ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München — Germany) — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-137/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Organic production and labelling of organic products - Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - Article 27(1)(f) - Use of certain products and certain substances in the processing of foodstuffs - Prohibition of the use of minerals, vitamins, amino acids and micronutrients where not legally required - Addition of ferrous gluconate and vitamins to an organic beverage - Use of minerals, vitamins, amino acids and micronutrients - Quantities required to allow sale as a food supplement, with a nutrition or health claim or as a foodstuff for a particular nutritional use))

(2015/C 007/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1)(f) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products must be interpreted as meaning that the use of one of the substances referred to is legally required only when a provision of EU law or a provision of national law compatible therewith directly requires that that substance be added to a foodstuff in order for that foodstuff to be placed on the market. The use of such a substance is not legally required within the meaning of that provision where a foodstuff is marketed as a food supplement, with a nutrition or health claim or as a foodstuff for a particular nutritional use, although that implies that, in order to comply with the provisions governing the incorporation of substances into foodstuffs, included in:

— Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008;

— Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods and Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health; and

— Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses and Commission Regulation (EC) No 953/2009 of 13 October 2009 on substances that may be added for specific nutritional purposes in foods for particular nutritional uses; that foodstuff must contain a determined quantity of the substance in question.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/10

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 — Czech Republic) — Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec, Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané v Česká republika — Ministerstvo zemědělství

(Case C-561/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Support schemes - Establishment of support schemes in the new Member States - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 143ba - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 126 - Separate sugar payment - Decoupling of that payment from production - Meaning of ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’ - Representative period))

(2014/C 462/16)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec, Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané

Defendant: Česká republika — Ministerstvo zemědělství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 126(1) 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 the concept of ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’ includes the marketing year which the Member States must choose before 30 April 2006 as the representative period for the grant of the separate sugar payment, under Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulations (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006, No 2011/2006 of 19 December 2006 and No 2012/2006 of 19 December 2006.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
2.

EU law, in particular Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety and Regulation No 2073/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, it does not preclude national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a penalty on a food business operator which is active only at the distribution stage for placing foodstuff on the market, on account of the failure to comply with the microbiological criterion laid down in Annex I, Chapter I, Row 1.28 of Regulation No 2073/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011. It is for the national court to determine whether the penalty at issue in the main proceedings observes the principle of proportionality referred to in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 178/2002.
1.

Declares that, by obliging undertakings of other Member States wishing to exercise the activity of cargo-handling in Spanish ports of general interest, first, to register with the Dockers’ Management Public Limited Liability Company (‘Sociedad Anónima de Gestion de Estibadores Portuarios’) and, as appropriate, to hold shares in that company and, secondly, to employ as a priority workers provided by that company, including a minimum number on permanent contracts, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Mohamed M’Bodj v État belge

(Case C-542/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 19(2) - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Person eligible for subsidiary protection - Article 15(b) - Torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of an applicant in the country of origin - Article 3 - More favourable standards - Applicant suffering from a serious illness - No appropriate treatment available in the country of origin - Article 28 - Social protection - Article 29 - Health care))

(2015/C 065/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohamed M’Bodj

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 28 and 29 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, read in conjunction with Articles 2(e), 3, 15, and 18 of that directive, are to be interpreted as not requiring a Member State to grant the social welfare and health care benefits provided for in those measures to a third country national who has been granted leave to reside in the territory of that Member State under national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a foreign national who suffers from an illness occasioning a real risk to his life or physical integrity or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment to reside in that Member State, where there is no appropriate treatment in that foreign national’s country of origin or in the third country in which he resided previously, unless such a foreign national is intentionally deprived of health care in that country.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

(Case C-364/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/44/EC - Article 6(2)(c) - Legal protection of biotechnological inventions - Parthenogenetic activation of oocytes - Production of human embryonic stem cells - Patentability - Exclusion of ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’ - Concepts of ‘human embryo’ and ‘organism capable of commencing the process of development of a human being’))

(2015/C 065/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: International Stem Cell Corporation

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions must be interpreted as meaning that an unfertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis does not constitute a ‘human embryo’, within the meaning of that provision, if, in the light of current scientific knowledge, it does not, in itself, have the inherent capacity of developing into a human being, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Miguel M. (C-627/13), Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Nadine Schönherr (C-2/14)

(Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Drug precursors - Monitoring of trade between the Member States - Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 - Monitoring of trade between the European Union and third countries - Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 - Trade in medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine - Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ - Composition - Exclusion of all medicinal products or only those containing scheduled substances and the composition of which does allow those substances to be readily extracted - Directive 2001/83/EC - Definition of ‘medicinal product’))

(2015/C 107/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties in the main proceedings

Miguel M. (C-627/13), Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Nadine Schönherr (C-2/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors and of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors respectively must be interpreted as meaning that a medicinal product as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006, cannot be categorised as a ‘scheduled substance’ as such, even if it contains a substance referred to in Annex I to Regulation No 273/2004 and in the annex to Regulation No 111/2005 and can easily be used or extracted by readily applicable or economically viable means.

(1) OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Agrooikosystimata EPE v Ipourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Periferia Thessalias (Perifereaki Enotita Magnisias)

(Case C-498/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 - Agricultural production methods meeting the requirements of environmental protection and upkeep of the countryside - Long-term set-aside of agricultural land for purposes connected with the environment - Agri-environmental aid paid to farmers and cofinanced by the European Union - Status as recipient of such aid))

(2015/C 107/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrooikosystimata EPE

Defendants: Ipourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Periferia Thessalias (Perifereaki Enotita Magnisias)

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside must be interpreted as meaning that only persons who have previously produced agricultural products could benefit under the long-term set aside scheme for agricultural land provided for in Article 2(1)(f) thereof.

(1) OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/15

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission

(Case C-585/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Restriction of transfers of funds - Assistance to designated entities in evading or violating restrictive measures))

(2015/C 138/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG (represented by: S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors, H. Hohmann, Rechtsanwalt, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by F. Naert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Kaye, acting as Agent, and by R. Palmer, Barrister), European Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

(1) OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Nóra Baczó, János István Vizsnyiczai v Raiffeisen Bank Zrt

(Case C-567/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7 - Mortgage loan agreement - Arbitration clause - Unfairness - Action by consumer - National procedural rule - Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the action by a consumer for a declaration of invalidity of a standard contract to hear the application for a declaration of unfairness of terms in the same contract))

(2015/C 118/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nóra Baczó, János István Vizsnyiczai

Defendant: Raiffeisen Bank Zrt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national procedural rule pursuant to which a local court which has jurisdiction to rule on an action brought by a consumer seeking a declaration of invalidity of a standard contract does not have jurisdiction to hear an application by the consumer for a declaration of unfairness of contract terms in the same contract, unless declining jurisdiction by the local court gives rise to procedural difficulties that would make the exercise of the rights conferred on consumers by the European Union legal order excessively difficult. It is for the national court to carry out the necessary verifications in that respect.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — OTP Bank Nyrt v Magyar Állam, Magyar Államkincstár

(Case C-672/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Housing aid granted prior to the accession of Hungary to the European Union to certain categories of household - Payment of the aid by credit institutions in exchange for a State guarantee - Article 108(3) TFEU - Measure not previously notified to the European Commission - Unlawfulness))

(2015/C 155/06)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OTP Bank Nyrt

Defendants: Magyar Állam, Magyar Államkincstár

Operative part of the judgment

The guarantee provided by the Hungarian State under Paragraph 25(1) and (2) of Government Decree No 12/2001 of 31 January 2001 concerning aid intended to facilitate access to housing, granted exclusively to credit institutions prima facie constitutes ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. However, it is for the referring court to ascertain more specifically the selective nature of such a guarantee by determining, in particular, whether, following the amendment of the Decree of 2001 which is supposed to have taken place in 2008, that guarantee may be granted to economic operators other than credit institutions and, in the affirmative, whether that fact may call into question the selective nature of that guarantee.

If the referring court classifies the State guarantee at issue in the main proceedings as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, such a guarantee must be regarded as new aid and is, on that ground, subject to the obligation of prior notification to the European Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU. It is for the referring court to verify whether the Member State concerned has complied with that obligation and, if that is not the case, to declare that guarantee unlawful.

The beneficiaries of a State guarantee, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, granted without regard for Article 108(3) TFEU and, therefore, unlawful, do not have any remedies available in accordance with EU law.

(1) OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.
(1)

Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the supply of digital or electronic books, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 April 2015 — Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union

(Case C-605/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from the regime - Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded - Set of indicia))

(2015/C 205/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Issam Anbouba (represented by: M.-A. Bastin, J.-M. Salva, and S. Orlandi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro, R. Liudvinaviciute and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Issam Anbouba to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
2.

The answer to question 1(a) is capable of being affected by the fact that privileges, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, conferred by national legislation upon an independent bank acting for the public benefit, at the time of its establishment, in consideration for entering into agricultural credit operations and specific tasks entrusted to that bank, are still in force, and that even after the functions of that bank were extended to cover all banking activities and that bank has become a public limited company. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of all the relevant legal and factual circumstances, the four cumulative conditions justifying, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, the finding that those privileges constitute compensation for services provided by that bank in order to discharge public service obligations, and that they thus escape being classified as State aid, are satisfied.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania)) — ‘Gazprom’ OAO

(Case C-536/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Scope - Arbitration - Not included - Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards - Order issued by an arbitral tribunal having its seat in a Member State - Order that proceedings not be brought or continued before a court of another Member State - Power of the courts of a Member State to refuse to recognise the arbitral award - New York Convention))

(2015/C 236/10)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Gazprom’ OAO

Interested party: Lietuvos Respublika

Operative part of the judgment

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 not precluding a court of a Member State from recognising and enforcing, or from refusing to recognise and enforce, an arbitral award prohibiting a party from bringing certain claims before a court of that Member State, since that regulation does not govern the recognition and enforcement, in a Member State, of an arbitral award issued by an arbitral tribunal in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.