ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Proximus SA, formerly Belgacom SA v Commune d’Etterbeek

(Case C-454/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Articles 12 and 13 - Administrative charges - Fee for rights to install facilities - Scope - Municipal legislation - Charge on mobile telephony antennae))

(2016/C 068/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Proximus SA, formerly Belgacom SA

Defendant: Commune d’Etterbeek

Operative part of the judgment

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 (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding a charge, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, being imposed on any natural or legal persons who are proprietors of a right in rem over, or of a right to operate, a mobile telephony antenna.

(1) OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Mamoli Robinetteria SpA v European Commission

(Case C-619/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Leniency programme - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))

(2017/C 104/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Mamoli Robinetteria SpA (represented by: F. Capelli and M. Valcada, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mamoli Robinetteria SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
2.

Article 17 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 on the basis of Article 300(2) EC, approved on behalf of the EC by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a person who comes within the definition of ‘passenger’ within the meaning of Article 3(g) of Regulation No 785/2004, also comes within the definition of ‘passenger’ within the meaning of Article 17 of that convention, once that person has been carried on the basis of a ‘contract of carriage’ within the meaning of Article 3 of that convention.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/16

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Kessel medintim GmbH, formerly Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH, Janssen-Cilag GmbH

(Case C-31/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the word mark Premeno - Opposition from the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Pramino - Limitation of the goods designated in the Community trade mark application - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 43(1)))

(2015/C 046/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kessel medintim GmbH, formerly Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH (represented by: A. Jacob, Rechtsanwalt), Janssen-Cilag GmbH (represented by: M. Wenz, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs;

3. Declares that Janssen-Cilag GmbH is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
1.

Declares that, by failing to exempt from value added tax the supply by the public postal services of services other than passenger transport and telecommunications services, and the supply of goods incidental thereto, and the supply at face value of postage stamps valid for use for postal services within national territory, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 132(1)(a) and 135(1)(h) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/13

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany)) — TMK Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

(Case C-143/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Imports of certain pipes and tubes of iron or steel - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 3(7) - Damage to industry - Known factors - Causal link - Failure to take into account an investigation into anti-competitive practices by Community undertakings in the relevant sector - Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 - Validity))

(2015/C 198/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TMK Europe GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question raised has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
Case C-256/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Lisboagás GDL — Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (References for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9, 73, 78, first paragraph, point (a), and 79, first paragraph, point (c) — Taxable amount — Inclusion of the amount of municipal land use taxes paid by the company holding the concession for the gas distribution network in the taxable amount for VAT applicable to supplies of services made by that company to the company responsible for marketing the gas)

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Lisboagás GDL — Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-256/14) ( 1 )

‛(References for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9, 73, 78, first paragraph, point (a), and 79, first paragraph, point (c) — Taxable amount — Inclusion of the amount of municipal land use taxes paid by the company holding the concession for the gas distribution network in the taxable amount for VAT applicable to supplies of services made by that company to the company responsible for marketing the gas)’

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lisboagás GDL — Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 9(1) and 73, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 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 amount of taxes, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which is paid to municipalities by the company holding the gas distribution concession in return for the use of publicly-owned property belonging to those municipalities and which is then passed on by that company to another company responsible for marketing the gas, then by that company on to the final consumers, must be included in the taxable amount for value added tax applicable to the supply of services effected by the first company to the second company under Article 73 of that directive.

( 1 ) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/20

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre délégué, chargé du budget v Marlène Pazdziej

(Case C-349/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union - Article 12, second paragraph - Tax levied for the benefit of local authorities on persons having the use of or having at their disposal residential premises in their area - Upper limit - Social policy measure - Taking into account salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the European Union to its officials and other servants))

(2015/C 236/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministre délégué, chargé du budget

Defendant: Marlène Pazdziej

Operative part of the judgment

The second paragraph of Article 12 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which takes into consideration salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Union to its officials and other servants in order to determine the upper limit on liability with respect to a residence tax levied for the benefit of local communities, with a view to the possible granting of relief from it.

(1) OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
2.

The principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude a tax authority from deciding that veterinary services are subject to value added tax in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, provided that that decision is based on clear rules and the practice of that authority was not such as to create in the mind of a reasonably prudent economic operator a reasonable expectation that value added tax would not be applied to those services, that being a matter for the referring court to establish.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D.G. Kieback

(Case C-9/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Tax legislation - Income tax - Income received in a Member State - Non-resident worker - Tax in the State of employment - Conditions))

(2015/C 279/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: D.G. Kieback

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39(2) EC must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, for the purposes of charging income tax on a non-resident worker who has pursued his occupational activity in that Member State during part of the year, from refusing to grant that worker a tax advantage which takes account of his personal and family circumstances, on the basis that, although he received, in that Member State, all or almost all his income from that period, that income does not form the major part of his taxable income for the entire year in question. The fact that that worker left to pursue his occupational activity in a non-member State and not in another EU Member State does not affect that interpretation.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Robert Michal Chmielewski v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

(Case C-255/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Articles 3 and 9 - Obligation to declare - Infringement - Penalties - Proportionality))

(2015/C 302/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Robert Michal Chmielewski

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to penalise a failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, imposes payment of an administrative fine, the amount of which corresponds to 60 % of the amount of undeclared cash, where that sum is more than EUR 50 000.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to recover from Société Nationale Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) the State aid declared illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) within the periods prescribed, by failing to cancel all the payments of aid referred to in Article 2(1) of that decision within the periods prescribed, and by failing to inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision within the period prescribed, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 298, fourth paragraph, TFEU and Articles 3 to 5 of that decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/17

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Aliny Wojciechowski v Office national des pensions (ONP)

(Case C-408/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Retired EU official who has, prior to entering the service, pursued an activity in an employed capacity in the Member State in which she is posted - Pension rights by virtue of the national pension scheme for employed persons - Occupational record unit - Refusal to pay the retirement pension for employed persons - Principle of sincere cooperation))

(2015/C 363/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aliny Wojciechowski

Defendant: Office national des pensions (ONP)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, established by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1080/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which may give rise to the reduction or refusal of a retirement pension payable to an employed person who is a national of that Member State by virtue of the service performed, in accordance with its legislation, where the total number of years of the occupational record acquired by him as an employed person in that Member State and as an EU official posted in that Member State exceeds the ‘occupational record unit’ of 45 years referred to in that legislation, in so far as, owing to the method used to calculate the fraction representing the size of the pension payable by the European Union, that reduction is greater than it would have been had he acquired the whole of his occupational record as an employed person in the Member State in question.

(1) OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles — France) — Groupe Steria SCA v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

(Case C-386/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax legislation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 4(2) - Cross-border distributions of dividends - Corporation tax - Group taxation (French intégration fiscale) - Tax exemption for dividends paid by subsidiaries belonging to the tax-integrated group - Residence qualification - Dividends paid by non-resident subsidiaries - Non-deductible costs and expenses relating to the holding))

(2015/C 354/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Groupe Steria SCA

Defendant: Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State that govern a tax integration regime under which a tax-integrated parent company is entitled to neutralisation as regards the add-back of a proportion of costs and expenses, fixed at 5 % of the net amount of the dividends received by it from tax-integrated resident companies, when such neutralisation is refused to it under those rules as regards the dividends distributed to it from subsidiaries located in another Member State, which, had they been resident, would have been eligible in practice, if they so elected.

(1) OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
1)

EU law must be interpreted as allowing a relevant national authority to impose a tariff obligation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under Article 28 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, to remove an obstacle to calling non-geographic numbers within the European Union which is not technical in nature, but which results from the tariffs applied, without a market analysis having been carried out showing that the undertaking concerned has significant market power, if such an obligation constitutes a necessary and proportionate step to ensure that end-users are able to access services using non-geographic numbers within the European Union. It is for the national court to determine whether that condition is satisfied and whether the tariff obligation is objective, transparent, proportionate, non-discriminatory, based on the nature of the problem identified and justified in the light of the objectives laid down in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and whether the procedures laid down in Articles 6, 7 and 7a of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, have been followed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/13

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia

(Case C-151/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 51 TFEU - Connection with the exercise of official authority))

(2015/C 363/15)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: D. Pelše, I. Kalniņš and K. Freimanis, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M. Tátrai and M. Fehér, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the Republic of Latvia failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

2. Orders the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs;

4. Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.
3.

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the selection board for a competition for recruitment of legal secretaries at a court of a Member State, where it examines an application to participate in that competition submitted by a national of that Member State, from making that participation contingent on the possession of diplomas required by the legislation of that Member State or the recognition of academic equivalence of a master’s degree awarded by the university of another Member State, without taking into consideration all of the diplomas, certificates and other qualifications, and the relevant professional experience of the person concerned, by comparing the professional qualifications attested by those qualifications with those required by that legislation.
1)

Neither Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 of 10 February 1995 on fees payable to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 273/2012 of 27 March 2012, nor Commission Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008 of 24 November 2008 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 712/2012 of 3 August 2012, requires a competent national authority to demand, in respect of the change of address of a marketing authorisation holder, payment of as many charges as there are marketing authorisations requiring variation, and nor do those regulations prohibit such an authority from demanding such payment.
1.

Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a money order service by which the sender, in this case the State, transfers sums of money to a beneficiary through the postal operator entrusted with providing the universal postal service does not fall within the scope of that directive.