ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — European Commission v EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, Kingdom of Sweden, Siemens AG, ABB Ltd

(Case C-365/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Access to documents of the institutions - Documents relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Access refused - Exceptions relating to the protection of investigations, commercial interests and the decision-making process of the institutions - Obligation upon the institution concerned to carry out a specific, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the request for access))

2014/C 112/07

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Costa de Oliveira and A. Antoniadis, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, (represented by: A. Hahn and A. Bach, Rechtsanwälte), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, Agent), Siemens AG (represented by: I. Brinker, C. Steinle and M. Holm-Hadulla, Rechtsanwälte), ABB Ltd (represented by: J. Lawrence, Solicitor, H. Bergmann and A. Huttenlauch, Rechtsanwälte)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 in Case T-344/08 Enbw Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision SG.E.3/MV/psi D (2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 refusing access to the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear — Erroneous interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) and, in particular, of Article 4(2) and (3) thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 May 2012 in Case T-344/08 EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission;

2. Annuls Commission Decision SG.E.3/MV/psi D (2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 refusing the request made by EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG for access to the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear, in so far as, by that decision, the European Commission failed to give a decision on EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG’s request to the extent that it sought disclosure of the category 5(b) documents in the file;

3. Dismisses the action brought by EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG before the General Court in Case T-344/08 as to the remainder;

4. Orders the European Commission and EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG to bear their own costs;

5. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden, Siemens AG and ABB Ltd to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd and Others v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-80/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Tax relief - Groups of companies and consortia - National legislation permitting losses to be transferred between a company belonging to a consortium and a company that is a member of a group which are connected by a ‘link company’ that is a member of both the group and the consortium - Residence condition for the ‘link company’ - Discrimination on the basis of where the corporate seat is located - Ultimate group parent company established in a third State and owning the companies which are seeking to transfer losses through companies established in third States))

2014/C 159/02

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd, Savers Health and Beauty Ltd, Walton Container Terminal Ltd, WPCS (UK) Finance Ltd, AS Watson Card Services (UK) Ltd, Hutchison Whampoa (Europe) Ltd, Kruidvat UK Ltd, Superdrug Stores plc

Respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Tax relief — National legislation permitting the transfer of losses sustained by a company that is established in the United Kingdom and owned by a consortium to a company established in the same State and belonging to a group of companies, subject to those two companies being connected through a link company which is a member of both the group and the consortium — Link company required to be established in the United Kingdom or to carry on a trade in the United Kingdom through a permanent establishment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it is possible for a resident company that is a member of a group to have transferred to it losses sustained by another resident company which belongs to a consortium where a ‘link company’ which is a member of both the group and the consortium is also resident in that Member State, irrespective of the residence of the companies which hold, themselves or by means of intermediate companies, the capital of the link company and of the other companies concerned by the transfer of losses, whereas that legislation rules out such a possibility where the link company is established in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 March 2014 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v National Lottery Commission

(Case C-530/12 P) (1)

((Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 52(2)(c) - Application for a declaration of invalidity based on an earlier copyright under national law - Application by OHIM of national law - Role of the European Union judicature))

2014/C 151/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and F. Mattina, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: National Lottery Commission (represented by: R. Cardas, Advocate, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 September 2012 in Case T-404/10 National Lottery Commission v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed Decision R 1028/2009-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 9 June 2010, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division which upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity lodged by Mediatek Italia and Giuseppe De Grégorio — Community figurative mark representing a hand with two crossed fingers and a smiling face — Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Existence of an earlier copyright protected by national law — Burden of proof — Application by OHIM of national law.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 September 2012 in Case T-404/10 National Lottery Commission v OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Representation of a hand);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits of the action;

3. Orders that the costs be reserved.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 April 2014 — FLSmidth & Co. A/S v European Commission

(Case C-238/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Unlimited jurisdiction of the General Court - Duty to state reasons - Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary - Liability of the parent company for payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary - Proportionality - Proceedings before the General Court - Adjudication within a reasonable time))

2014/C 194/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: FLSmidth & Co. A/S (represented by: M. Dittmer, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2012 in Case T-65/06 FLSmidth v Commission by which that court annulled in part Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial Bags) concerning a cartel consisting in the fixing of prices and sales quotas by geographic region, the sharing of orders by major customers, the organisation of concerted bidding in response to certain invitations to tender and the implementation of mechanisms for the exchange of information on sales volumes in the market for plastic industrial bags, and reduced the fine imposed on the appellant — Imputability of the unlawful conduct

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders FLSmidth & Co. A/S to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-507/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 45 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 7 - ‘Worker’ - Union citizen who gave up work because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth))

2014/C 282/07

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jessy Saint Prix

Defendants: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Intervening party: AIRE Centre

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a woman who gives up work, or seeking work, because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth retains the status of ‘worker’, within the meaning of that article, provided she returns to work or finds another job within a reasonable period after the birth of her child.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Kone AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

(Case C-557/12) (1)

((Article 101 TFEU - Damages for the loss caused by a cartel prohibited by that article - Loss resulting from the higher price charged by an undertaking as a result of a prohibited cartel to which it is not a party (‘Umbrella pricing’) - Causal link))

2014/C 253/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kone AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH

Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 101 TFEU — Damages for the loss caused by a cartel prohibited by that article — Loss resulting from the higher price charged by an undertaking as a result of a prohibited cartel to which it is not a party

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the interpretation and application of domestic legislation enacted by a Member State which categorically excludes, for legal reasons, any civil liability of undertakings belonging to a cartel for loss resulting from the fact that an undertaking not party to the cartel, having regard to the practices of the cartel, set its prices higher than would otherwise have been expected under competitive conditions.

(1) OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v GMAC UK plc

(Case C-589/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 11C(1), first subparagraph - Direct effect - Reduction of the taxable amount - Two transactions concerning the same goods - Supply of goods - Cars, sold on a hire purchase basis, repossessed and sold at auction - Abuse of rights))

(2014/C 395/10)

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: GMAC UK plc

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 11C(1) of 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, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, a Member State may not prevent a taxable person from invoking the direct effect of that provision in respect of one transaction by arguing that that person may rely on the provisions of national law in relation to another transaction concerning the same goods and that the cumulative application of those provisions would produce an overall fiscal result which neither national law nor Sixth Directive 77/388, applied separately to those transactions, produces or is intended to produce.

(1) OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.
1.

For the purpose of tariff classification in 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, in the versions resulting successively from Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 of screens with the objective characteristics at issue in the main proceedings, account should be taken of their inherent intended purpose, which consists in reproducing the data from an automatic data-processing machine and from composite video signals. Such screens must be classified under subheading 8471 60 90 of the Combined Nomenclature if they are used solely or mainly in an automatic data-processing system, within the meaning of Note 5B(a) of Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature, or under subheading 8528 21 90 thereof if that is not the case, which is a matter for the national court to determine on the basis of the objective characteristics of the screens at issue in the main proceedings, and in particular those mentioned in the Explanatory Notes relating to heading 8471 of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System established by the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System concluded in Brussels on 14 June 1983, with its amending protocol of 24 June 1986, in particular in points 1 to 5 of the part of Chapter I D relating to display units for automatic data-processing machines;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Parliament, European Commission v Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht

(Joined Cases C-401/12 P to C-403/12 P) (1)

(Appeals - Directive 2008/50/EC - Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe - Decision regarding the notification by the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the postponement of the deadline for attaining the limit values for nitrogen dioxide and the exemption from the obligation to apply the limit values for particulate matter (PM10) - Request for internal review of that decision, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention)

(2015/C 073/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and G. Corstens, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, P. Oliver, P. Van Nuffel, G. Valero Jordana and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht (represented by: A. van den Biesen, advocaat)

Intervener in support of the appellants: Czech Republic (represented by: D. Hadroušek, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the cross-appeal;

2) Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission (T-396/09, EU:T:2012:301);

3) Dismisses the application for annulment lodged by Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht before the General Court of the European Union;

4) Orders Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht to pay jointly and severally the costs incurred at first instance and in the appeals by the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission;

5) Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Almer Beheer BV, Daedalus Holding BV v Van den Dungen Vastgoed BV, Oosterhout II BVBA

(Case C-441/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 2003/71/EC - Article 3(1) - Obligation to publish a prospectus when securities are offered for sale to the public - Enforced sale of securities))

2014/C 421/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Almer Beheer BV, Daedalus Holding BV

Defendants: Van den Dungen Vastgoed BV, Oosterhout II BVBA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to publish a prospectus prior to any offer of securities to the public is not applicable to an enforced sale of securities, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — M. G., N. R. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-383/13 PPU) (1)

(Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons - Immigration policy - Illegal immigration and illegal residence - Repatriation of illegal residents - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Removal process - Detention measure - Extension of detention - Article 15(2) and (6) - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Infringement - Consequences)

2013/C 325/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M. G., N. R.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1) and of Article 15(6) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Detention measures — Extension — Lack of cooperation on the part of the nationals concerned in the removal procedure — Breach of the rights of the defence — Right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which would affect him adversely is taken

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law, in particular Article 15(2) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the extension of a detention measure has been decided in an administrative procedure in breach of the right to be heard, the national court responsible for assessing the lawfulness of that extension decision may order the lifting of the detention measure only if it considers, in the light of all of the factual and legal circumstances of each case, that the infringement at issue actually deprived the party relying thereon of the possibility of arguing his defence better, to the extent that the outcome of that administrative procedure could have been different.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
1.

First, a decision, such as one of those at issue in the main proceedings, rectifying, on the basis of Article 30(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) 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, the customs value of goods with the consequence that the declarant is served with a tax adjustment in respect of value added tax, constitutes a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92. Secondly, having regard to the general principles of respect for the rights of the defence and res judicata, Article 245 of Regulation No 2913/92 does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes provision for two separate appeal procedures for challenging decisions of the customs authorities, where that legislation does not run counter to either the principle of equivalence or the principle of effectiveness.