do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-525/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014  — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — Framework for Community action in the field of water policy — Recovery of the costs for water services — Concept of ‘water services’ )
Date: 2014-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, infringement of EU law, provision of services, water management








C_2014409EN.01000501.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/5





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-525/12) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - Framework for Community action in the field of water policy - Recovery of the costs for water services - Concept of ‘water services’))
2014/C 409/05
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: M. Wolff and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, assisted by G. Facenna, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, Hungary, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Case T-679/13: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — AEMN v Parliament
Date: 2014-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, party financing, political parties








C_2014409EN.01006503.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/65





Order of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — AEMN v Parliament
(Case T-679/13) (1)

2014/C 409/88
Language of the case: French
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.
Case T-536/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community figurative mark aroa — Earlier national figurative mark Aro — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2014-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, graphic illustration, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2014380EN.01000802.xml










27.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/8





Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa)
(Case T-536/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark aroa - Earlier national figurative mark Aro - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion))
2014/C 380/10
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Aroa Bodegas, SL (Zurukoain, Spain) (represented by: S. Alonso Maruri, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bodegas Muga, SL (Haro, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 October 2012 (Case R 1845/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Muga, SL and Aroa Bodegas, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Aroa Bodegas, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).










3.


Orders Bodegas Muga, SL to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.
Case C-91/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Essent Energie Productie BV v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 — Scope — Introduction of new restrictions on the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the conditions for access to employment — Prohibition — Freedom to provide services — Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU — Posting of workers — Nationals of non-Member States — Requirement for a work permit for the deployment of labour)
Date: 2014-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Türkiye, association agreement (EU), foreign national, job access, manpower needs, migrant worker, provision of services, right of establishment, work permit








C_2014409EN.01000901.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/9





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Essent Energie Productie BV v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
(Case C-91/13) (1)

((EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 - Scope - Introduction of new restrictions on the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the conditions for access to employment - Prohibition - Freedom to provide services - Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU - Posting of workers - Nationals of non-Member States - Requirement for a work permit for the deployment of labour))
2014/C 409/12
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Essent Energie Productie BV

Respondent: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where workers who are nationals of non-member countries are made available by an undertaking established in another Member State to a user undertaking established in the first Member State, which uses them to carry out work on behalf of another undertaking established in the same Member State, such making available is subject to the condition that those workers have been issued with work permits.


(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
Case T-185/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — Continental Wind Partners v OHIM Continental Reifen Deutschland (CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS — Earlier international figurative mark Continental — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial refusal of registration)
Date: 2014-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, energy industry, graphic illustration, registered trade mark, renewable energy, trade-mark law








C_2014380EN.01001001.xml










27.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/10





Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Continental Wind Partners v OHIM Continental Reifen Deutschland (CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS)
(Case T-185/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS - Earlier international figurative mark Continental - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal of registration))
2014/C 380/12
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Continental Wind Partners LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: S. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2013 (Case R 2204/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH and Continental Wind Partners LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders Continental Wind Partners LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7230 — Bekaert/Pirelli Steel Tyre Cord Business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-09-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, metallurgical industry, pneumatic tyre, processing industry








C_2014308EN.01000102.xml










11.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 308/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7230 — Bekaert/Pirelli Steel Tyre Cord Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 308/02
On 30 July 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7230. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-219/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by K Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98(2) — Annex III, point 6 — Reduced rate of VAT applicable only to books printed on paper — Books published on physical supports other than paper subject to the standard rate of VAT — Fiscal neutrality)
Date: 2014-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT rate, book trade, tax exemption








C_2014409EN.01001301.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/13





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by K Oy
(Case C-219/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(2) - Annex III, point 6 - Reduced rate of VAT applicable only to books printed on paper - Books published on physical supports other than paper subject to the standard rate of VAT - Fiscal neutrality))
2014/C 409/17
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

K Oy

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of and point 6 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding, provided that the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of value added tax is complied with, which is for the referring court to ascertain, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which books published in paper form are subject to a reduced rate of value added tax and books published on other physical supports such as CDs, CD-ROMs or USB keys are subject to the standard rate of value added tax.


(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.
Case C-328/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses — Obligation on the transferee to maintain the terms and conditions agreed in a collective agreement until the entry into force of another collective agreement — Concept of collective agreement — National legislation providing that a rescinded collective agreement continues to have effect until the entry into force of another collective agreement)
Date: 2014-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, transfer of businesses, worker consultation, worker information, working conditions








C_2014409EN.01001501.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/15





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen
(Case C-328/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses - Obligation on the transferee to maintain the terms and conditions agreed in a collective agreement until the entry into force of another collective agreement - Concept of collective agreement - National legislation providing that a rescinded collective agreement continues to have effect until the entry into force of another collective agreement))
2014/C 409/21
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund

Defendant: Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(3) 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 terms and conditions laid down in a collective agreement, which, pursuant to the law of a Member State, despite the rescission of that agreement, continue to produce their effects as regards the employment relationship which was governed by them before the agreement was terminated, constitute ‘terms and conditions agreed in any collective agreement’ so long as that employment relationship is not subject to a new collective agreement or a new individual agreement is not concluded with the employees concerned.


(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
Case T-444/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — Gold East Paper and Gold Huasheng Paper v Council (Subsidies — Imports of coated fine paper originating in China — Methodology — Calculation of the advantage — Manifest error of assessment — Specificity — Depreciation period — Preferential tax treatments — Compensatory measures — Injury — Determination of the profit margin — Definition of the product concerned — Community industry — Causal link)
Date: 2014-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, economic support, import (EU), originating product, paper, proof, rights of the defence








C_2014380EN.01000701.xml










27.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/7





Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Gold East Paper and Gold Huasheng Paper v Council
(Case T-444/11) (1)

((Subsidies - Imports of coated fine paper originating in China - Methodology - Calculation of the advantage - Manifest error of assessment - Specificity - Depreciation period - Preferential tax treatments - Compensatory measures - Injury - Determination of the profit margin - Definition of the product concerned - Community industry - Causal link))
2014/C 380/08
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu, China), and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu) (represented by: V. Akritidis, Y. Melin and F. Crespo, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G. Berrisch, A. Polcyn, lawyers, and by N. Chesaites, Barrister, and subsequently by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and by S. Gubel, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents); Cepifine AISBL (Brussels, Belgium), Sappi Europe SA (Brussels), Burgo Group SpA (Altavilla Vicentina, Italy), and Lecta SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and W. Berg, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 452/2011 of 6 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-subsidy duty on imports of coated fine paper originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 128, p. 18) in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union, Cepifine AISBL, Sappi Europe SA, Burgo Group SpA and Lecta SA;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
Case C-88/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Philippe Gruslin v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) — Directive 85/611/EEC — Article 45 — Concept of ‘payments to unit-holders’  — Delivery to unit-holders of certificates for registered units)
Date: 2014-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: investment company, provision of services, right of establishment, securities








C_2014409EN.01000802.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/8





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Philippe Gruslin v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA
(Case C-88/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) - Directive 85/611/EEC - Article 45 - Concept of ‘payments to unit-holders’ - Delivery to unit-holders of certificates for registered units))
2014/C 409/11
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Philippe Gruslin

Defendant: Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA

Operative part of the judgment

The obligation laid down in Article 45 of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EC of 29 June 1995, under which an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities which markets its units within the territory of a Member State other than that in which it is situated is required to make payments to unit-holders in the Member State of marketing, must be interpreted as not including the delivery to unit-holders of certificates providing evidence of title to units which are registered in their name in the register of unit-holders kept by the issuer.


(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.