do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-81/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014  — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Coordination of social security systems — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Council decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Association Council — Choice of legal basis — Article 48 TFEU — Article 79(2)(b) TFEU — Article 217 TFEU)
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), legal basis, social security








C_2015065EN.01000202.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/2





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
(Case C-81/13) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Coordination of social security systems - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Council decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Association Council - Choice of legal basis - Article 48 TFEU - Article 79(2)(b) TFEU - Article 217 TFEU))
(2015/C 065/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt, C. Murrell, E. Jenkinson and S. Behzadi Spencer, Agents, and A. Dashwood QC)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by: L. Williams, Agent, and N. Travers, BL)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and M. Chavrier, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, J. Enegren and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


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










3)


Orders Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1078/2014 of 7 August 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals ( OJ L 297, 15.10.2014 )
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, dangerous substance, export (EU), export monitoring, pesticide, plant health control








L_2014363EN.01018501.xml










18.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 363/185







Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1078/2014 of 7 August 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 297 of 15 October 2014
)


On page 5, in point 2(d) of the Annex, in the amendments to Part 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 649/2012:
for:







‘(d)


the following entries are added:










Chemical


CAS No


Einecs No


CN code


Category (*)


Use limitation (**)




“Azocyclotin


41083-11-8


255-209-1


2933 99 80 


p


 




Bitertanol


55179-31-2


259-513-5


2933 99 80 


p


 




Cinidon-ethyl


142891-20-1


n.a.


2925 19 95 


p


 




Cyclanilide


113136-77-9


419-150-7


2924 29 98 


p


 




Cyhexatin


13121-70-5


236-049-1


2931 90 90 


p


 




Ethoxysulfuron


126801-58-9


n.a.


2933 59 95 


p


 




Oxadiargyl


39807-15-3


254-637-6


2934 99 90 


p


 




Rotenone


83-79-4


201-501-9


2932 99 00 


P”’


 









read:







‘(d)


the following entries are added:










Chemical


CAS No


Einecs No


CN code


Category (*)


Use limitation (**)




“Azocyclotin


41083-11-8


255-209-1


2933 99 80 


p


b




Bitertanol


55179-31-2


259-513-5


2933 99 80 


p


b




Cinidon-ethyl


142891-20-1


n.a.


2925 19 95 


p


b




Cyclanilide


113136-77-9


419-150-7


2924 29 98 


p


b




Cyhexatin


13121-70-5


236-049-1


2931 90 90 


p


b




Ethoxysulfuron


126801-58-9


n.a.


2933 59 95 


p


b




Oxadiargyl


39807-15-3


254-637-6


2934 99 90 


p


b




Rotenone


83-79-4


201-501-9


2932 99 00 


p


sr”’
Special Report No 21/2014 ‘EU-funded airport infrastructures: poor value for money’
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, airport, profitability








C_2014455EN.01000801.xml










18.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/8





Special Report No 21/2014 ‘EU-funded airport infrastructures: poor value for money’
(2014/C 455/06)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 21/2014 ‘EU-funded airport infrastructures: poor value for money’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Publications (PUB)




12, rue Alcide De Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Case T-817/14: Action brought on 18 December 2014  — Zoofachhandel Züpke and Others v Commission
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: animal disease, bird, import (EU), import restriction, principle of proportionality, veterinary inspection








C_2015089EN.01003001.xml










16.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/30





Action brought on 18 December 2014 — Zoofachhandel Züpke and Others v Commission
(Case T-817/14)
(2015/C 089/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH (Wesel, Germany), Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG (Bürstadt, Germany), Zoofachgeschäft — Vogelgroßhandel Import-Export Heinz Marche (Heinsberg, Germany), Rita Bürgel (Uthleben, Germany), Norbert Kass (Altenbeken, Germany) (represented by: C. Correll, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


order the defendant to repair the damage suffered since 1 January 2010 by the applicants as a result of the adoption of a prohibition on importation of wild birds captured in the EU, a prohibition which applies almost worldwide, included in Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 of 23 March 2007 (OJ 2007 L 84, p. 7) and/or in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 of 7 January 2013 (OJ 2013 L 47, p. 1);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants claim, first, that as a result of the continuation, without a critical approach, of the prohibition on importation in its extremely broad geographical scope, the Commission infringed the freedom to carry out an economic activity and, in part, the right to property enjoyed by the applicants. In the light of scientific knowledge acquired in any event since 2010, that prohibition is not capable of being justified by overriding considerations such as the protection of health.
Secondly, the applicants claim that, by maintaining the prohibition on importation, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and the principles of effective work because it failed to take into consideration the current state of the data or the current state of scientific knowledge. The worldwide prohibition on the importation of wild birds continues to be based on knowledge and assumptions dating from 2005, at a time when avian influenza, originating in Asia, spread for the first time in Europe and where it was necessary to act quickly. According to the applicants, the data collected over the following years do not justify, in any event since 2010, such a geographically wide prohibition on importation. Furthermore, it was clearly necessary in the meantime to make provision for other more effective and much less restrictive methods for the applicants such as consistent surveillance of migrating birds.
Third, the applicants maintain that they suffered an actual and certain damage and that there is a causal link between that damage and the Commission’s unlawful behaviour.
Case C-582/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2014  — Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, cross-frontier data flow, data protection, disclosure of information, interpretation of the law, personal data, protection of privacy








C_2015089EN.01000401.xml










16.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2014 — Patrick Breyer v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-582/14)
(2015/C 089/05)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Patrick Breyer

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 2(a) 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 (1) — the Data Protection Directive — be interpreted as meaning that an Internet Protocol address (IP address) which a service provider stores when his website is accessed already constitutes personal data for the service provider if a third party (an access provider) has the additional knowledge required in order to identify the data subject?










2.


Does Article 7(f) of the Data Protection Directive preclude a provision in national law under which a service provider may collect and use a user’s personal data without his consent only to the extent necessary in order to facilitate, and charge for, the specific use of the telemedium by the user concerned, and under which the purpose of ensuring the general operability of the telemedium cannot justify use of the data beyond the end of the particular use of the telemedium?






(1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.
Joined Cases C-400/13 and C-408/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders v David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-408/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Cooperation in civil matters — Regulation No 4/2009 — Article 3 — Jurisdiction to rule on an action relating to a maintenance obligation in respect of a person resident in another Member State — National legislation establishing a centralisation of jurisdiction)
Date: 2014-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, maintenance obligation, parental responsibility








C_2015065EN.01000801.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/8





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders v David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-408/13)
(Joined Cases C-400/13 and C-408/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Cooperation in civil matters - Regulation No 4/2009 - Article 3 - Jurisdiction to rule on an action relating to a maintenance obligation in respect of a person resident in another Member State - National legislation establishing a centralisation of jurisdiction))
(2015/C 065/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring courts

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders (C-400/13), Barbara Huber (C-408/13)

Defendants: David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Manfred Huber (C-408/13)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which establishes a centralisation of judicial jurisdiction in matters relating to cross-border maintenance obligations in favour of a first instance court which has jurisdiction for the seat of the appeal court, except where that rule helps to achieve the objective of a proper administration of justice and protects the interests of maintenance creditors while promoting the effective recovery of such claims, which is, however, a matter for the referring courts to verify.


(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.