do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-222/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet (Road transport  — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006  — Obligation to use a tachograph  — Derogation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance  — Vehicle transporting gravel from the loading site to the road maintenance works site)
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: road services department, road transport, speed control








C_2014135EN.01000301.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/3






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet
(Case C-222/12) (1)

((Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Obligation to use a tachograph - Derogation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance - Vehicle transporting gravel from the loading site to the road maintenance works site))
(2014/C 135/03)
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A. Karuse AS

Defendant: Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Interpretation of Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) — Obligation to use a tachograph — Exception to the obligation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance — Tipping lorry with a maximum weight of 25,5 tonnes carrying gravel along the public highway from a quarry to a site of road repair and maintenance works.

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘vehicles used in connection with road maintenance’, in Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, which vehicles can be exempted from the use of a tachograph, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers vehicles transporting material to a road maintenance works site, provided that the transport is wholly and exclusively connected with those works and constitutes an ancillary activity to them. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case, taking account of all the relevant factors in the main proceedings.


(1)  
            OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.
Case C-132/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Approximation of laws  — Directive 2006/95/EC  — Definition of ‘electrical equipment —’ – CE conformity marking  — Housing for multipole electrical connectors)
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, European standard, approximation of laws, electrical equipment, safety standard








C_2014135EN.01001501.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/15






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH
(Case C-132/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2006/95/EC - Definition of ‘electrical equipment - ’– CE conformity marking - Housing for multipole electrical connectors))
(2014/C 135/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Defendant: ILME GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Köln — Interpretation of Articles 1, 8 and 10 of, and Annexes II to IV to, Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (OJ 2006 L 374, p. 10) — Notion of ‘electrical equipment’ — Prohibition of affixing the ‘CE’ conformity marking to the housings of multipole connectors sold as separate parts.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits must be interpreted as meaning that housing for multipole connectors for industrial use, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is covered by the definition of ‘electrical equipment’ for the purposes of that provision and must, therefore, bear the CE marking as long as its proper incorporation and use for the purpose for which it was made does not mean that it ceases to comply with the relevant safety requirements for which it has been examined.


(1)  
            OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.
Case C-548/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, Karsten Fräßdorf (Area of freedom, security and justice  — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters  — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction  — Article 5(1) and (3)  — Civil liability claim  — Tortious or contractual nature)
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice, associated action for damages, contractual liability, jurisdiction








C_2014135EN.01001001.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/10






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, Karsten Fräßdorf
(Case C-548/12) (1)

((Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1) and (3) - Civil liability claim - Tortious or contractual nature))
(2014/C 135/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Marc Brogsitter

Defendants: Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, Karsten Fräßdorf

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Krefeld — Interpretation of Article 5(1) 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction — Action brought before a court with jurisdiction in matters of tort or delict — Situation in which the tortious or delictual act was committed in the course of the performance of the contract between the tortfeasor and the victim and the court pertaining to the place of performance of the underlying obligation is situated in another Member State — Determination of the court with jurisdiction.

Operative part of the judgment

Civil liability claims such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are made in tort under national law, must nonetheless be considered as concerning ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) 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, where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of the terms of the contract, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract.


(1)  
            OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
Case C-204/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Saarlouis v Heinz Malburg (Taxation  — Value added tax  — Origin and scope of the right of deduction  — Dissolution of a partnership by a partner  — Acquisition of a portion of the client base of that partnership  — Contribution in kind to another partnership  — Payment of input tax  — Whether deduction possible)
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, customers, liquidation, tax relief








C_2014135EN.01001801.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/18






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Saarlouis v Heinz Malburg
(Case C-204/13) (1)

((Taxation - Value added tax - Origin and scope of the right of deduction - Dissolution of a partnership by a partner - Acquisition of a portion of the client base of that partnership - Contribution in kind to another partnership - Payment of input tax - Whether deduction possible))
(2014/C 135/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Finanzamt Saarlouis

Defendants: Heinz Malburg

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 4(1) and (2) and 17(2)(a) of 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Creation and extent of the right to deduct — Acquisition of a portion of the client base of a dissolved partnership by a partner in that partnership for the purpose of bringing it into a new partnership as a contribution in kind — Whether it is possible to deduct the input tax.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 17(2)(a) of 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 must, having regard to the principle of value added tax neutrality, be interpreted as meaning that a partner in a partnership of tax advisors who acquires from that partnership a portion of its client base for the sole purpose of making that client base available directly and free of charge to a newly founded partnership of tax advisors, in which he is the principal partner, so that that partnership can use that client base in its business, without that client base however becoming part of the capital assets of the newly founded partnership, is not entitled to deduct input value added tax paid on the acquisition of the client base concerned.


(1)  
            OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.
Case C-486/13: Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Antonio Galán Rodríguez
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2014184EN.01002501.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/25





Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Antonio Galán Rodríguez
(Case C-486/13) (1)

2014/C 184/41
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
Case C-52/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Directive 2006/114/EC  — Concepts of ‘misleading advertising’ and ‘comparative advertising’   — National legislation providing that misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising are two separate unlawful acts)
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, advertising malpractice, comparative advertising, consumer protection








C_2014135EN.01001302.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/13






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
(Case C-52/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/114/EC - Concepts of ‘misleading advertising’ and ‘comparative advertising’ - National legislation providing that misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising are two separate unlawful acts))
(2014/C 135/14)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint

Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Interveners: Cg srl, Tacoma srl

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21) — Unfair business practices between traders — Concept of ‘misleading advertising and comparative advertising’ — National legislation which not only prohibits advertising that is at the same time misleading and based on unlawful comparison but also provides that misleading advertising and comparative advertising are two separate offences.

Operative part of the judgment

With regard to the protection afforded to traders, Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is to be interpreted as referring to misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising as two independent infringements and to the effect that, in order to prohibit and penalise misleading advertising, it is not necessary that that latter at the same time should constitute unlawful comparative advertising.


(1)  
            OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.
Notice of open competition
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU)








C_2014074EN.01000501.xml










13.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 74/5






NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

2014/C 74/04
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising open competition:
EPSO/AD/276/14 — ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5)
The competition notice will be published in 24 languages in Official Journal C 74 A of 13 March 2014.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/
Case T-430/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2014 — Heinrich v OHIM — Commission (European Network Rapid Manufacturing) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark European Network Rapid Manufacturing — Absolute ground for refusal — Imitation of the emblem of an international intergovernmental organisation — Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 6b of the Paris Convention)
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European symbol, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014129EN.01002002.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/20






Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2014 — Heinrich v OHIM — Commission (European Network Rapid Manufacturing)
(Case T-430/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark European Network Rapid Manufacturing - Absolute ground for refusal - Imitation of the emblem of an international intergovernmental organisation - Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 6b of the Paris Convention))
(2014/C 129/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Heinrich Beteiligungs GmbH (Witten, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: European Commission

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2012 (Case R 793/2011-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between the European Commission and Heinrich Beteiligungs GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders Heinrich Beteiligungs GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).






(1)  
            OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 March 2014 on the draft Council decision concerning the ratification of, or the accession to, the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009, by the Member States in the interests of the European Union (15902/2013 — C7-0485/2013 — 2012/0056(NLE))
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Committee on Legal Affairs, Committee on Transport and Tourism, Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, Hong Kong, accession to an agreement, environmental standard, hazardous waste, international convention, ratification of an agreement, vessel, waste recycling








C_2017378EN.01065201.xml










9.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/652





P7_TA(2014)0238
Hong Kong International Convention for the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 March 2014 on the draft Council decision concerning the ratification of, or the accession to, the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009, by the Member States in the interests of the European Union (15902/2013 — C7-0485/2013 — 2012/0056(NLE))
(Consent)
(2017/C 378/70)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (15902/2013),










—


having regard to the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009,










—


having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on ship recycling and amending Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and Directive 2009/16/EC (1),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 192(1) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and paragraph 8, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0485/2013),










—


having regard to Rule 81(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 81(2), and Rule 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0166/2014),












1.


Gives its consent to the draft Council Decision;












2.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.






(1)  OJ L 330, 10.12.2013, p. 1.
Case C-366/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dortmund-West v Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Sixth VAT Directive  — Exemptions  — Article 13A(1)(b)  — Supply of goods  — Supply of cytostatic drugs for the treatment of outpatients  — Services provided by different taxable persons  — Article 13A(1)(c)  — Provision of medical care  — Drugs prescribed by a doctor working in an independent capacity in a hospital  — Closely related activities  — Services ancillary to the provision of medical care  — Activities physically and economically indissociable)
Date: 2014-03-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, health service, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2014135EN.01000401.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/4






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dortmund-West v Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH
(Case C-366/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13A(1)(b) - Supply of goods - Supply of cytostatic drugs for the treatment of outpatients - Services provided by different taxable persons - Article 13A(1)(c) - Provision of medical care - Drugs prescribed by a doctor working in an independent capacity in a hospital - Closely related activities - Services ancillary to the provision of medical care - Activities physically and economically indissociable))
(2014/C 135/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Dortmund-West

Defendant: Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concept of activities closely related to hospital and medical care — Activity not constituting a service within the meaning of Article 6 of the directive — Activity carried out by a taxable person other than the person who provides the hospital or medical care — Activity closely related to medical care which is not exempt.

Operative part of the judgment

A supply of goods, such as the cytostatic drugs at issue in the main proceedings, prescribed in the course of outpatient cancer treatment by doctors working in an independent capacity in a hospital, may not be exempt from value added tax under Article 13A(1)(c) 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, as amended by Council Directive 2005/92/EC of 12 December 2005, unless that supply is physically and economically indissociable from the principal supply of medical care, which it is for the referring court to determine.


(1)  
            OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.