ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 439/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Alexandra Schulz v Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co. KG and Josef Egbringhoff v Stadtwerke Ahaus GmbH

(Joined Cases C-359/11 and C-400/11) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 2003/54/EC and 2003/55/EC - Consumer protection - Internal market in electricity and natural gas - National legislation determining the content of consumer contracts covered by a universal supply obligation - Unilateral adjustment of the price of the service by the seller or supplier - Information, with adequate notice before the adjustment comes into effect, as to the reasons and preconditions for that adjustment and its scope))

(2014/C 439/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alexandra Schulz and Josef Egbringhoff

Defendants: Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co. KG and Stadtwerke Ahaus GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

On the one hand, Article 3(5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC, read in conjunction with Annex A thereto, and, on the other, Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, read in conjunction with Annex A thereto, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which determines the content of consumer contracts for the supply of electricity and gas covered by a universal supply obligation and allows the price of that supply to be adjusted, but which does not ensure that customers are to be given adequate notice, before that adjustment comes into effect, of the reasons and preconditions for the adjustment, and its scope.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

(Case C-656/11) (1)

((Coordination of social security systems - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Council decision - Choice of legal basis - Article 48 TFEU - Article 79(2)(b) TFEU))

2014/C 112/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by C. Murrell and subsequently by M. Holt, Agents, and by A. Dashwood QC)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by E. Creedon, L. Williams and J. Stanley, Agents, and by N.J. Travers BL)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by G. Marhic and M. Veiga and subsequently by A. De Elera, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, Agents), European Commission (represented initially by V. Kreuschitz and subsequently by S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Enegren, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment — Council Decision of 16 December 2011 on the position to be taken by the European Union in the Joint Committee established under the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons as regards the replacement of Annex II to that Agreement on the coordination of social security schemes (OJ L 2011 341, p. 1) — Choice of legal basis — Article 48 TFEU (adoption, in the field of social security, of necessary measures to provide freedom of movement for workers) or Article 79(2)(b) TFEU (rights of third-country nationals residing legally in a Member State) — Practical effect of this choice on the rights and obligations of the United Kingdom, by reason of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

3. Orders Ireland, the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co.

(Case C-12/12) (1)

(Trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 15(1) - Definition of ‘genuine use’ - Trade mark used only as one element of a composite mark or in conjunction with another mark)

2013/C 164/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Colloseum Holding AG

Respondent: Levi Strauss & Co.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Concept of ‘use of a trade mark’ — Recognition of the existence of use of a trade mark forming part of a composite mark where the composite mark is used — Recognition of the existence of use of a trade mark where it is used only together with another mark, the two marks being registered both individually and together as a composite mark

Operative part of the judgment

The condition of genuine use of a trade mark, within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, may be satisfied where a registered trade mark, which has become distinctive as a result of the use of another composite mark of which it constitutes one of the elements, is used only through that other composite mark, or where it is used only in conjunction with another mark, and the combination of those two marks is, furthermore, itself registered as a trade mark.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/15

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Josef Probst v mr.nexnet GmbH

(Case C-119/12) (1)

(Electronic communications - Directive 2002/58/EC - Article 6(2) and (5) - Processing of personal data - Traffic data necessary for billing and debt collection - Debt collection by a third company - Persons acting under the authority of the providers of public communications networks and electronic communications services)

2013/C 26/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Josef Probst

Defendant: mr.nexnet GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 6(2) and (5) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37) — Passing of traffic data relating to subscribers and users, processed and held by the provider of a public communications network — National legislation permitting such data to be passed to the assignee of a claim for payment in respect of telecommunications services, in the case where contractual stipulations safeguard confidential treatment of the data passed and make it possible for each party to check that the other has ensured that those data are protected

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2) and (5) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) must be interpreted as authorising a provider of public communications networks and of publicly-accessible electronic communications services to pass traffic data to the assignee of its claims for payment in respect of the supply of telecommunications services for the purpose of recovery of those claims, and as authorising that assignee to process those data on condition, first, that the latter acts under the authority of the service provider as regards the processing of those data and, second, that that assignee confines itself to processing the traffic data necessary for the purposes of recovering the claims assigned.

Irrespective of the classification of the contract of assignment, the assignee is deemed to act under the authority of the service provider, within the meaning of Article 6(5) of Directive 2002/58, where, for the processing of traffic data, it acts exclusively on the instructions and under the control of that provider. In particular, the contract concluded between them must contain provisions capable of guaranteeing the lawful processing, by the assignee, of the traffic data and of enabling the service provider to ensure, at all times, that that assignee is complying with those provisions.

(1) OJ C 174, 16.06.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/29

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — Hristomir Marinov, acting on behalf of Lampatov — H — Hristomir Marinov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-142/12) (1)

(Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 18(c), 74 and 80 - Cessation of the taxable economic activity - Removal of the taxable person from the VAT register by the tax authorities - Retention of goods on which the VAT became deductible - Taxable amount - Open market value or purchase value - Determination at the time of the transaction - Direct effect of Article 74)

2013/C 225/47

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hristomir Marinov, acting on behalf of Lampatov — H — Hristomir Marinov

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Articles 18(c), 74 and 80 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 December 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Transactions to be treated as the supply of goods for consideration — Cessation of the taxable economic activity of a taxable person, owing to the fact that, by reason of its removal from the value added tax register, that taxable person is no longer able to charge or to deduct value added tax — Method for determining the taxable amount in relation to the assets existing at the time of that removal

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 18(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as also covering the cessation of the taxable economic activity as a result of the removal of the taxable person from the value added tax register.

2. Article 74 of Directive 2006/112 is to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which, in the event of the cessation of the taxable economic activity, the taxable amount of the transaction is to be the open market value of the assets in existence at the time of that cessation, unless that value corresponds in practice to the residual value of those goods at that date and account is thus taken of the change in the value of those goods between the date of their acquisition and the date of the cessation of the taxable economic activity.

3. Article 74 of Directive 2006/112 has direct effect.

(1) OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/15

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Oreste Della Rocca v Poste Italiane SpA

(Case C-290/12) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 2 - Scope of application of the Framework Agreement - Temporary employment business - Supply of temporary workers to a user undertaking - Successive fixed-term employment contracts)

2013/C 156/24

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oreste Della Rocca

Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Napoli — Interpretation of Clauses 2 and 5 of the Framework Agreement set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Scope — Applicability of that directive to temporary employment agencies — Possibility for those agencies to draw up successive fixed-term contracts with temporary workers owing to circumstances justifying the temporary nature of the employment relationship between the temporary worker and the undertaking making use of that worker

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, and the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, set out in the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as not applying either to the fixed-term employment relationship between a temporary worker and a temporary employment business or to the employment relationship between such a worker and a user undertaking.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
1.

Declares that, by failing to lay down an obligation to present, when buildings are sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate, in accordance with Articles 7 and 10 of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, and in having failed to notify the European Commission of the measures transposing Article 9 of Directive 2002/91, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (2), Article 10 and Article 15(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 29 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/27

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Qorti Kostituzzjonali — Malta) — Vodafone Malta Limited, Mobisle Communications Limited v L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, L-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni

(Case C-71/12) (1)

(Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Articles 12 and 13 - Administrative charges and fees for rights of use - Charge applicable to mobile telephony operators - National legislation - Method of calculating the charge - Percentage of the costs paid by users)

2013/C 225/43

Language of the case: Maltese

Referring court

Qorti Kostituzzjonali

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vodafone Malta Limited, Mobisle Communications Limited

Defendants: L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, L-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Qorti Kostituzzjonali — Interpretation of Articles 12 and 13 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 (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — National legislation subjecting mobile telephone operators to a charge — Charge to be paid solely by mobile telephone operators and not by other undertakings offering electronic communications services

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 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) must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which operators providing mobile telephony services are liable to pay ‘excise’ duty, calculated as a percentage of the charges paid to them by the users of those services, provided the trigger for that duty is not linked to the general authorisation procedure for access to the electronic communications services market but to the use of mobile telephony services provided by the operators and the duty is ultimately borne by the user of those services, which is a matter for the national court to verify.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
2.

Rules such as those laid down by the Code of Conduct concerning the exercise of the profession of geologist in Italy, approved by the Consiglio nazionale dei geologi on 19 December 2006 and amended most recently on 24 March 2010, which establish as criteria for determining the remuneration of geologists, in addition to the quality and scale of the work to be performed, the dignity of the profession, constitute a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU which may have the effect of restricting competition within the internal market. It is for the referring court to assess, in the light of the overall context in which the Code of Conduct produces its effects, including the national legal framework in its entirety and the manner in which that code is applied in practice by the National Association of Geologists, whether that effect is produced in the present case. That court must also verify whether, in the light of all the relevant material before it, the rules of that code, in particular in so far as they apply the criterion based on the dignity of the profession, may be regarded as necessary for the implementation of the legitimate objective of providing guarantees to consumers of geologists’ services.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Harry Winston SARL

(Case C-273/12) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 206 - Incurrence of a customs debt - Theft of goods placed under customs warehousing arrangements - Notion of ‘irretrievable loss of goods as a result of force majeure’ - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 71 - Value added tax - Chargeable event - Chargeability of tax)

2013/C 252/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières

Defendant: Harry Winston SARL

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de Cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 206 of Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 71 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Goods held under the customs warehousing procedure — Theft of goods — Concept of irretrievable loss of the goods — Case of force majeure — Incurrence of the customs debt on importation — Event giving rise to the VAT charge

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a theft of goods placed under customs warehousing arrangements constitutes an unlawful removal of those goods within the meaning of that provision, giving rise to a customs debt on importation. Article 206 of that regulation is capable of applying only to situations in which a customs debt is liable to be incurred pursuant to Articles 202 and 204(1)(a) of that regulation;

2. The second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the theft of goods placed under customs warehousing arrangements gives rise to the chargeable event and causes value added tax to become chargeable.

(1) OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/27

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG

(Case C-170/12) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict - Copyright - Material support reproducing a protected work - Placing on line - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred)

2013/C 344/45

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Pinckney

Defendant: KDG Mediatech AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the national court in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict — Criteria for determining the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Infringement of copyright caused by the placing on-line of dematerialised content or a material carrier medium reproducing the content — Content directed at the public

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of alleged infringement of copyrights protected by the Member State of the court seised, the latter has jurisdiction to hear an action to establish liability brought by the author of a work against a company established in another Member State and which has, in the latter State, reproduced that work on a material support which is subsequently sold by companies established in a third Member State through an internet site also accessible with the jurisdiction of the court seised. That court has jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused in the Member State within which it is situated.

(1) OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.