ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2015 — Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. v European Commission, Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG (C-293/13 P), European Commission v Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG (C-294/13 P)

(Joined Cases C-293/13 P and C-294/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European banana market - Coordination in the setting of quotation prices - Concept of ‘economic unit’ between two companies - Concept of ‘decisive influence’ - Whether the conduct of one company may be imputed to another - Distortion of evidence - Burden of proof - Principle of in dubio pro reo - Concept of ‘single and continuous infringement’ - Concept of ‘concerted practice’ - Concept of ‘infringement by object’ - Undertakings that are members of the same cartel - Communication of information to the Commission - Legal obligation - Scope - Protection against self-incrimination - Intervener at first instance - Cross-appeal - Admissibility))

(2015/C 279/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-293/13 P)

Appellant: Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. (represented by: B. Meyring, Rechtsanwalt, and L. Suhr, Advocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, Agents), Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: K. Smith, QC, C. Humpe and S. Kon, Solicitors)

(Case C-293/13 P)

Appellant: European Commission: (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. (represented by: B. Meyring, Rechtsanwalt and L. Suhr, Advocate), Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG, (represented by: K. Smith, QC, C. Humpe and S. Kon, Solicitors)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal in Case C-293/13 P and the cross-appeals in Cases C-293/13 P and C-294/13 P;

2. Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment in Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission (T-587/08, EU:T:2013:129);

3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed in Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 final of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39 188 — Bananas) at EUR 9 8 00 000;

4. Orders Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. to pay the costs relating to (i) the main appeals in Cases C-293/13 P and C-294/13 P and (ii) its cross-appeal in Case C-294/13 P, with the exception of the costs incurred by Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG, which is to bear its own costs relating to all those proceedings;

5. Orders Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs relating its cross-appeals in Cases C-293/13 P and C-294/13 P.

(1) OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — procedure brought by F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt

(Case C-589/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 56 EC - Interim taxation of capital gains and income from the disposal of holdings by a national foundation - Refusal of right to deduct from the taxable amount gifts to non-resident beneficiaries exempt from tax in the Member State of the foundation under a double taxation convention))

(2015/C 371/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt

Intervener: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC must be interpreted as precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings under which, as regards interim tax which is charged on capital gains and income from the disposal of holdings of a resident private foundation, that foundation has the right to deduct from its taxable amount only gifts made in the course of a given assessment period that have been the subject of a tax levied within that period on the beneficiaries of those gifts in the Member State in which the foundation is taxed, whereas such a deduction is excluded by that national tax legislation where the beneficiaries reside in another Member State and are exempt, on the basis of a double taxation convention, from a tax that is otherwise charged on gifts in the Member State in which the foundation is taxed.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — Bricmate AB v Tullverket

(Case C-569/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 17 and 20(1) - Determination of the injury and of the causal link - Errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment - Obligation to exercise due care - Examination of the evidence sent by a sampled importer - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence))

(2015/C 363/05)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bricmate AB

Defendant: Tullverket

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China.

(1) OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA) SA v European Commission

(Case C-608/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Market sharing and price coordination - Excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Excessive duration of the procedure before the European Commission - Appeal on the costs))

(2016/C 296/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA) SA (represented by: O. Armengol i Gasull and J. M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, and by A.J. Rivas, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA) SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 December 2015 — European Parliament, European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-124/13 and C-125/13) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 - Choice of legal basis - Article 43(2) and (3) TFEU - Policy decision - Long-term plan for cod stocks))

(2016/C 038/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen, L.G. Knudsen and R. Kaškina, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, K. Banks and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Sitbon, A. de Gregorio Merino and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, R. Coesme and C. Candat, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Nowacki and A. Miłkowska, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 of 19 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks;

2. Maintains the effects of Regulation No 1243/2012 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, which may not exceed 12 months starting from 1 January of the year following the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new regulation adopted on the appropriate legal basis, namely Article 43(2) TFEU;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Masco Corp. and Others v European Commission

(Case C-614/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - 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 - Single and continuous infringement - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 104/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GesmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA/NV, Hüppe BV (represented by: D. Schroeder and S. Heinz, Rechtsanwälte, and by B. Fischer, advocate, instructed by J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and by B. Kennelly, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GesmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA/NV and Hüppe BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/5

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

(Case C-618/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - 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 - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover))

(2017/C 104/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA (represented by: M. Condinanzi, P. Ziotti and N. Vasile, avvocati)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/22

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-220/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against certain persons in view of the situation in Egypt - Freezing of the funds of persons subject to judicial proceedings for misappropriation of State funds - United Nations Convention against Corruption))

(2015/C 138/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (represented by: J. Lewis QC, B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, and J. Binns, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Gurov, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Mr Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Ms Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Ms Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin and Ms Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
1)

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining tax legislation concerning the attribution of gains to participators in non-resident companies which provides for a difference in treatment between domestic and cross-border activities, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Property Development Company NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-16/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 11A - Application of goods treated as a supply for consideration - Application of a building for an activity exempt from VAT - Taxable amount for that application - Interim interest paid during the construction of the building))

(2015/C 205/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Property Development Company NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11A(1)(b) of the 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the taxable amount for the calculation of VAT on an application, within the meaning of Article 5(7)(b) thereof, of a building that the taxable person has constructed, is to be the purchase price, at the time the application is made, of buildings whose location, size and other essential characteristics are similar to those of the building in question. In that regard, it is irrelevant whether part of the purchase price is due to interest on borrowed capital.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/6

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — MEGA Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-182/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for registration of the Community word mark MAGNEXT - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 - Likelihood of confusion))

(2015/C 155/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: MEGA Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Sets aside paragraph 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT) (T-604/11 and T-292/12, EU:T:2014:56);

2) Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3) Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v Hauptzollamt Osnabrück

(Case C-5/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Interlocutory procedure for review of constitutionality - Examination of whether a national law complies with both EU law and with the Constitution of the Member State concerned - Discretion enjoyed by a national court to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling - National legislation levying a duty on the use of nuclear fuel - Directives 2003/96/EC and 2008/118/EC - Article 107 TFEU - Articles 93 EA, 191 EA and 192 EA))

(2015/C 236/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Osnabrück

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which has doubts as to whether national legislation is compatible with both EU law and with the Constitution of the Member State concerned neither loses the right nor, as the case may be, is exempt from the obligation to submit questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation or validity of that law, on the ground that an interlocutory procedure for review of the constitutionality of that legislation is pending before the national court responsible for carrying out such review.

2) Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity and Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which levies a duty on the use of nuclear fuel for the commercial production of electricity.

3) Article 107 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which levies a duty on the use of nuclear fuel for the commercial production of electricity.

4) The first paragraph of Article 93 EA, Article 191 EA, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, and the second paragraph of Article 192 EA, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 1 EA and Article 2(d) EA, are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a duty on the use of nuclear fuel for the commercial production of electricity.

(1) OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/17

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Neamț — Romania) — Sindicatul Cadrelor Militare Disponibilizate în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD) v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

(Case C-262/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2, 3(1) and 6 - Prohibition of discrimination based on age - Discrimination on grounds of membership of a socio-professional category or place of work - National legislation prohibiting, subject to certain limits, the combination of a pension with employment income from professional activity in the public sector - Automatic termination of the employment relationship or service relationship))

(2015/C 236/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Neamt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sindicatul Cadrelor Militare Disponibilizate în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD)

Defendant: Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(2) and 3(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation do not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that provides for automatic termination of employment relationships or service relationships of public sector employees benefitting from a pension that is higher than the gross average income who have not opted for continuing that employment relationship or service relationship within a specified time.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken v K, A

(Case C-153/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 7(2) - Family reunification - Integration measures - National legislation requiring the family members of a third country national residing lawfully in that Member State to pass a civic integration exam in order to enter the territory of that Member State - Costs of such an exam - Compatibility))

(2015/C 294/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

Defendant: K, A

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that Member States may require third country nationals to pass a civic integration examination, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in an assessment of basic knowledge both of the language of the Member State concerned and of its society and which entails the payment of various costs, before authorising that national’s entry into and residence in the territory of the Member State for the purposes of family reunification, provided that the conditions of application of such a requirement do not make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the right to family reunification. In circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, in so far as they do not allow regard to be had to special circumstances objectively forming an obstacle to the applicants passing the examination and in so far as they set the fees relating to such an examination at too high a level, those conditions make the exercise of the right to family reunification impossible or excessively difficult.

(1) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands)) — TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV v Bacardi & Company Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd and Bacardi & Company Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd v TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV

(Case C-379/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5 - Products bearing a trade mark released for free circulation and placed under the duty suspension arrangement without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark - Right of that proprietor to oppose that placing - Definition of ‘using in the course of trade’))

(2015/C 302/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV, Bacardi & Company Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd

Defendants: Bacardi & Company Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd, TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark registered in one or more Member States may oppose a third party placing goods bearing that trade mark under the duty suspension arrangement after they have been introduced into the EEA and released for free circulation without the consent of that proprietor.

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.