ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — RG (*1) v SF (*1)

(Case C-498/14 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Child abduction - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 11(7) and (8))

(2015/C 073/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RG (*1)

Defendant: SF (*1)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(7) and (8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as not precluding, as a general rule, a Member State from allocating to a specialised court the jurisdiction to examine questions of return or custody with respect to a child in the context of the procedure set out in those provisions, even where proceedings on the substance of parental responsibility with respect to the child have already, separately, been brought before a court or tribunal.

(*1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1) OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Klein v Commission (T-309/10, EU:T:2014:19) in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court dismissed the action in that it sought that the European Commission be ordered to pay compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by Mr Christoph Klein from 15 September 2006;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/15

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania)) — SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia

(Case C-278/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Supply - Technical specifications - Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination - Obligation of transparency - Reference to a product of a particular brand - Assessment of the equivalence of the product offered by a tenderer - Reference product no longer in production))

(2015/C 198/19)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL

Defendant: Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(8) 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, is not applicable to a public contract with a value below the threshold for application laid down by that directive. In the context of a public contract not subject to that directive but which has certain cross-border interest, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, the fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty, in particular the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination and the consequent obligation of transparency, must be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority cannot reject a tender which satisfies the requirements of the contract notice on grounds which are not set out in that notice.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case C-272/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Heading 7318 and 8302 — Article specially designed to mount child safety gates

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S

(Case C-272/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Heading 7318 and 8302 — Article specially designed to mount child safety gates’

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: Baby Dan A/S

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended, successively, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that an article, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a moveable child safety gate to be mounted to a wall or a door frame, must be classified under heading 7318 of the Combined Nomenclature.

( 1 ) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/19

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-322/14) (1)

((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Agreement conferring jurisdiction - Formal requirements - Communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement - Definition - General terms and conditions of sale which can be consulted and printed from a link which enables them to be displayed in a new window - Click-wrapping))

(2015/C 236/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jaouad El Majdoub

Defendant: CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the method of accepting the general terms and conditions of a contract for sale by ‘click-wrapping’, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concluded by electronic means, which contains an agreement conferring jurisdiction, constitutes a communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement, within the meaning of that provision, where that method makes it possible to print and save the text of those terms and conditions before the conclusion of the contract.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado

(Case C-177/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 3 and 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - ‘Non-permanent staff’ - Refusal to grant a three-yearly length-of-service increment - Objective grounds))

(2015/C 294/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María José Regojo Dans

Defendant: Consejo de Estado

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of a ‘fixed-term worker’, within the meaning of clause 3(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as applying to a worker such as the applicant in the main proceedings.

2. Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes, without justification on objective grounds, non-permanent staff from the right to receive a three-yearly length-of-service increment granted, inter alia, to career civil servants when, as regards the receipt of that increment, those two categories of workers are in comparable situations, a matter which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
1.

Declares that by failing to notify the European Commission of the required information concerning the certification bodies for personnel and companies and of the titles of certificates for personnel and companies involved in activities relating to specific fluorinated greenhouse gases, or of the national measures on penalties for breaches of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(2) and 13(2) of that regulation, Article 12(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 303/2008 of 2 April 2008 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, minimum requirements and the conditions for mutual recognition for the certification of companies and personnel as regards stationary refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pump equipment containing certain fluorinated greenhouse gases, Article 12(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 304/2008 of 2 April 2008 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, minimum requirements and the conditions for mutual recognition for the certification of companies and personnel as regards stationary fire protection systems and fire extinguishers containing certain fluorinated greenhouse gases, Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 305/2008 of 2 April 2008 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, minimum requirements and the conditions for mutual recognition for the certification of personnel recovering certain fluorinated greenhouse gases from high-voltage switchgear, Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2008 of 2 April 2008 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, minimum requirements and the conditions for mutual recognition for the certification of personnel recovering certain fluorinated greenhouse gas-based solvents from equipment, Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 307/2008 of 2 April 2008 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, minimum requirements for training programmes and the conditions for mutual recognition of training attestations for personnel as regards air-conditioning systems in certain motor vehicles containing certain fluorinated greenhouse gases and Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 308/2008 of 2 April 2008 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, the format for notification of the training and certification programmes of the Member States.
1.

declares that, by exempting from droits de mutation à titre gratuit (duty payable on transfers for which no consideration is given) gifts and legacies to public bodies or to charitable bodies only where such bodies are established in France or in another Member State or in another State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, which has concluded a bilateral agreement with it, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — ING Pensii, Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA v Consiliul Concurenței

(Case C-172/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Arrangement for sharing clients on a private pension fund market - Whether there is a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFUE - Effect on trade between Member States))

(2015/C 302/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ING Pensii, Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA

Defendant: Consiliul Concurenței

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that agreements to share clients, such as those concluded between the private pensions funds in the main proceedings, constitute agreements with an anti-competitive object, the number of clients affected by such an agreement being irrelevant for the purpose of assessing the requirement relating to the restriction of competition within the internal market.

(1) OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/16

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security SL, Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios SA

(Case C-266/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Point (1) of Article 2 - Concept of ‘working time’ - Workers who are not assigned a fixed or habitual place of work - Time spent travelling between the workers’ homes and the premises of the first and last customers))

(2015/C 363/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras (CC.OO.)

Defendants: Tyco Integrated Security SL, Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios SA

Operative part of the judgment

Point (1) of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which workers do not have a fixed or habitual place of work, the time spent by those workers travelling each day between their homes and the premises of the first and last customers designated by their employer constitutes ‘working time’, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Istituto Nazionale Confederale Assistenza (INCA) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-309/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - National legislation - Issue and renewal of a residence permit - Condition - Obligatory financial contribution - Amount eight times higher than that for obtaining a national identity card - Infringement of the principles of Directive 2003/109/EC))

(2015/C 354/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Istituto Nazionale Confederale Assistenza (INCA)

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

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, as amended by Directive 2011/51/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011, precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires third-country nationals, when applying for the issue or renewal of a residence permit in the Member State concerned, to pay a fee which varies in amount between EUR 80 and EUR 200, inasmuch as such a fee is disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued by that directive and is liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by that directive.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Smaranda Bara and Others v Președintele Casei Naționale de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF)

(Case C-201/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 95/46/EC - Processing of personal data - Articles 10 and 11 - Data subjects’ information - Article 13 - Exceptions and limitations - Transfer by a public administrative body of a Member State of personal tax data for processing by another public administrative body))

(2015/C 381/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Smaranda Bara and Others

Defendants: Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Președintele Casei Naționale de Asigurări de Sănătate, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 10, 11 and 13 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995, on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, must be interpreted as precluding national measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allow a public administrative body of a Member State to transfer personal data to another public administrative body and their subsequent processing, without the data subjects having been informed of that transfer or processing.

(1) OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
1.

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘transfer of a business’ encompasses a situation in which an undertaking active on the charter flights market is wound up by its majority shareholder, which is itself an air transport undertaking, and the latter undertaking then takes the place of the undertaking that has been wound up by taking over aircraft leasing contracts and ongoing charter flight contracts, carries on activities previously carried on by the undertaking that has been wound up, reinstates some employees that have hitherto been seconded to that undertaking, assigning them tasks identical to those previously performed, and takes over small items of equipment from the undertaking that has been wound up.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

(Case C-73/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea - Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing - Advisory opinion proceedings - Submission by the European Commission of a written statement on behalf of the European Union - No prior approval of the content of that statement by the Council of the European Union - Article 13(2) TEU, Article 16 TEU and Article 17(1) TEU - Article 218(9) TFEU and Article 335 TFEU - Representation of the European Union - Principles of conferral of powers and institutional balance - Principle of sincere cooperation))

(2015/C 398/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, E. Finnegan and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, A. Bouquet, E. Paasivirta and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer, J. Vláčil and M. Hedvábná, acting as Agents); Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Karipsiadis and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize, and N. Rouam, acting as Agents); Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and G. Taluntytė, acting as Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M. Gijzen and M. de Ree, acting as Agents); Republic of Austria (represented by C. Pesendorfer and G. Eberhard, acting as Agents); Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes and M.L. Duarte, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, acting as Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and M. Holt, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.
1.

Article 34 TFEU and Article 31(1) and (12) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the marketing in a Member State of new spare parts for road vehicles — in this case, water pumps and fuel filters — subject to the application of an approval or homologation procedure in that Member State, provided that that legislation also lays down exceptions such as to ensure that parts lawfully produced and marketed in other Member States are exempted or, failing this, that the parts in question are capable of posing a significant risk to the correct functioning of systems that are essential for the safety of the vehicle or its environmental performance and that that approval or homologation procedure is strictly necessary and proportionate in relation to the objectives of protection of road safety or of protection of the environment.