ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — P, S v Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda, College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen

(Case C-579/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 5(2) and Article 11(1) - National legislation imposing on third-country nationals with long-term resident status a civic integration obligation, attested by an examination, under pain of a fine))

(2015/C 236/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: P, S

Defendants: Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda, College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents and, in particular, Article 5(2) and Article 11(1) thereof do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on third-country nationals who already possess long-term resident status the obligation to pass a civic integration examination, under pain of a fine, provided that the means of implementing that obligation are not liable to jeopardise the achievement of the objectives pursued by that directive, which it is for the referring court to determine. Whether the long-term resident status was acquired before or after the obligation to pass a civic integration examination was imposed is irrelevant in that respect.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2015 — T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda v European Commission, French Republic, Council of the European Union

(Case C-456/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Action for annulment - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Right to bring an action - Locus standi - Natural or legal persons - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Act of individual concern to the appellants - Right to effective judicial protection - Exceptional measures relating to the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the European Union market - Marketing year 2010/2011))

(2015/C 213/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, avocat, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and P. Rossi, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders T & L Sugars Ltd and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree

(Case C-422/13) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 34(2)(a) - Concept of ‘area eligible for aid’ - Concept of ‘agricultural area’ - Area forming restored cover layer of a landfill site in after-care - Use for agricultural activities - Lawfulness))

(2015/C 294/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

Defendant: Uta Wree

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that an area which forms the cover layer of a landfill site in after-care constitutes an agricultural area within the meaning of that provision when it is actually used for permanent pasture.

(1) OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
2.

Support for a terrorist organisation included on the list annexed to Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, in the version in force at the material date, may constitute one of the ‘compelling reasons of national security or public order’ within the meaning of Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/83, even if the conditions set out in Article 21(2) of that directive are not met. In order to be able to revoke, on the basis of Article 24(1) of that directive, a residence permit granted to a refugee on the ground that that refugee supports such a terrorist organisation, the competent authorities are nevertheless obliged to carry out, under the supervision of the national courts, an individual assessment of the specific facts concerning the actions of both the organisation and the refugee in question. Where a Member State decides to expel a refugee whose residence permit has been revoked, but suspends the implementation of that decision, it is incompatible with that directive to deny access to the benefits guaranteed by Chapter VII of the same directive, unless an exception expressly laid down in the directive applies.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kyprou — Cyprus) — Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd v Dau Si Senh and Others

(Case C-519/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil or commercial matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Article 8 - Refusal to accept the document - Failure to provide a translation of one of the documents served - Failure to use the standard form set out in Annex II to that regulation - Consequences))

(2015/C 371/04)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Anotato Dikastirio Kyprou

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd

Defendants: Dau Si Senh, Alpha Panareti Public Ltd, Susan Towson, Stewart Cresswell, Gillian Cresswell, Julie Gaskell, Peter Gaskell, Richard Wernham, Tracy Wernham, Joanne Zorani, Richard Simpson

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that:

— the receiving agency is required, in all circumstances and without it having a margin of discretion in that regard, to inform the addressee of a document of his right to refuse to accept that document, by using systematically for that purpose the standard form set out in Annex II to that regulation, and

— the fact that that agency, when serving a document on its addressee, fails to enclose the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, does not constitute a ground for the procedure to be declared invalid, but an omission which must be rectified in accordance with the provisions set out in that regulation.

(1) OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Commission

(Case C-615/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(1)(b) - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Article 8 - Exception to right of access - Protection of personal data - Concept of ‘Personal data’ - Conditions for transfer of personal data - Names of authors of each comment on European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) draft guidance relating to scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market - Refusal of access))

(2015/C 311/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and C. Pintado, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by B. Martenczuk and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by A. Buchta and M. Pérez Asinari, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA (T-214/11, EU:T:2013:483);

2) Annuls the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 12 December 2011;

3) Orders the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) in the appeal and in the proceedings at first instance;

4) Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the appeal and the proceedings at first instance;

5) Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
4.

Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system that combines, in order to finance the fair compensation payable to rightholders, two forms of remuneration, namely, first, lump-sum remuneration paid prior to the reproduction operation by the manufacturer, importer or intra-Community acquirer of devices enabling protected works to be copied, at the time when such devices are put into circulation on national territory, and, second, proportional remuneration paid after that reproduction operation and determined solely by means of a unit price multiplied by the number of copies produced, which is payable by the natural or legal persons who make those copies, in so far as: — the lump-sum remuneration paid in advance is calculated solely by reference to the speed at which the device concerned is capable of producing copies; — the proportional remuneration recovered after the fact varies according to whether or not the person liable for payment has cooperated in the recovery of that remuneration; — the combined system, taken as a whole, does not include mechanisms, in particular for reimbursement, which allow the complementary application of the criterion of actual harm suffered and the criterion of harm established as a lump sum in respect of different categories of users.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Duravit AG, Duravit SA, Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-609/13 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 31 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 104/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Duravit AG, Duravit SA, Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA (represented by: U. Soltész and C. von Köckritz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt), Council of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Duravit AG, Duravit SA and Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2016 — European Commission v Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe)

(Case C-673/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Environment - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) - Risk of an adverse effect on the commercial interests of a natural or legal person - Concept of ‘information relating to emissions into the environment’ - Documents relating to the authorisation procedure for an active substance contained in plant protection products - Active substance glyphosate))

(2017/C 030/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Ondrůšek, P. Oliver, and by L. Pignataro-Nolin, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: American Chemistry Council Inc. (ACC), CropLife America Inc., National Association of Manufacturers of the United States of America (NAM) (respresented by: M. Abenhaïm, avocat, K. Nordlander, advokat, and P. Harrison, Solicitor), CropLife International AISBL (CLI) (represented by: D. Abrahams, Barrister, R. Cana and E. Mullier, avocats, and A. Patsa, dikigoros), European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) (represented by: I. Antypas and D. Waelbroeck, avocats, and D. Slater, Solicitor), European Crop Care Association (ECCA) (represented by S. Pappas, dikigoros), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents,

The other parties to the proceedings being: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (represented by: B. Kloostra and A. van den Biesen, advocaten)

Intervener in support of the respondent: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, U. Persson, C. Meyer-Seitz and N. Otte Widgren, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 October 2013, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission (T-545/11, EU:T:2013:523);

2. Refers Case T-545/11 back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne v État belge

(Case C-55/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 77/388/EEC - VAT - Exemptions - Article 13B(b) - Concept of ‘exempted letting of immovable property’ - Provision, for consideration, of a football stadium - Contract for provision reserving certain rights and prerogatives to the owner - Supply, by the owner, of various services representing 80 % of the charge specified in the contract))

(2015/C 107/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(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: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that the act of making available, for consideration, a football stadium under a contract reserving certain rights and prerogatives to the stadium owner and providing for the supply, by the owner, of various services, including services of maintenance, cleaning, repair and upgrading, representing 80 % of the charge which is agreed in the contact to be payable, does not constitute, as a general rule, a ‘letting of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision. The finding of the facts is for the referring court.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/25

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain)) — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

(Case C-169/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Consumer contracts - Mortgage loan agreement - Unfair terms - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Right to an appeal))

2014/C 315/38

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Castellón

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a system of enforcement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that mortgage enforcement proceedings may not be stayed by the court of first instance, which, in its final decision, may at most award compensation in respect of the damage suffered by the consumer, inasmuch as the latter, the debtor against whom mortgage enforcement proceedings are brought, may not appeal against a decision dismissing his objection to that enforcement, whereas the seller or supplier, the creditor seeking enforcement, may bring an appeal against a decision terminating the proceedings or ordering an unfair term to be disapplied.

(1) OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics UK Ltd v European Medicines Agency (EMA)

(Case C-173/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Public service contracts - Invitation to tender - Award criteria - Transparency - Objective assessment - Claim for damages))

(2015/C 198/17)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics UK Ltd (represented by: V. Christianos, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, S. Marino, G. Gavriilidou and C. Maignen, agents, H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics UK Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/21

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Ralph Prankl

(Case C-175/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 92/12/EEC - General arrangements for products subject to excise duty - Imposition of duty on smuggled goods - Goods released for consumption in one Member State and transported to another Member State - Determination of the competent Member State - Right of the transit State to impose duty on those goods))

(2015/C 138/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Party to the main proceedings

Ralph Prankl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 9(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that, where goods subject to excise duty that have been smuggled into the territory of a Member State are transported, without the accompanying document prescribed in Article 7(4) of that directive, to another Member State, in the territory of which those goods are discovered by the competent authorities, the transit Member States are not permitted also to levy excise duty on the driver of the heavy goods vehicle who transported them for having held those goods for commercial purposes in their territory.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
1)

Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to supplies of services of installing ‘energy-saving materials’ and to supplies of such materials by a person who installs those materials in residential accommodation: — to the extent that those supplies cannot be considered as ‘the provision, construction, renovation and alteration of housing, as part of a social policy’ for the purposes of Category 10 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009; — to the extent that those supplies fall outside the purview of ‘renovation and repairing of private dwellings’ for the purposes of Category 10a of Annex III to that directive, and — to the extent that even where those supplies fall within the purview of renovation and repairing of private dwellings for the purposes of Category (10a) of Annex III to that directive, those supplies include materials which account for a significant part of the value of the services supplied, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 98 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/47, read together with Annex III to that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Nordzucker AG

(Case C-148/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme in the European Union - Determination of the extent of the obligation to surrender allowances - Penalties - Article 16(1) and (3)))

(2015/C 213/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant: Nordzucker AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to an operator who surrenders a number of greenhouse gas emission allowances equal to the emissions for the preceding year as reported and verified in accordance with Article 15 of that directive, where it is established, following an additional verification carried out by the competent national authority after the expiry of the time-limit for surrender, that those emissions were understated, so that the number of allowances surrendered is insufficient;

It is for the Member States to determine the penalties which may be imposed in such a situation, in accordance with Article 16(1) of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Directive 2004/101.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.