ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/20

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Florea Gusa v Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-442/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Person no longer working in a self-employed capacity - Retention of the status of self-employed person - Right of residence - Legislation of a Member State restricting eligibility for a jobseeker’s allowance to persons who have a right of residence on the territory of that Member State))

(2018/C 072/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Florea Gusa

Respondents: Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(3)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a Member State retains the status of self-employed person for the purposes of Article 7(1)(a) of that directive where, after having lawfully resided in and worked as a self-employed person in another Member State for approximately four years, that national has ceased that activity, because of a duly recorded absence of work owing to reasons beyond his control, and has registered as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office of the latter Member State.

(1) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
2.

Article 3(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to decide whether a minor who is the subject of a European arrest warrant is to be surrendered, the judicial authority of the executing Member State must simply verify whether the person concerned has reached the minimum age required to be regarded as criminally responsible in the executing Member State for the acts on which such a warrant is based, without having to consider any additional conditions, relating to an assessment based on the circumstances of the individual, to which the prosecution and conviction of a minor for such acts are specifically subject under the law of that Member State.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/18

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Milano, Bundesgerichtshof — Italy, Germany) — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl, in insolvency, Audi AG (C-397/16), Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato v Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (C-435/16)

(Joined Cases C-397/16 and C-435/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community designs - Article 110(1) - No protection - ‘Repair’ clause - Concept of ‘component part of a complex product’ - Repair of the complex product so as to restore its original appearance - Measures to be adopted by the user for the purposes of relying on the ‘repair’ clause - Replica car wheel rim identical to the original wheel rim design))

(2018/C 072/23)

Languages of the case: German and Italian

Referring courts

Corte d'appello di Milano, Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Acacia Srl (C-397/16), Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato (C-435/16)

Defendants: Pneusgarda Srl, in insolvency, Audi AG (C-397/16), Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (C-435/16)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 110(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘repair’ clause in it does not make the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the protected design is dependent upon the appearance of the complex product.

2. Article 110(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘repair’ clause in it makes the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the replacement part must have an identical visual appearance to that of the part which was originally incorporated into the complex product when it was placed on the market.

3. Article 110(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to rely on the ‘repair’ clause contained in that provision, the manufacturer or seller of a component part of a complex product are under a duty of diligence as regards compliance by downstream users with the conditions laid down in that provision.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
1.

The Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under, respectively, Article 13(1), in conjunction with Annex XI, the second subparagraph of Article 23(1), and Article 22(3) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, for the following reasons: — since 2007 and up to 2015 inclusive, the daily limit values for particulate matter PM10 concentrations were exceeded in 35 zones for the assessment and management of ambient air quality and the annual limit values for particulate matter PM10 concentrations were exceeded in 9 zones for the assessment and management of ambient air quality; — no appropriate measures have been incorporated in ambient air quality programmes to ensure that the exceedance period of particulate matter PM10 concentrations limit values is kept as short as possible; — the daily limit values for particulate matter PM10 concentrations in ambient air, increased by the margin of tolerance, were exceeded from 1 January 2010 to 10 June 2011 in the Radom, Pruszków-Żyrardów, Kędzierzyn-Koźle zones, as well as from 1 January 2011 to 10 June 2011 in the Ostrów-Kępno zone; and — the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 was not correctly implemented.
1.

Declares that, by excluding from the special value-added-tax scheme applicable to travel agents travel services provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business, and by authorising travel agents, in so far as they are subject to that scheme, to determine the taxable amount for value added tax on an overall basis for groups of services or for all services provided during a tax year, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 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 161/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 — SNCF Mobilités, formerly Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) v European Commission, French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation

(Case C-127/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of Sernam - Restructuring and recapitalisation aid, guarantees and waiving of Sernam's financial debts by SNCF - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Sale of assets en bloc - Concept of ‘sale’ - Confusion between object and price of the sale of assets en bloc - Open and transparent procedure - Private investor test - Application of that principle to an assignment of assets en bloc - Compensatory measures))

(2018/C 161/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: SNCF Mobilités, formerly Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) (represented by: P. Beurier, O. Billard, G. Fabre and V. Landes, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders SNCF Mobilités to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Mory SA and Mory Team.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — European Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd

(Case C-301/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Commercial policy - Dumping - Imports of solar glass originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) - Market Economy Treatment (MET) - Concept of ‘significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system’, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) - Tax incentives))

(2018/C 142/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, avocats)

Intervener in support of the appellant: GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH, (represented by: A. Bochon, avocat, and R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 March 2016, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (T 586/14, EU:T:2016:154);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v European Commission

(Case C-244/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of active substance metalaxyl in that list - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures - Individually concerned person))

(2018/C 166/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, C. Vila Gisbert and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogadas)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
1.

Declares that, by having awarded, without an EU-wide call for tenders, service contracts for the production of chip passports, emergency passports, residence permits, identity cards, credit card-sized driving licences and credit card-sized vehicle registration certificates directly to Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH and by maintaining national provisions which require contracting authorities to award those service contracts directly to that company, without an EU-wide call for tenders, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) and Article 8 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, read in conjunction with Articles 11 to 37 of that directive, and Article 14 and Article 20 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in conjunction with Articles 23 to 55 of that directive;
2.

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that:- — a practice of a Member State that consists in not examining such an application solely on the ground stated above, without any examination of whether there exists a relationship of dependency between that Union citizen and that third-country national of such a nature that, in the event of a refusal to grant a derived right of residence to the third-country national, the Union citizen would, in practice, be compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole and thereby be deprived of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by that status, is precluded; — where the Union citizen is an adult, a relationship of dependency, capable of justifying the grant, to the third-country national concerned, of a derived right of residence under Article 20 TFEU, is conceivable only in exceptional cases, where, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, any form of separation of the individual concerned from the member of his family on whom he is dependent is not possible; — where the Union citizen is a minor, the assessment of the existence of such a relationship of dependency must be based on consideration, in the best interests of the child, of all the specific circumstances, including the age of the child, the child’s physical and emotional development, the extent of his emotional ties to each of his parents, and the risks which separation from the third-country national parent might entail for that child’s equilibrium; the existence of a family link with that third-country national, whether natural or legal, is not sufficient, and cohabitation with that third-country national is not necessary in order to establish such a relationship of dependency; — it is immaterial that the relationship of dependency relied on by a third-country national in support of his application for residence for the purposes of family reunification comes into being after the imposition on him of an entry ban; — it is immaterial that the entry ban imposed on the third-country national has become final at the time when he submits his application for residence for the purposes of family reunification; and — it is immaterial that an entry ban, imposed on a third-country national who has submitted an application for residence for the purposes of family reunification, may be justified by non-compliance with an obligation to return; where such a ban is justified on public policy grounds, such grounds may permit a refusal to grant that third-country national a derived right of residence under Article 20 TFEU only if it is apparent from a specific assessment of all the circumstances of the individual case, in the light of the principle of proportionality, the best interests of any child or children concerned and fundamental rights, that the person concerned represents a genuine, present, and sufficiently serious threat to public policy.
Case C-580/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Firma Hans Bühler KG v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Place of intra-Community acquisition — Article 42 — Intra-Community acquisition of goods that are the object of a subsequent supply — Article 141 — Exemption — Triangular transaction — Simplification measures — Article 265 — Correction of recapitulative statement)

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Firma Hans Bühler KG v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

(Case C-580/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Place of intra-Community acquisition — Article 42 — Intra-Community acquisition of goods that are the object of a subsequent supply — Article 141 — Exemption — Triangular transaction — Simplification measures — Article 265 — Correction of recapitulative statement)’

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Firma Hans Bühler KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 141(c) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement laid down in that provision is met where the taxable person is resident and identified for value added tax (VAT) purposes in the Member State from which the goods are dispatched or transported, but that that taxable person uses the VAT identification number of another Member State for that specific intra-Community acquisition.

2. Articles 42 and 265 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, read in conjunction with Article 263 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, must be interpreted as precluding the tax authorities of a Member State from applying the first paragraph of Article 41 of Directive 2006/112 solely on the ground that, in the context of an intra-Community acquisition, made for the purposes of a subsequent supply in the territory of a Member State, the recapitulative statement, referred to in Article 265 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, was not submitted in good time by the taxable person identified for value added tax (VAT) purposes in that Member State.

( 1 ) OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Case C-671/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL and Others v Brussels Capital Region (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of ‘plans and programmes’ — Article 3 — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Regional town planning regulations relating to the European Quarter, Brussels (Belgium))

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL and Others v Brussels Capital Region

(Case C-671/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of ‘plans and programmes’ — Article 3 — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Regional town planning regulations relating to the European Quarter, Brussels (Belgium))’

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Groupe d’animation du quartier européen de la ville de Bruxelles ASBL, Association du quartier Léopold ASBL, Brusselse Raad voor het Leefmilieu ASBL, Pierre Picard, David Weytsman

Defendant: Brussels Capital Region

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 2(a), Article 3(1), and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, regional town planning regulations, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, laying down certain requirements for the completion of building projects, fall under the definition of ‘plans and programmes’ which are likely to have significant environmental effects within the meaning of that directive and must, consequently, be subjected to an environmental impact assessment.

( 1 ) OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Joined Cases C-660/16 and C-661/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dachau v Achim Kollroß (C-660/16) and Finanzamt Göppingen v Erich Wirtl (C-661/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Supply of goods — Article 65 — Article 167 — Payment on account for the purchase of an item not followed by delivery of that item — Supplier’s legal representatives convicted of fraud — Insolvency of the supplier — Deduction of input tax — Conditions — Articles 185 and 186 — Adjustment by the national tax authorities — Conditions)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dachau v Achim Kollroß (C-660/16) and Finanzamt Göppingen v Erich Wirtl (C-661/16)

(Joined Cases C-660/16 and C-661/16) ( 1 )

‛(References for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Supply of goods — Article 65 — Article 167 — Payment on account for the purchase of an item not followed by delivery of that item — Supplier’s legal representatives convicted of fraud — Insolvency of the supplier — Deduction of input tax — Conditions — Articles 185 and 186 — Adjustment by the national tax authorities — Conditions)’

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Finanzamt Dachau (C-660/16), Finanzamt Göppingen (C-661/16)

Respondents: Achim Kollroß (C-660/16), Erich Wirtl (C-661/16)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 65 and 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, a potential buyer may not be refused the right to deduct the value added tax relating to a payment on account in respect of the goods in question where that payment has been made and received and where, at the time that payment was made, all the relevant information concerning the future supply could be regarded as known to that buyer and the supply of those goods appeared to be certain. However, that buyer may be refused that right if it is established, having regard to objective elements, that, at the time the payment on account was made, he knew or should reasonably have known that that supply was uncertain.

2. Articles 185 and 186 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, a national law or practice which has the effect of making adjusting the value added tax relating to a payment on account for the supply of an item conditional upon that payment being refunded by the supplier.

( 1 ) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.