ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Asklepios Kliniken Langen-Seligenstadt GmbH v Ivan Felja (C 680/15), Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH v Vittoria Graf (C 681/15)

(Joined Cases C-680/15 and C-681/15) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Transfer of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 3 - Contract of employment - Legislation of a Member State authorising the incorporation of clauses referring to collective labour agreements after the date of the transfer - Effects with regard to the transferee))

(2017/C 202/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Asklepios Kliniken Langen-Seligenstadt GmbH (C-680/15), Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH (C-681/15)

Defendants: Ivan Felja (C 680/15), Vittoria Graf (C-681/15)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a transfer of a business, the continued observance of the rights and obligations of the transferor arising from a contract of employment, extends to the clause which the transferor and the worker agreed pursuant to the principle of freedom of contract, pursuant to which their employment relationship is governed not only by the collective agreement in force on the date of the transfer, but also by agreements subsequent to the transfer and which supplement it, amend it or replace it, if the national law provides for the possibility for the transferee to make adjustments both consensually and unilaterally.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
1.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a decision allowing a tenderer to participate in a procurement procedure — a decision allegedly adopted in breach of EU public procurement law or the national legislation transposing it — is not classed among the preparatory acts of a contracting authority which may be subject to an independent judicial review;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge — Belgium) — Maria Eugenia Van der Weegen, Miguel Juan Van der Weegen, Anna Pot, acting as successors in title to Johannes Van der Weegen, deceased, Anna Pot v Belgische Staat

(Case C-580/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Tax legislation - Income tax - Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by banks complying with certain statutory conditions - Indirect discrimination - Banks established in Belgium and banks established in another Member State))

(2017/C 249/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Maria Eugenia Van der Weegen, Miguel Juan Van der Weegen, Anna Pot, acting as successors in title to Johannes Van der Weegen, deceased, Anna Pot

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a national tax exemption system, to the extent that that system, although applicable without distinction to income from savings deposits held with banking service providers established in Belgium or in another Member State of the European Economic Area, imposes conditions for access to the Belgian banking market on service providers established in other Member States, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 — Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Pi-Design AG, Bodum France SAS, Bodum Logistics A/S

(Case C-421/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Registration of signs consisting of a surface with black dots - Declaration of invalidity - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) - Article 51(3)))

(2017/C 239/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd (represented by: J. Cohen, Solicitor, T. St Quintin, Barrister, and G. Hobbs QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, D. Gaja and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents), Pi-Design AG (Triengen, Switzerland), Bodum France SAS (Neuilly sur Seine, France), Bodum Logistics A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: H. Pernez, avocate, and R. Löhr, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.
2)

Annuls the Commission’s decision of 17 January 2013 refusing full access to the list communicated by the Federal Republic of Germany to the Commission, under the procedure provided for in Article 15(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to the extent that that document contains information relating to certain installations of Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH, situated on German territory, relating to provisional allocations and activities and capacity levels in relation to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions between 2005 and 2010, the efficiency of the installations and the annual emission quotas provisionally allocated for the period between 2013 and 2020;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping — Sweden) — E.ON Biofor Sverige AB v Statens energimyndighet

(Case C-549/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Promotion of energy from renewable sources - Biofuels for transport - Directive 2009/28/EC - Article 18(1) - ‘Mass balance’ system to ensure that biogas meets the prescribed sustainability criteria - Validity - Articles 34 and 114 TFEU - National rules requiring the mass balance to be achieved within a location with a clear boundary - Practice of the competent national authority to accept that that condition may be satisfied where sustainable biogas is transported using the national gas network - Order of that authority stating that that condition cannot be satisfied where sustainable biogas is imported from other Member States via interconnected national gas networks - Free movement of goods))

(2017/C 277/06)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.ON Biofor Sverige AB

Defendant: Statens energimyndighet

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC must be interpreted as meaning that it is not intended to place an obligation on the Member States to authorise imports, via their interconnected national gas networks, of biogas satisfying the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17 of that directive and intended for use as biofuel;

2. Examination of the second question has not disclosed any factor such as to affect the validity of Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28;

3. Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding an order, such as the order at issue in the main proceedings, by which a national authority seeks to exclude the possibility that an economic operator may implement a mass balance system, within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28, in respect of sustainable biogas transported in interconnected national gas networks, by virtue of a provision adopted by that authority under which such a mass balance must be achieved ‘within a location with a clear boundary’, when that authority accepts, on the basis of that provision, that a mass balance system may be implemented in respect of sustainable biogas transported within the national gas network of the Member State of that authority.

(1) OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — ENEA S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

(Case C-329/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ - Obligation on a limited liability company in the energy sector, wholly owned by the State, to purchase energy produced by cogeneration with the production of heat))

(2017/C 382/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ENEA S.A.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, placing an obligation on both private and public undertakings to purchase electricity produced by cogeneration with the production of heat does not constitute intervention by the State or through State resources.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017 — Slovak Republic (C-643/15) and Hungary (C-647/15) v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Decision (EU) 2015/1601 - Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of the Hellenic Republic and the Italian Republic - Emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries into certain Member States - Relocation of those nationals to other Member States - Relocation quotas - Article 78(3) TFEU - Legal basis - Conditions under which applicable - Concept of ‘legislative act’ - Article 289(3) TFEU - Whether conclusions adopted by the European Council are binding on the Council of the European Union - Article 15(1) TEU and Article 68 TFEU - Essential procedural requirements - Amendment of the European Commission’s proposal - Requirements for a further consultation of the European Parliament and a unanimous vote within the Council of the European Union - Article 293 TFEU - Principles of legal certainty and of proportionality))

(2017/C 374/05)

Language of the case: Slovak and Hungarian

Parties

Applicants: Slovak Republic (represented by: the Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky) (C-643/15) and Hungary (C-647/15) (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Kamejsza, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Chavrier, K. Pleśniak, N. Pethő and Z. Kupčová, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by J. Van Holm, M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T Henze, R. Kanitz and J. Möller (C-647/15), acting as Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Michelogiannaki and A. Samoni-Rantou, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, F.-X. Bréchot and E. Armoet, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by L. D’Ascia, avvocato dello Stato), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: A. Germeaux, C. Schiltz and D. Holderer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, O. Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and K. Talabér-Ritz (C-647/15), J. Baquero Cruz and A. Tokár (C-643/15) and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders the Slovak Republic and Hungary to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2017 — Slovak Republic v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-593/15 P and C-594/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Own resources of the European Union - Decision 2007/436/EC - Financial liability of the Member States - Loss of certain import duties - Obligation to pay the European Commission the amount corresponding to the loss - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Letter from the European Commission - Concept of ‘actionable measure’))

(2017/C 437/04)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Appellant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, A. Tokár, G.-D. Balan and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Stranz, acting as Agents), Romania (represented by: R.-H. Radu, M. Chicu and A. Wellman, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos teismas — Lithuania) — ‘LitSpecMet’ UAB v ‘Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas’ UAB

(Case C-567/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(9) - Concept of contracting authority - Company wholly owned by a contracting authority - Transactions internal to the group))

(2017/C 402/02)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘LitSpecMet’ UAB

Defendant:‘Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas’ UAB

Intervening party:‘Plienmetas’ UAB

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 1(9) 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 of 30 November 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that a company which, on the one hand, is wholly owned by a contracting authority whose activity consists of meeting needs in the general interest and which, on the other, carries out both transactions for that contracting authority and transactions on the competitive market must be classified as a ‘body governed by public law’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that the activities of that company are necessary for the contracting authority to exercise its own activity and, in order to meet needs in the general interest, that company is able to be guided by non-economic considerations, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. The fact that the value of the internal transactions may in future represent less than 90 % or an insignificant part of the overall turnover of the company is irrelevant in that regard.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
1.

Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes, on the one hand, and Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, on the other, must be interpreted as meaning that claims relating to funds which were debited from accounts that individuals held with a credit institution and credited to accounts opened in that institution’s name, in respect of subscription to future transferable securities of which that institution was to be the issuer, in circumstances where owing to that institution’s insolvency those securities were ultimately not issued, fall within both the investor-compensation schemes provided for by Directive 97/9 and the deposit-guarantee schemes provided for by Directive 94/19.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/8

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — José María Pérez Retamero v TNT Express Worldwide Spain S.L., Last Mile Courier S.L., formerly Transportes Sapirod S.L., Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

(Case C-97/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2002/15/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Road transport - Mobile worker - Self-employed driver - Concept - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 121/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: José María Pérez Retamero

Defendants: TNT Express Worldwide Spain S.L., Last Mile Courier S.L., formerly Transportes Sapirod S.L., Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Labour Court, Barcelona, Spain) is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/16

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Krzystof Marek Poltorak

(Case C-452/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘judicial decision’ - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by the Rikspolisstyrelsen (National Police Board, Sweden) with a view to executing a custodial sentence))

(2017/C 014/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Krzystof Marek Poltorak

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is an autonomous concept of EU law and that provision must be interpreted as meaning that a police service, such as the Rikspolisstyrelsen (National Police Board, Sweden), is not covered by the term ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of the same Article 6(1), meaning that the European arrest warrant issued by that police service with a view to executing a judgment imposing a custodial sentence cannot be regarded as a ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299.

(1) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
1)

Declares that, by tolerating the operation of the waste disposal site in Temploni (Greece), which does not satisfy the conditions and requirements laid down in the environmental legislation of the European Union, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, and Article 8(a), Article 11(1) and Annex I to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/13

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino — Italy) — Bimotor SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale II di Torino

(Case C-211/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Principle of fiscal neutrality - National legislation laying down a fixed maximum ceiling limiting the amount of refund or compensation of credit or excess value added tax))

(2017/C 151/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bimotor SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale II di Torino

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 183 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 not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits to a set maximum amount the compensation of certain tax debts by value added tax credits, for each taxation period, to the extent that national law provides in any event the possibility for the taxable person to recover the full value added tax credit within a reasonable period.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
1.

The principle of equal treatment of economic operators set out in Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors must be interpreted as precluding, in a public procurement procedure, the contracting authority from inviting a tenderer to submit declarations or documents whose communication was required by the tender specification and which have not been submitted within the time limit given for the submission of tenders. On the other hand, that article does not preclude the contracting authority from inviting a tenderer to clarify a tender or to correct an obvious clerical error in that tender, on condition, however, that such an invitation is sent to all tenderers in the same situation, that all tenderers are treated equally and fairly, and that that clarification or correction may not be equated with the submission of a new tender, which is for the referring court to determine.