ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — H. Lundbeck A/S, Lundbeck Ltd v European Commission, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)

(Case C-591/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Pharmaceutical products - Market for antidepressants (citalopram) - Settlement agreements relating to disputes concerning process patents concluded by a manufacturer of originator medicines who is the holder of those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines - Article 101 TFEU - Potential competition - Restriction by object - Characterisation - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Sales directly or indirectly related to the infringement)

(2021/C 206/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: H. Lundbeck A/S, Lundbeck Ltd (represented by: initially R. Subiotto QC, and T. Kuhn, Rechtsanwalt, and subsequently R. Subiotto QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, B. Rayment and D. Bailey, Barristers, G. Peretz QC, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel), European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, and N. Niejahr, Rechtsanwältin)

Intervener in support of the European Commission: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, J. Turner QC, J. Holmes QC, M. Demetriou QC, and T. Sebastian, Barrister, and subsequently D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, J. Turner QC, J. Holmes QC, M. Demetriou QC, and T. Sebastian, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders H. Lundbeck A/S and Lundbeck Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by European Commission;

3. Orders the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) to bear its own costs;

4. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2019 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

(Case C-405/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law concerning renewable energy sources (EEG 2012) - Aid supporting renewable electricity and reduced EEG surcharge for energy-intensive users - Decision declaring the aid partially incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Advantage - State resources - Public control of resources - Measure which can be assimilated to a levy on electricity consumption)

(2019/C 187/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents, and by T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by K. Herrmann and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 May 2016, Germany v Commission (T-47/15, EU:T:2016:281);

2. Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 in State aid proceedings SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) [implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and energy-intensive users];

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance.

(1) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/27

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Samet Ardic

(Case C-571/17 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Grounds for optional non-execution - Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA - Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence - ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ - Scope - Person sentenced to a custodial sentence in final proceedings conducted in his presence - Execution of sentence subsequently suspended in part subject to certain conditions - Subsequent proceedings leading to revocation of the suspension due to non-compliance with those conditions - Revocation proceedings conducted in the absence of the person concerned))

(2018/C 072/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Samet Ardic

Operative part of the judgment

Where a party has appeared in person in criminal proceedings that result in a judicial decision which definitively finds him guilty of an offence and, as a consequence, imposes a custodial sentence the execution of which is subsequently suspended in part, subject to certain conditions, the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, as referred to in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as not including subsequent proceedings in which that suspension is revoked on grounds of infringement of those conditions during the probationary period, provided that the revocation decision adopted at the end of those proceedings does not change the nature or the level of the sentence initially imposed.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
(2)

Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the court with jurisdiction, by virtue of that provision, to hear a claim for compensation relating to the termination of a commercial concession agreement concluded between two companies established and operating in two different Member States for the distribution of goods on the domestic market of a third Member State in which neither of those companies has a branch or establishment, is that of the Member State in which the place of the main supply of services, as is clear from the provisions of the contract and, in the absence of such provisions, the actual performance of that contract, and where it cannot be determined on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/11

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Nagyszénás Településszolgáltatási Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-182/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c), Article 9 and Article 13(1) - Treatment as a non-taxable person - Definition of ‘body governed by public law’ - Commercial company 100 % owned by a municipality and responsible for performing certain public tasks incumbent on that municipality - Those tasks and their remuneration determined in a contract between the company and the municipality))

(2018/C 134/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nagyszénás Településszolgáltatási Nonprofit Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning, subject to verification of the relevant facts by the referring court, that an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company performs certain public tasks under a contract concluded between that company and a municipality, constitutes a supply of services effected for consideration and subject to VAT under that provision.

2. Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to verification of the relevant matters of fact and national law by the referring court, an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company performs certain public municipal tasks under a contract concluded between that company and a municipality, does not fall within the scope of the rule of treatment as a non-taxable person for VAT purposes laid down by that provision, if that activity constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Case C-30/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu v Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax provisions — Excise duties — Directive 92/83/EEC — Article 3(1) — Alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Beer — Flavoured beer — Degree Plato — Method of calculation)

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu v Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu

(Case C-30/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax provisions — Excise duties — Directive 92/83/EEC — Article 3(1) — Alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Beer — Flavoured beer — Degree Plato — Method of calculation)’

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu

Defendant: Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine the basis of assessment for flavoured beers according to the Plato scale, the dry extract of the original wort must be taken into consideration but not the aromatic substances or sugar syrup added after the completion of fermentation.

( 1 ) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Case C-148/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg v Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade-mark law — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 14 — Establishment a posteriori of the invalidity or revocation of a trade mark — Date on which the conditions for revocation or invalidity must be met — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Article 34(2) — Claiming the seniority of an earlier national trade mark — Effects of that claim on the earlier national mark)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg v Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf

(Case C-148/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade-mark law — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 14 — Establishment a posteriori of the invalidity or revocation of a trade mark — Date on which the conditions for revocation or invalidity must be met — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Article 34(2) — Claiming the seniority of an earlier national trade mark — Effects of that claim on the earlier national mark)’

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg

Defendant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, read in conjunction with Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark, must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation according to which the invalidity or revocation of an earlier national mark, the seniority of which is claimed for an EU mark, may be established a posteriori only if the conditions for that invalidity or that revocation were met, not only on the date on which that earlier national mark was surrendered or the date on which it lapsed, but also on the date on which the judicial decision making that finding is taken.

( 1 ) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Case C-223/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 — Lubrizol France SAS v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common Customs Tariff — Autonomous customs duties on certain agricultural and industrial products — Applications for tariff suspensions — Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 — Tariff suspensions granted — Objection — Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 — Termination of the suspensions at issue — Comparable products available in sufficient quantities on the Union market)

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 — Lubrizol France SAS v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-223/17 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — Common Customs Tariff — Autonomous customs duties on certain agricultural and industrial products — Applications for tariff suspensions — Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 — Tariff suspensions granted — Objection — Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 — Termination of the suspensions at issue — Comparable products available in sufficient quantities on the Union market)’

Parties

Appellant: Lubrizol France SAS (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and by A. Bochon, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and by F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and A. Caeiros, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Lubrizol France SAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

( 1 ) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Case C-7/17 P: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clauses — Persona and Terregov contracts concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Eligible costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Counter-claim)

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission

(Case C-7/17 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — Arbitration clauses — Persona and Terregov contracts concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Eligible costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Counter-claim)’

Parties

Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: S. Paliou, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017
1.

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the letting of a building by a holding company to its subsidiary amounts to ‘involvement in the management’ of that subsidiary, which must be considered to be an economic activity, within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive, giving rise to the right to deduct the value added tax (VAT) on the expenditure incurred by the company for the purpose of acquiring shares in that subsidiary, where that supply of services is made on a continuing basis, is carried out for consideration and is taxed, meaning that the letting is not exempt, and there is a direct link between the service rendered by the supplier and the consideration received from the beneficiary. Expenditure connected with the acquisition of shareholdings in subsidiaries incurred by a holding company which involves itself in the subsidiaries’ management by letting them a building and which, on that basis, carries out an economic activity has to be regarded as belonging to its general expenditure and the VAT paid on that expenditure must, in principle, be capable of being deducted in full.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-588/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - incurred by the Kingdom of Spain - Aid granted in respect of areas with natural handicaps and agri-environment measures in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León))

(2018/C 328/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Other party: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy v Abnormal Load Services (International) Limited

(Case C-88/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Second indent of Article 5(1)(b) - Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance of the obligation - Place of provision of services - Contract for the carriage of goods between two Member States - Route consisting of several stages and involving a number of means of transport))

(2018/C 319/09)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy

Defendant: Abnormal Load Services (International) Limited

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) 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 context of a contract for the carriage of goods between Member States in several stages, with stops, and by a number of means of transport, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, both the place of dispatch and the place of delivery of the goods constitute places where transport services are provided, for the purposes of that indent.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-16/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Deduction of input tax - Origin and scope of the right to deduct))

(2018/C 352/05)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, and the principle of neutrality must be interpreted as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from regarding a company which has its headquarters in another Member State and the branch which it has in the first of those States as constituting two separate taxable entities on the ground that each of those entities has a tax identification number, and, for that reason, from refusing that branch the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) on the debit notes issued by an economic interest group of which that company, and not its branch, is a member.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Administration des douanes et des droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Hubert Clergeau and Others

(Case C-115/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 - False declarations or deceitful practices in order to secure special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals - Amendment to Regulation No 1964/82 extending the entitlement to special export refunds - Principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law - Third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))

(2018/C 352/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Administration des douanes et des droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Defendants: Hubert Clergeau, Jean-Luc Labrousse, Jean-Jacques Berthellemy, Alain Bouchet, Jean-Pierre Dubois, Marcel Géry, Jean-Paul Matrat, Jean-Pierre Paziot, Patrice Raillot

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law, enshrined in the third sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a situation in which a person is convicted on the ground that he wrongfully obtained special export refunds provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 of 20 July 1982 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals, by means of deceitful practices or the making of false statements as to the nature of the goods in respect of which the refunds were requested, although, as a result of changes in those rules which occurred subsequent to the acts complained of, the goods that were exported by that person have since become eligible for those refunds.

(1) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 December 2016, Infineon Technologies v Commission (T-758/14, not published, EU:T:2016:737), inasmuch as the General Court rejected the appellant’s claim in the alternative for a reduction of the amount of the fine that the European Commission imposed on it;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Basic Net SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-547/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative trade mark representing three vertical stripes - Proof of distinctive character acquired through use))

(2018/C 399/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Basic Net SpA (represented by: D. Sindico, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Basic Net SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.