do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-364/13: 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 (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’ )
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biotechnology, embryo and foetus, invention, patent, stem cell








C_2015065EN.01000702.xml










23.2.2015   


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.
Case C-587/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Aurel Moldovan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Romania, environmental tax, motor car, ownership, reduction of gas emissions, vehicle registration








C_2015107EN.01001601.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Aurel Moldovan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
(Case C-587/14)
(2015/C 107/22)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Aurel Moldovan

Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Questions referred







1)


In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles coming from another Member State of the European Union, where that tax does not apply to the registration of domestic motor vehicles, upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, in respect of which such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid, where the amount of such a residual tax incorporated into the value of the motor vehicles on the domestic market is lower than the new tax?










2)


In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?
Case C-640/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014  — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Recovery of taxes unduly paid under EU law — National legislation — Retroactive curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies — Principle of effectiveness — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, infringement of EU law, tax collection








C_2015065EN.01001601.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/16





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-640/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Recovery of taxes unduly paid under EU law - National legislation - Retroactive curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies - Principle of effectiveness - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations))
(2015/C 065/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Beeko, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that by adopting a provision, such as section 107 of the Finance Act 2007, which curtailed, retroactively and without notice or transitional arrangements, the right of taxpayers to recover taxes levied in breach of EU law the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU;










2.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.
Opinion 2/13: Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014  — European Commission (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Draft international agreement — Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Compatibility of the draft agreement with the EU and FEU Treaties)
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Convention on Human Rights, accession to an agreement, infringement of EU law








C_2015065EN.01000201.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/2





Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014 — European Commission
(Opinion 2/13) (1)

((Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Draft international agreement - Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Compatibility of the draft agreement with the EU and FEU Treaties))
(2015/C 065/02)
Language of the procedure: all official languages

Requested by

European Commission (represented by: L. Romero Requena, H. Krämer, C. Ladenburger and B. Smulders, acting as Agents)

Operative part

The agreement on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is not compatible with Article 6(2) TEU or with Protocol (No 8) relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 December 2014 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part (09827/2014 — C8-0129/2014 — 2014/0086(NLE))
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: EAEC, Georgia, association agreement (EU), consent procedure, ratification of an agreement








C_2016294EN.01011101.xml










12.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/111





P8_TA(2014)0111
Association Agreement with Georgia ***
European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 December 2014 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part (09827/2014 — C8-0129/2014 — 2014/0086(NLE))
(Consent)
(2016/C 294/39)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Council decision (09827/2014),










—


having regard to the draft Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part (17901/2013),










—


having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 217 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), Article 218(7) and Article 218(8), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0129/2014),










—


having regard to its resolution of 17 November 2011 containing the European Parliament's recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the EEAS on the negotiations of the EU-Georgia Association Agreement (1),










—


having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 18 December 2014 (2) on the draft decision,










—


having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on International Trade (A8-0041/2014),












1.


Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;












2.


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






(1)  OJ C 153 E, 31.5.2013, p. 137.

(2)  Texts adopted, P8_TA(2014)0110.
Public holidays in 2015: EEA/EFTA States and EEA institutions
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EEA joint institution, EFTA countries, public holiday








C_2014455EN.01000901.xml










18.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/9





Public holidays in 2015: EEA/EFTA States and EEA institutions
(2014/C 455/07)










 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway


EFTA Surveillance Authority


EFTA Court




1 January


X


X


X


X


X




2 January


 


X


 


X


 




6 January


 


X


 


 


 




2 February


 


X


 


 


 




17 February


 


X


 


 


 




19 March


 


X


 


 


 




2 April


X


 


X


X


 




3 April


X


X


X


X


 




6 April


X


X


X


X


X




23 April


X


 


 


 


 




1 May


X


X


X


X


X




14 May


X


X


X


X


X




15 May


 


 


 


X


 




17 May


 


 


X


 


 




25 May


X


X


X


X


X




4 June


 


X


 


 


 




17 June


X


 


 


 


 




23 June


 


 


 


 


X




3 August


X


 


 


 


 




15 August


 


X


 


 


 




8 September


 


X


 


 


 




1 November


 


X


 


 


 




2 November


 


 


 


X


 




8 December


 


X


 


 


 




24 December


 


 


 


X


 




25 December


X


X


X


X


X




28 December


X


X


X


X


 




29 December


 


 


 


X


 




30 December


 


 


 


X


 




31 December


 


X


 


X
Case C-87/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Income tax — Non-resident taxpayer — Deductibility of costs relating to a historic building occupied by its owner — Costs not deductible in respect of a historic building solely on the ground that it is not listed in the State of taxation, whereas it is listed in the State of residence)
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, historic site, monument, right of establishment, tax on income, tax relief








C_2015065EN.01000301.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/3





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X
(Case C-87/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Income tax - Non-resident taxpayer - Deductibility of costs relating to a historic building occupied by its owner - Costs not deductible in respect of a historic building solely on the ground that it is not listed in the State of taxation, whereas it is listed in the State of residence))
(2015/C 065/04)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: X

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which, on the ground of protection of the national cultural and historical heritage, costs relating to listed historic buildings may be deducted solely by owners of historic buildings situated in its territory, provided that that possibility is available to owners of historic buildings which may form part of the cultural and historical heritage of that Member State despite being located in the territory of another Member State.


(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Case C-306/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — LVP NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — System of importation — Applicable tariff rates)
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common organisation of markets, import policy, tariff quota, tropical fruit








C_2015065EN.01000601.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/6





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — LVP NV v Belgische Staat
(Case C-306/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - System of importation - Applicable tariff rates))
(2015/C 065/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: LVP NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994, as set out in Annex 1 A of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), are not such as to create rights which individuals might rely on directly before a national court in order to oppose the application of the customs tariff rate of EUR 176 per tonne, laid down in Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 on the tariff rates for bananas.


(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
Case C-588/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Sergiu Octav Constantinescu v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sălaj
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Romania, environmental tax, motor car, ownership, reduction of gas emissions, vehicle registration








C_2015107EN.01001701.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Sergiu Octav Constantinescu v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sălaj
(Case C-588/14)
(2015/C 107/23)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Sergiu Octav Constantinescu

Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sălaj

Questions referred







1)


In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles coming from another Member State of the European Union, where that tax does not apply to the registration of domestic motor vehicles, upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, in respect of which such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid, where the amount of such a residual tax incorporated into the value of the motor vehicles on the domestic market is lower than the new tax?










2)


In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?
Case C-470/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Contracts falling below the threshold laid down in Directive 2004/18/EC — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Applicability — Certain cross-border interest — Grounds for exclusion from a tendering procedure — Exclusion of an economic operator having committed an infringement of national competition rules, established by a judgment given not more than five years ago — Lawfulness — Proportionality)
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, administrative contract, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality








C_2015065EN.01001001.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/10





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság
(Case C-470/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Contracts falling below the threshold laid down in Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Applicability - Certain cross-border interest - Grounds for exclusion from a tendering procedure - Exclusion of an economic operator having committed an infringement of national competition rules, established by a judgment given not more than five years ago - Lawfulness - Proportionality))
(2015/C 065/14)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt

Defendant: Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU do not preclude the application of national legislation excluding the participation in a tendering procedure of an economic operator who has committed an infringement of competition law, established by a judicial decision having the force of res judicata, for which a fine was imposed.


(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
Case C-590/14 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2014 by Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 October 2014 in Case T-542/11 Alouminion v Commission
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aluminium, control of State aid, metallurgical industry, terms for aid








C_2015065EN.01002601.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/26





Appeal brought on 18 December 2014 by Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 October 2014 in Case T-542/11 Alouminion v Commission
(Case C-590/14 P)
(2015/C 065/36)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, E. Salaka, K. Sinodinos, K. Tagaras and A. Ikonomou, dikigori)

Other party to the proceedings: Alouminion AE

Form of order sought







—


uphold the appeal;










—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs, that is to say, the costs at first instance and those of the present appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal must be set aside for the following reasons:






1.


Error of law in interpreting Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(c) and (b) of Regulation No 659/99, inasmuch as it was held that the extension of aid does not ipso facto constitute new aid, but that classification as such requires alteration of the aid’s substance.










2.


Error of law, manifest error of assessment and distortion of the facts as regards the ruling that application of the preferential tariff during the period at issue constitutes the extension of existing aid.










3.


Manifest error of law and fact and manifest error of assessment as regards the ruling that the legal and contractual basis for the aid remained unchanged.










4.


Infringement of the duty to state reasons as regards the failure of the judgment under appeal to explain whether the conditions for classification as new aid are cumulative and whether classification of aid as new requires the existence of legislative intervention.










5.


Infringement of the General Court’s obligation to rule on the relevant submissions put forward and of the duty to state reasons.