ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of 15 January 2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement which it lays down that any reference to general, non-specific benefits of the nutrient or food must be accompanied by a specific health claim included in the lists provided for in Articles 13 or 14 of that regulation, is not satisfied where the packaging of a food supplement contains a reference to general, non-specific health benefits of a nutrient or food on the front of the packaging, whereas the specific health claim intended to accompany it appears only on the back of that packaging and there is no clear reference, such as an asterisk, between the two;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk–Południe w Gdańsku — Poland) — Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A.

(Case C-183/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA - Recognition and enforcement of financial penalties imposed on legal persons - Incomplete transposition of a framework decision - Duty to interpret national law in accordance with EU law - Scope)

(2020/C 161/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk–Południe w Gdańsku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB)

Defendant: Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A. w Gdańsku

Intervener: Prokuratura Rejonowa Gdańsk-Śródmieście w Gdańsku

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘legal person’ set out, inter alia, in Article 1(a) and Article 9(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted in the light of the law of the issuing State of the decision imposing a financial penalty.

2. Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that that it does not require a national court not to apply a provision of national law that is incompatible with Article 9(3) of Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision, since that provision is devoid of direct effect. Nevertheless, the referring court is required to give, as far as is possible, an interpretation of national law in accordance with EU law in order to ensure a result that is compatible with the aim pursued by Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299.

(1) OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — GAEC Jeanningros v Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO), Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-785/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Protected designation of origin ‘Comté’ - Minor amendment to a product specification - Action before national courts contesting an application for an amendment - Case-law of the national courts according to which the action becomes devoid of purpose when the European Commission has approved the amendment - Effective judicial protection - Obligation to rule on the action)

(2020/C 137/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GAEC Jeanningros

Defendants: Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO), Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

intervening party: Comité interprofessionnel de gestion du Comté

Operative part of the judgment

Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, Article 6 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 of 18 December 2013 supplementing Regulation No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the establishment of the Union symbols for protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed and with regard to certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rules and certain additional transitional rules, and Article 10 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, when the European Commission has granted an application made by the authorities of a Member State seeking a minor amendment to a product specification for a protected designation of origin, the national courts hearing an action concerning the lawfulness of the decision made by those authorities on that application with a view to submitting it to the Commission, in accordance with Article 53(2) of Regulation No 1151/2012, cannot, on that ground alone, decide that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the dispute pending before them.

(1) OJ C 72, 22.5.2019.
1.

Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which confers solely on courts or tribunals the power to annul decisions of the competent authorities in matters of international protection, to the exclusion of the power to amend those decisions. However, if the file is referred back to the competent administrative authority, a new decision should be adopted within a short period of time and in compliance with the assessment contained in the judgment annulling the decision. Moreover, where a national court has found — after making a full and ex nunc examination of all the relevant elements of fact and law submitted by an applicant for international protection — that, under the criteria laid down by Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, the applicant concerned must be granted such protection on the ground that he relied on in support of his application, but after which the administrative authority adopts a contrary decision without establishing that new elements have arisen that justify a new assessment of the international protection needs of the applicant, that court must, where national law does not provide it with any means of ensuring that its judgment is complied with, amend that decision which does not comply with its previous judgment and substitute its own decision for it as to the application for international protection, by disapplying, if necessary, the national law that prohibits it from proceeding in that way;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the arbeidshof te Gent — Belgium) — ISS Facility Services NV v Sonia Govaerts, Atalian NV, formerly Euroclean NV

(Case C-344/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 3(1) - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Public contract for cleaning services - Award of market lots to two new contractors - Re-engagement of a worker assigned to all the market lots)

(2020/C 215/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ISS Facility Services NV

Defendants: Sonia Govaerts, Atalian NV, formerly Euroclean NV

Operative part of the judgment

Where there is a transfer of undertaking involving a number of transferees, Article 3(1) 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 rights and obligations arising from a contract of employment are transferred to each of the transferees, in proportion to the tasks performed by the worker concerned, provided that the division of the contract of employment as a result of the transfer is possible and neither causes a worsening of working conditions nor adversely affects the safeguarding of the rights of workers guaranteed by that directive, which it is for the referring court to determine. If such a division were to be impossible to carry out or would adversely affect the rights of that worker, the transferee(s) would be regarded as being responsible for any consequent termination of the employment relationship, under Article 4 of that directive, even if that termination were to be initiated by the worker.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
1.

EU law and, in particular, the principles of fiscal effectiveness and fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as precluding the practice of a Member State of calculating interest on an excess of deductible value added tax (VAT) withheld by that Member State beyond a reasonable period in breach of EU law by applying a rate which corresponds to the basic rate of the national central bank, where, first, that rate is lower than that which a taxable person who is not a credit institution would have to pay to borrow a sum equal to that amount, and, second, interest on the excess VAT concerned accrues during a given reporting period, without application of interest to compensate the taxable person for the monetary depreciation caused by the passage of time following that reporting period until actual payment of that interest.
1.

Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who, under a contract such as a financial contract for differences concluded with a finance company, carries out transactions through that company may be classified as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision if the conclusion of that contract does not fall within the scope of that person’s professional activity, which it is for the national court to ascertain. For the purposes of that classification, first, factors such as the fact that that person carried out a high volume of transactions within a relatively short period or that he or she invested significant sums in those transactions are, as such, in principle irrelevant, and secondly, the fact that that same person is a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) point 12 of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC is, as such, in principle irrelevant;
1.

Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/2002 of 10 November 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a mixture of paper, paperboard and paper product wastes, each of which comes under one of the first three indents of entry B3020 of Annex IX to the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, signed in Basel on 22 March 1989, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 93/98/EEC of 1 February 1993, reproduced in List B of Part 1 of Annex V to that regulation, and which also contains up to 10 % impurities.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — DHL Logistics (Slovakia) spol. s r. o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo SR

(Case C-810/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheading 8525 80 91 - Digital cameras - Video camera recorders - Digital video camera recorder capable of capturing and recording still images and sequences of video with a resolution quality of less than 800 × 600 pixels)

(2020/C 240/18)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Trnave

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DHL Logistics (Slovakia) spol. s r. o.

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo SR

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that digital video camera recorders having a dual function, that is to say, to capture and record both still images and sequences of video, come under subheading 8525 80 91 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘video camera recorders’, even though, with regard to sequences of video, those cameras allow such sequences to be captured and recorded only with an image resolution quality lower than 800 × 600 pixels, provided that the principal function of those digital video camera recorders is to capture and record such sequences, this being a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
2.

Annuls the decision of the Director-General for Personnel of the European Parliament, acting in his capacity as the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment for that institution, of 3 June 2016, rejecting the request for assistance, within the meaning of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, submitted by HF;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel — Germany) — KH v Sparkasse Südholstein

(Case C-639/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Distance marketing of financial services - Directive 2002/65/EC - Article 1 - Scope - Contracts concerning financial services consisting of an initial agreement followed by successive operations - Application of Directive 2002/65/EC to the first agreement alone - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘contract concerning financial services’ - Amendment to a loan agreement altering the interest rate initially set)

(2020/C 271/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Kiel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KH

Defendant: Sparkasse Südholstein

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC must be interpreted as meaning that an agreed amendment to a loan agreement cannot be categorised as a ‘contract concerning financial services’, within the meaning of that provision, where the amendment does no more than alter the originally agreed rate of interest, but does not extend the term of the loan or alter its amount, and where the original clauses of the loan agreement provided for the agreement of such an amendment or, failing such agreement, the application of a variable interest rate.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Vivendi SA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(Case C-719/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom and pluralism of the media - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Directive 2002/21/EC - Articles 15 and 16 - National legislation prohibiting an undertaking which has significant market power in a sector from establishing a ‘significant economic dimension’ in another sector - Calculation of revenues received in the electronic communications sector and the media sector - Definition of the electronic communications sector - Restriction to markets which have been subject to ex ante regulation - Account taken of the income of affiliated companies - Fixing of different income thresholds for undertakings active in the electronic communications sector)

(2020/C 378/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vivendi SA

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Intervening party: Mediaset SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which has the effect of preventing a company registered in another Member State, the revenue of which in the electronic communications sector, as defined for the purposes of that legislation, is in excess of 40 % of the total revenues generated in that sector, from earning, within the integrated communications system, revenue which exceeds 10 % of the total revenues generated in that system.

(1) OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA v European Commission

(Case C-606/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - European market for submarine and underground power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 20 - European Commission’s powers of inspection in cartel proceedings - Power to copy data without a prior examination and to examine the data subsequently at the Commission’s premises - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2020/C 297/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Nexans France SAS, Nexans SA (represented by: G. Forwood, avocate, M. Powell and A. Rogers, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, P. Rossi, C. Sjödin and F. Castilla Contreras, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Pegaso Srl Servizi Fiduciari, Sistemi di Sicurezza Srl, YW v Poste Tutela SpA

(Case C-521/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procurement in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 13 - Activities relating to the provision of postal services - Contracting entities - Public undertakings - Admissibility)

(2020/C 433/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Pegaso Srl Servizi Fiduciari, Sistemi di Sicurezza Srl, YW

Defendant: Poste Tutela SpA

Interveners: Poste Italiane SpA, Services Group

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC must be interpreted as applying to activities consisting in the provision of caretaking, reception and access control services for the premises of postal services providers, where such activities are connected with the activity falling within the postal sector, in the sense that such activities actually serve to carry out that activity by enabling it to be carried out adequately, having regard to the normal conditions under which it is carried out.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
1.

Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of milk or milk used as an ingredient must be regarded as a ‘matter specifically harmonised’ by that regulation, within the meaning of Article 38(1) of that regulation, where failure to include that indication might mislead the consumer, and as not precluding the Member States from adopting measures requiring additional mandatory particulars on the basis of Article 39 of that regulation, on the condition that those particulars are compatible with the objective pursued by the EU legislature by means of the specific harmonisation of the matter of mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance and that they form one coherent whole with that indication.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2021 — Päivi Leino-Sandberg v European Parliament

(Case C-761/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of the EU institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 10 - Refusal to grant access - Action before the General Court of the European Union against a decision by the European Parliament refusing to grant access to a document - Disclosure of the annotated document by a third party after the action was lodged - Order that there was no need to adjudicate pronounced by the General Court on the ground that was no longer any interest in bringing proceedings - Error of law)

(2021/C 79/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Päivi Leino-Sandberg (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and B.A. Verheijen, advocaten, and by S. Schubert, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos, I. Anagnostopoulou and L. Vétillard, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented: initially by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, J. Lundberg and H. Eklinder, and subsequently by C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 20 September 2018, Leino-Sandberg v Parliament (T-421/17, not published, EU:T:2018:628);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.