ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/2

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2014 — Pi-Design AG, Bodum France SAS, Bodum Logistics A/S v Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Joined Cases C-337/12 P to C-340/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Registration of signs consisting of a surface with black dots - Declaration of invalidity - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) - Distortion of the evidence))

2014/C 129/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Pi-Design AG, Bodum France SAS, Bodum Logistics A/S (represented by: H. Pernez, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, avvocati), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeals brought against the judgments of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 in Cases T-331/10 and T-461/10 Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others, by which that court annulled Decisions R 1235/2008-1 and R 1237/2008-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 20 May 2010 which annulled the decisions of the Cancellation Division rejecting the applications for declarations of invalidity brought by Pi-Design, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S in respect of figurative marks representing a triangular surface with black dots (T-331/10) and a surface with black dots (T-416/10), for goods in Classes 8 and 21 — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark — Sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 8 May 2012 in Case T-331/10 Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — PiDesign and Others (Representation of a triangular surface with black dots) and Case T-416/10 Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others (Representation of a surface with black dots);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.
1)

Articles 4(1), 9 and 11 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of the Member States are required to propose to the European Commission the declassification of a site on the list of sites of Community importance, where those authorities have received a request from the owner of land included in that site, alleging an environmental degradation of the site, provided that that request is based on the fact that, despite compliance with the provisions of Article 6(2) to (4) of that directive, that site can definitively no longer contribute to the conservation of natural habitats and of the wild fauna and flora or the setting up of the Natura 2000 network;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — France) — LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais SA v Fesih Kalhan

(Case C-565/12) (1)

((Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Articles 8 and 23 - Creditor’s obligation to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness prior to conclusion of the agreement - National provision imposing the obligation to consult a database - Forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest in the event of failure to comply with that obligation - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature of the penalty))

2014/C 151/04

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais SA

Defendant: Fesih Kalhan

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — Interpretation of Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66), in the light of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Credit institution’s obligation to check the borrower’s creditworthiness — Requirement for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties in the event of the creditor’s failure to fulfil that obligation — Forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest — Whether it is permissible to maintain for the creditor’s benefit statutory interest that becomes payable by operation of law at an increased statutory rate

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as precluding the application of a national system of penalties under which, in the event of failure on the part of the creditor to comply with its obligation, prior to conclusion of an agreement, to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness by consulting the relevant database, that creditor forfeits its entitlement to contractual interest but is automatically entitled to interest at the statutory rate, payable from the date of delivery of a court decision ordering that borrower to pay the outstanding sums, which is further increased by five percentage points if, on expiry of a period of two months following that decision, the borrower has not repaid his debt in full, where the referring court finds that — in a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which the outstanding amount of the principal of the loan is immediately payable as a result of the borrower’s default — the amounts which the creditor is in fact likely to receive following the application of the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest are not significantly lower than those which it could have received had it complied with its obligation to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness.

(1) OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — T.C. Briels and Others v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu

(Case C-521/12) (1)

((Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6(3) and (4) - Conservation of natural habitats - Special areas of conservation - Assessment of the implications for a protected site of a plan or project - Authorisation for a plan or project on a protected site - Compensatory measures - Natura 2000 site Vlijmens Ven, Moerputten & Bossche Broek - Project on the route of the A2 ‘s-Hertogenbosch-Eindhoven motorway))

2014/C 212/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: T.C. Briels, M. Briels-Loermans, R.L.P. Buchholtz, Stichting A2-Platform Boxtel e.o. and Others, H.W.G. Cox, G.P.A. Damman, P.A.M. Goevaers and Others, J.H. van Haaren, L.S.P. Dijkman, R.A.H.M. Janssen, M.M. van Lanschot, J.E.A.M. Lelijveld and Others, A. Mes and Others, A.J.J. Michels, VOF Isphording and Others, M. Peijnenborg, S. Peijnenborg-van Oers, G. Oude Elferink, W. Punte, P.M. Punte-Cammaert, Stichting Reinier van Arkel, E. de Ridder, W.C.M.A.J.G. van Rijckevorsel, M. van Rijckevorsel-van Asch van Wijck, Vereniging tot Behoud van het Groene Hart van Brabant, Stichting Boom en Bosch, Stichting Overlast A2 Vught e.o., Streekraad Het Groene Woud en De Meijerij, A.C.M.W. Teulings, Stichting Bleijendijk, M. Tilman, Vereniging van Eigenaars Appartementengebouw De Heun I and Others, M.C.T. Veroude, E.J.A.M. Widlak, Van Roosmalen Sales BV and Others, M.A.A. van Kessel, Bricorama BV and Others

Defendant: Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Authorisation of a plan or project on a protected site — Conditions — ‘Concept of adverse effect on the integrity of the site concerned’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site of Community importance, which has negative implications for a type of natural habitat present thereon and which provides for the creation of an area of equal or greater size of the same natural habitat type within the same site, has an effect on the integrity of that site. Such measures can be categorised as ‘compensatory measures’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) only if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied.

(1) OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (previously Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich — Austria) — proceedings brought by Robert Pfleger, Autoart a.s., Mladen Vucicevic, Maroxx Software GmbH, Ing. Hans-Jörg Zehetner

(Case C-390/12) (1)

((Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 15 to 17, 47 and 50 - Freedom to choose an occupation, right to engage in work, freedom to conduct a business, right to property, right to an effective remedy and access to an impartial tribunal, ne bis in idem principle - Article 51 - Scope - Implementation of EU law - Games of chance - Restrictive legislation of a Member State - Administrative and criminal penalties - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))

2014/C 194/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (previously Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich, Austria)

Parties to the main proceedings

Robert Pfleger, Autoart a.s., Mladen Vucicevic, Maroxx Software GmbH, Ing. Hans-Jörg Zehetner

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU and Articles 15 to 17, 47 and 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Games of chance — Member State's rules prohibiting, with criminal penalties, the operation of gaming machines with small winnings (‘kleines Glücksspiel’) without a concession issued by the competent authority — Principle of proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where that legislation does not actually pursue the objective of protecting gamblers or fighting crime and does not genuinely meet the concern to reduce opportunities for gambling or to fight gambling-related crime in a consistent and systematic manner.

(1) OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.
1)

Point (k) of the second paragraph of Article 2 and Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC must be interpreted as allowing a Member State to establish a support scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the award of tradable certificates to producers of green electricity solely in respect of green electricity produced in the territory of that State and which places suppliers and certain electricity users under an obligation to deliver annually to the competent authority a certain number of those certificates, corresponding to a proportion of the total volume of electricity that they have supplied or consumed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-356/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Directive 2006/126/EC - Point 6.4 of Annex III - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 20, 21(1) and 26 - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Driving licences - Physical and mental fitness to drive a motor vehicle - Minimum standards - Visual acuity - Equal treatment - No possibility of derogation - Proportionality))

2014/C 253/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang Glatzel

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Validity of point 6.4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18), as amended by Commission Directive 2009/113/EC of 25 August 2009 (OJ 2009 L 223, p. 31) — Interpretation of Articles 20, 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Minimum standards concerning physical and mental fitness to drive a motor vehicle of categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E — Requirement for visual acuity of at least 0,1, with optical correction if necessary, in the worse of the two eyes

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the question does not reveal any information capable of affecting the validity of point 6.4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2009/113/EC of 25 August 2009 in the light of Articles 20, 21(1) or 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-525/12) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - Framework for Community action in the field of water policy - Recovery of the costs for water services - Concept of ‘water services’))

2014/C 409/05

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: M. Wolff and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, assisted by G. Facenna, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, Hungary, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA v Corsica Ferries France SAS, European Commission, French Republic (C-533/12 P), French Republic v Corsica Ferries France SAS, European Commission, Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA (C-536/12 P)

(Joined Cases C-533/12 P and C-536/12 P) (1)

((Appeals - Restructuring aid - European Commission’s margin of assessment - Scope of review by the General Court of the European Union - Market economy private investor test - Requirement for a sectoral and geographical analysis - Sufficiently well-established practice - Long-term economic rationale - Making of additional redundancy payments))

(2014/C 395/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

(Case C-533/12 P)

Appellant: Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA (represented by: A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Corsica Ferries France SAS (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, avocats), European Commission, French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, N. Rouam and J. Rossi, acting as Agents)

(Case C-536/12 P)

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, N. Rouam and J. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Corsica Ferries France SAS (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, avocats), European Commission, Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA (represented by: A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeals;

2) Orders Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditérrannée (SNCM) SA and the French Republic to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Corsica Ferries France SAS in equal shares.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
1)

Article 5(2)(b) 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 does not preclude national legislation which provides that fair compensation is to be paid, in accordance with the exception to the reproduction right for copies made for private use, in respect of multifunctional media such as mobile telephone memory cards, irrespective of whether the main function of such media is to make such copies, provided that one of the functions of the media, be it merely an ancillary function, enables the operator to use them for that purpose. However, the question whether the function is a main or an ancillary one and the relative importance of the medium’s capacity to make copies are liable to affect the amount of fair compensation payable. In so far as the prejudice to the rightholder may be regarded as minimal, the making available of such a function need not give rise to an obligation to pay fair compensation.
1.

Article 2(4)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact of using, firstly, coal as a heating fuel in the sugar production process and, secondly, carbon dioxide generated by the combustion of that energy product to produce chemical fertilizers does not constitute ‘dual use’ of that energy product within the meaning of that provision. However, the fact of using, firstly, coal as a heating fuel in the sugar production process and, secondly, carbon dioxide generated by the combustion of that energy product for the purposes of the same production process does constitute such ‘dual use’ if it is established that the sugar production process cannot be completed without using the carbon dioxide generated by the combustion of the coal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Andreas Kainz v Pantherwerke AG

(Case C-45/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Liability for a defective product - Product manufactured in one Member State and sold in another Member State - Interpretation of the concept of ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ - Place of the event giving rise to the damage)

2014/C 85/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andreas Kainz

Defendant: Pantherwerke AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — 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) — Liability for defective products — Goods manufactured in one Member State and sold in another Member State — Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Situation in which the place where the damage occurred (‘Erfolgsort’) is in the State where the goods were manufactured — Interpretation of the concept of the ‘place of the event giving rise to [the damage]’ (‘Handlungsort’).

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 case where a manufacturer faces a claim of liability for a defective product, the place of the event giving rise to the damage is the place where the product in question was manufactured.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/13

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Poland) — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy

(Case C-38/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Notice period for the termination of a fixedterm employment contract - Difference in treatment between workers on contracts of indefinite duration))

2014/C 135/13

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Małgorzata Nierodzik

Defendant: Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Interpretation of Article 1 of 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), and of clauses 1 and 4 of the annex to that directive — Provisions of national law providing for less favourable periods of notice in fixed-term contracts than in open-ended contracts.

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, for the termination of fixed-term contracts of more than six months, a fixed notice period of two weeks may be applied regardless of the length of service of the worker concerned, whereas the length of the notice period for contracts of indefinite duration is fixed in accordance with the length of service of the worker concerned and may vary from two weeks to three months, where those two categories of workers are in comparable situations.

(1) OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.