ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV

(Case C-310/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Scope - Article 2 - Reproduction rights - Concept of ‘work’ - Taste of a food product))

(2019/C 16/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Levola Hengelo BV

Respondent: Smilde Foods BV

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding (i) the taste of a food product from being protected by copyright under that directive and (ii) national legislation from being interpreted in such a way that it grants copyright protection to such a taste.

(1) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
1.

Declares that, by instituting and maintaining in force the national mobile payment system governed by a nemzeti mobil fizetési rendszerről szóló 2011. évi CC. törvény (Law CC of 2011 on the national mobile payment system) and by 356/2012. (XII. 13.) Korm. rendelet a nemzeti mobil fizetési rendszerről szóló törvény végrehajtásáról (Governmental Decree No 356/2012 implementing the mobile payment system law), Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Article 56 TFEU;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez, Emilia de la Vara González v Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha

(Case C-245/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - National legislation which permits the termination of fixed-term employment contracts where the reason for recruitment ceases to apply - Teachers employed for the academic year - Termination of the employment relationship at the end of the teaching period - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC))

(2019/C 25/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez, Emilia de la Vara González

Defendant: Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha

Operative part of the judgment

1. Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows an employer to terminate, at the end of the teaching period, the employment relationship of fixed-term teachers recruited as interim civil servants for one academic year, on the ground that the conditions of necessity and urgency attached to their recruitment have ceased to apply on that date, whereas the employment relationship of indefinite duration of teachers who are established civil servants is maintained.

2. Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows termination, at the end of the teaching period, of the fixed-term employment relationship of teachers recruited for one academic year as interim civil servants, even if this deprives those teachers of days of paid annual leave which correspond to that academic year, provided that such teachers receive an allowance on that account.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
1.

Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘appropriate assessment’ must, on the one hand, catalogue the entirety of habitat types and species for which a site is protected, and, on the other, identify and examine both the implications of the proposed project for the species present on that site, and for which that site has not been listed, and the implications for habitat types and species to be found outside the boundaries of that site, provided that those implications are liable to affect the conservation objectives of the site.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — France Télévisions SA v Playmédia, Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA)

(Case C-298/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Universal service and users’ rights - Undertaking providing an electronic communications network used for the distribution of radio or television broadcasts to the public - Undertaking offering the live streaming of television programmes online - ‘Must carry’ obligation))

(2019/C 65/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: France Télévisions SA

Defendants: Playmédia, Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA)

Intervener: Ministry of Culture and Communication

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking which offers the live streaming of television programmes online must not, based on that fact alone, be regarded as an undertaking which provides an electronic communications network used for the distribution of radio or television channels to the public.

2. The provisions of Directive 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a ‘must carry’ obligation on undertakings which, without providing electronic communication networks, offer the live streaming of television programmes online.

(1) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
2.

Article 28 of Directive 2009/72 must be interpreted as meaning that systems, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which have been classified by a Member State as closed distribution systems within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article, may, in that capacity, only be exempted by that Member State from the requirements laid down in paragraph 2 of that article, without prejudice to the fact that those systems are otherwise eligible for other exemptions provided for in that directive, in particular the exemption set out in Article 26(4) thereof, if they meet the conditions laid down therein, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. In any event, that Member State may not include those systems in a separate category of distribution systems in view of granting them exemptions not provided for in that directive.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2019 — Deza, a.s. v European Chemicals Agency, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Norway

(Case C-419/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Annex XIV - Establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation - Inclusion in the list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV - Updating of the entry of the substance bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in the list - Misinterpretation and misapplication of the REACH Regulation and of the principle of legal certainty - Distortion of the facts and evidence - Scope of the review))

(2019/C 93/15)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Deza, a.s. (represented by: P.Dejl, advokát)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, N. Herbatschek and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by M. Procházka and M. Mašková, advokáti), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Nymann-Lindegren and M. Wolff, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev and L. Zettergren, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Norway

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Deza, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Touring Tours und Travel GmbH (C-412/17), Sociedad de Transportes SA (C-474/17)

(Joined Cases C-412/17 and C-474/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) - Articles 20 and 21 - Abolition of internal border controls in the Schengen area - Checks within the territory of a Member State - Measures having an effect equivalent to border checks - Rules of a Member State requiring a coach travel operator on routes crossing the internal borders of the Schengen area to check passengers’ passports and residence permits - Penalty - Threat to impose a recurring fine))

(2019/C 65/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant: Touring Tours und Travel GmbH (C-412/17), Sociedad de Transportes SA (C-474/17)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 67(2) TFEU and Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires every coach transport undertaking providing a regular cross-border service within the Schengen area to the territory of that Member State to check the passports and residence permits of passengers before they cross an internal border in order to prevent the transport of third-country nationals not in possession of those travel documents to the national territory, and which allows, for the purposes of complying with that obligation to carry out checks, the police authorities to issue orders prohibiting such transport, accompanied by a threat of a recurring fine, against transport undertakings which have been found to have conveyed to that territory third-country nationals who were not in possession of the requisite travel documents.

(1) OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.

OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
4.

Refers Case T-381/15 back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the claim for damages submitted by International Management Group in respect of the harm allegedly caused to that entity by the decision of the Commission referred to in paragraph 3 of the operative part of this judgment;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2019 — George Haswani v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-313/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Admissibility - Procedure for modifying the application - Need to modify the pleas in law and arguments - Restrictive measures adopted against the Syrian Arab Republic - List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name))

(2019/C 93/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: George Haswani (represented by: G. Karouni, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Sikora-Kalėda and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Havas and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 March 2017, Haswani v Council (T-231/15, not published, EU:T:2017:200);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Orders the costs to be reserved.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles — France) — Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Bionoor, Ecocert France, Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)

(Case C-497/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 13 TFEU - Animal welfare - Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 - Protection of animals at the time of killing - Particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Articles 3 and 14(1)(b)(viii) - Compatibility with organic production - Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - First paragraph of Article 57 - Organic production logo of the European Union)

(2019/C 139/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA)

Defendants: Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Bionoor, Ecocert France, Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, in particular Article 3 and Article 14(1)(b)(viii) thereof, read in the light of Article 13 TFEU, must be interpreted as not authorising the placing of the organic production logo of the European Union, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 57 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 834/2007, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 271/2010 of 24 March 2010, on products derived from animals which have been slaughtered in accordance with religious rites without first being stunned, where such slaughter is conducted in accordance with the requirements laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, in particular Article 4(4) thereof.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Vetsch Int. Transporte GmbH

(Case C-531/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 143(1)(d) - Exemptions from VAT on importation - Imports followed by an intra-Community transfer - Subsequent intra-Community supply - Tax evasion - Refusal of the exemption - Conditions)

(2019/C 131/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Vetsch Int. Transporte GmbH

Other party: Zollamt Feldkirch Wolfurt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 143(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 143(1)(d) of that directive, as amended by Council Directive 2009/69/EC of 25 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from import value added tax laid down in those provisions may not be refused in respect of an importer designated or recognised as liable for payment of that tax, within the meaning of Article 201 of Directive 2006/112, in a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, in which, first, the recipient of the intra-Community transfer of goods effected after that import commits tax evasion in connection with a transaction which is subsequent to that transfer and is not linked to that transfer and, secondly, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the importer knew or ought to have known that that subsequent transaction entailed tax evasion on the part of the recipient.

(1) OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
1.

Declares that, by having failed to adopt, with regard to the landfill sites of Avigliano (area of Serre Le Brecce), Ferrandina (area of Venita), Genzano di Lucania (area of Matinella), Latronico (area of Torre), Lauria (area of Carpineto), Maratea (area of Montescuro), Moliterno (area of Tempa La Guarella), both landfill sites of Potenza (area of Montegrosso-Pallareta), the landfill sites of Rapolla (area of Albero in Piano), Roccanova (area of Serre), Sant’Angelo Le Fratte (area of Farisi), Campotosto (area of Reperduso), Capistrello (area of Trasolero), Francavilla (Valle Anzuca), L’Aquila (area of Ponte delle Grotte), Andria (D’Oria G. & C. Snc), Canosa (CO.BE.MA), Bisceglie (CO.GE.SER), Andria (F.lli Acquaviva), Trani (BAT-Igea Srl), Torviscosa (Caffaro (undertaking)), Atella (area of Cafaro), Corleto Perticara (area of Tempa Masone), Marsico Nuovo (area of Galaino), Matera (area of La Martella), Pescopagano (area of Domacchia), Rionero in Volture (area of Ventaruolo), Salandra (area of Piano del Governo), San Mauro Forte (area of Priati), Senise (area of Palomabara), Tito (area of Aia dei Monaci), Tito (area of Valle del Forno), Capestrano (area of Tirassegno), Castellalto (area of Colle Coccu), Castelvecchio Calvisio (area of Termine), Corfinio (area of Cannucce), Corfinio (area of Case querceto), Mosciano S. Angelo (area of Santa Assunta), S. Omero (area of Ficcadenti), Montecorvino Pugliano (area of Parapoti), San Bartolomeo in Galdo (area of Serra Pastore), Trivigano (formerly Cava Zof) and Torviscosa (area of La Valletta), all the measures necessary in order that, as soon as possible, in accordance with Article 7(g) and Article 13 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, those landfill sites in the above list which have not obtained, in accordance with Article 8 of that directive, a permit to continue to operate, may be closed, or by failing to adopt the measures necessary to bring those landfill sites which have obtained a permit to continue to operate into line with that directive, without prejudice to the conditions laid down in Annex I, point 1, to that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(b) and (c) of Directive 1999/31;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH v Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel

(Case C-449/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(i) and (j) - Exemption for certain activities in the public interest - School or university education - Concept - Driving school tuition provided by a driving school)

(2019/C 155/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘school or university education’, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as not covering motor vehicle driving tuition provided by a driving school, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for the purpose of acquiring driving licences for vehicles in categories B and C1 referred to in Article 4(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences.

(1) OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

(Case C-617/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 82 EC - Abuse of a dominant position - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 3(1) - Application of national competition law - Decision of a national competition authority to impose one fine on the basis of national law and another on the basis of EU law - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Principle of ne bis in idem - Whether applicable)

(2019/C 206/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

Interveners: Edward Dętka, Mirosław Krzyszczak, Zakład Projektowania i Programowania Systemów Sterowania Atempol Sp. z o.o. w Piekarach Śląskich, Ommer Polska Sp. z o.o. w Krapkowicach, Glimat Marcinek i S-ka spółka jawna w Gliwicach, Jastrzębskie Zakłady Remontowe Dźwigi Sp. z o.o. w Jastrzębiu Zdroju, Petrofer-Polska Sp. z o.o. w Nowinach, Pietrzak B.B. Beata Pietrzak, Bogdan Pietrzak Spółka jawna w Katowicach, Ewelina Baranowska, Przemysław Nikiel, Tomasz Woźniak, Spółdzielnia Kółek Rolniczych w Bielinach, Lech Marchlewski, Zakład Przetwórstwa Drobiu Marica spółka jawna J.M.E.K. Wróbel sp. jawna w Bielsku Białej, HTS Polska Sp. z o.o., Paco Cases Andrzej Paczkowski, Piotr Paczkowski spółka jawna w Puszczykowie, Bożena Kubalańca, Zbigniew Arczykowski, Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcji Handlu i Usług Unipasz Sp. z o.o. w Radzikowicach, Janusz Walocha, Marek Grzegolec

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of ne bis in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000, must be interpreted as not precluding a national competition authority from fining an undertaking in a single decision for an infringement of national competition law and for an infringement of Article 82 EC. In such a situation, the national competition authority must nevertheless ensure that the fines are proportionate to the nature of the infringement.

(1) OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.