party in the main proceedings

Atanas Ognyanov

Intervener: Sofiyska gradska prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 267 TFEU and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and of Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule which is interpreted in such a way as to oblige the referring court to disqualify itself from a pending case, on the ground that it set out, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the factual and legal context of that case.

2. EU law, and in particular Article 267 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the referring court, after the delivery of the preliminary ruling, to hear the parties again and to undertake further inquiries, which might lead it to alter the findings of fact or law made in the request for a preliminary ruling, nor does it prohibit the referring court from doing so, provided that the referring court gives full effect to the interpretation of EU law adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

3. EU law must be interpreted as precluding a referring court from applying a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is deemed to be contrary to EU law.

(1) OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 — SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG v European Commission, Gigaset AG

(Case C-154/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Markets for calcium carbide powder, calcium carbide granulates and magnesium granulates in a substantial part of the European Economic Area - Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information - Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Articles 12 and 14 - Right to be heard - In camera hearing))

(2016/C 305/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG (represented by: A. Birnstiel and S. Janka, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt), Gigaset AG, formerly Arques Industries AG

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG to pay the costs of the European Commission and to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v CS

(Case C-304/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Third-country national having a young dependent child who is a Union citizen - Right to reside in the Member State of which the child is a national - Criminal convictions of the child’s parent - Decision to expel the parent resulting in the indirect expulsion of the child concerned))

(2016/C 419/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent: CS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires a third-country national who has been convicted of a criminal offence to be expelled from the territory of that Member State to a third country notwithstanding the fact that that national is the primary carer of a young child who is a national of that Member State, in which he has been residing since birth without having exercised his right of freedom of movement, when the expulsion of the person concerned would require the child to leave the territory of the European Union, thereby depriving him of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of his rights as a Union citizen. However, in exceptional circumstances a Member State may adopt an expulsion measure provided that it is founded on the personal conduct of that third-country national, which must constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat adversely affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society of that Member State, and that it is based on consideration of the various interests involved, matters which are for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
1.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that goods such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in smoking tobacco, irrespective of the presence of tobacco waste, since the latter does not prevent the intended use of the product concerned, are not to be included under heading 2401 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 861/2010. However, such goods may be classified under heading 2403 of the Combined Nomenclature, in particular subheading 2403 10 90 thereof, if they are packed in bulk and compacted in plastic-lined bags having a net weight 30 kg per box.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/6

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 — Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v Groupe Léa Nature SA, European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-537/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Figurative mark including the word elements ‘SO’BiO ētic’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the EU and national word and figurative marks including the word element ‘SO…?’ - Refusal of registration))

(2017/C 006/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: D. Selden, Advocate, and T. Alkin, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Groupe Léa Nature SA (represented by: S. Arnaud, avocat), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and P. Geroulakos, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 23 September 2014, Groupe Léa Nature v OHIM — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO’BiO ētic) (T-341/13, not published, EU:T:2014:802);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central — Spain) — Proceedings brought by Banco de Santander SA

(Case C-274/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Criteria - Independence of the national body concerned - Irremovability of the members - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2020/C 77/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central

Party to the main proceedings

Banco de Santander SA

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (Central Tax Tribunal, Spain), made by decision of 2 April 2014, is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
1.

It is not obvious, within the meaning of the case-law based on the judgments of 9 March 1994, TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf (C-188/92, EU:C:1994:90), and of 15 February 2001, Nachi Europe (C-239/99, EU:C:2001:101), that actions for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 of 12 July 2010 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1285/2009 or the acts of the European Union preceding that implementing regulation and relating to the inclusion of the ‘Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)’ on the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, brought before the General Court of the European Union by persons in a situation such as that of the appellants in the main proceedings, would have been admissible.
2.

Article 16(b) of Regulation No 110/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether the name ‘Verlados’ constitutes an ‘evocation’ within the meaning of that provision of the protected geographical indication ‘Calvados’ with respect to similar products, the referring court must take into consideration the phonetic and visual relationship between those names and any evidence that may show that such a relationship is not fortuitous, so as to ascertain whether, when the average European consumer, reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, is confronted with the name of a product, the image triggered in his mind is that of the product whose geographical indication is protected.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/16

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Teva Pharma BV, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medicines Agency (EMA), European Commission

(Case C-138/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Orphan medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 - Refusal to grant marketing authorisation for the generic version of the orphan medicinal product ‘imatinib mesylate’))

(2016/C 156/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Teva Pharma BV, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (represented by: K. Bacon QC, E. Mackenzie, Barrister, and G. Morgan, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: N. Rampal Olmedo, M. Tovar Gomis, S. Marino and T. Jabłoński, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

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

(1) OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/17

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen (C-145/15), J.H. Dees-Erf (C-146/15) v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

(Joined Cases C-145/15 and C-146/15) (1)

((Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 7 - Compensation payable to passengers in the event that their flight is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours - Article 16 - National bodies responsible for the enforcement of the regulation - Powers - Adoption of enforcement measures against the air carrier for payment of the compensation due to the passenger))

(2016/C 156/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen (C-145/15), J.H. Dees-Erf (C-146/15)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an individual complaint has been made by a passenger to the body designated by each Member State pursuant to Article 16(1) of the regulation following the refusal by an air carrier to pay to the passenger the compensation provided for in Article 7(1) of the regulation, that body is not required to take enforcement action against the carrier with a view to compelling it to pay the compensation.

(1) OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/10

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA)

(Case C-117/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Directive 2006/115/EC - Article 8(2) - Concept of ‘communication to the public’ - Installation of television sets by the operator of a rehabilitation centre making it possible for patients to watch television programmes))

(2016/C 287/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH

Defendant: Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA)

Intervening parties: Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leistungsschutzrechten mbH (GVL)

Operative part of the judgment

In a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which it is alleged that the broadcast of television programmes by means of television sets that the operator of a rehabilitation centre has installed in its premises affects the copyright and related rights of a large number of interested parties, in particular, composers, songwriters and music publishers, but also performers, phonogramme producers and authors of literary works and their publishers, it must be determined whether such a situation constitutes a ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of both Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society and Article 8(2) 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 and in accordance with the same interpretive criteria. Furthermore, those two provisions must be interpreted as meaning that such a broadcast constitutes an act of ‘communication to the public’.

(1) OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v National Exhibition Centre Limited

(Case C-130/15) (1)

((Preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption - Article 13B(d)(3) - Transactions in respect of payments and transfers - Concept - Purchase of tickets for shows or other events - Payment by debit or credit card - ‘Card processing’ services’))

(2016/C 260/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: National Exhibition Centre Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(3) of the 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax which is provided for in that article in respect of transactions concerning payments and transfers does not apply to a service described as ‘processing of payment by debit or credit card’, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, carried out by a taxable person, the provider of that service, where an individual buys, via that provider, a ticket for a show or other event which the provider sells in the name and on behalf of another entity, which that individual pays for by debit or credit card.

(1) OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/11

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — EURO 2004. Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

(Case C-291/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Value for customs purposes - Determination of the Customs value - Transaction value - Price actually paid - Doubts based on the veracity of the declared price - Declared price lower than the price paid in respect of other transactions relating to similar goods))

(2016/C 305/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Zalaegerszegi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EURO 2004. Hungary Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Article 181a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994, must be interpreted as not precluding a customs authority practice, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby the customs value of imported goods is determined on the basis of the transaction value of similar goods, the method in Article 30 of Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, where the declared transaction value is considered to be unreasonably low in comparison with the statistical average of the purchase prices verified in the context of the importation of similar goods and despite the fact that the customs authority does not refute or call into question the authenticity of the invoice or the bank transfer certificate produced in order to establish the price actually paid for the imported goods, without the importer having submitted, in response to a request to that effect from the customs authority, additional evidence to demonstrate the accuracy of the declared transaction value of those goods.

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/15

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Munich Finance Court, Germany)) — Medical Imaging Systems GmbH (MIS) v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-288/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Subheading 6211 3310 00 0 - Aprons - Anti-radiation protective coats))

(2016/C 296/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München (Munich Finance Court, Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Medical Imaging Systems GmbH (MIS)

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Operative part of the judgment

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, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that an anti-radiation protective apron-coat, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified in subheading 6211 33 10 00 0 of the CN due to its objective characteristics and properties, including, in particular, its external appearance, without it being necessary to refer to the components conferring on the product in question its essential character.

(1) OJ C 394, 7.9.2015.
2.

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that is incumbent on the national court to give full effect to that article and to grant workers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, retirement pension rights which are comparable to those of the civil servants who retain retirement pension rights corresponding, despite a change in public-sector employer, to the years of pensionable service that they have completed, by interpreting domestic law in conformity with that article or, if such an interpretation is not possible, by disapplying any contrary provision of domestic law in order to apply the same arrangements as those applicable to those civil servants.