ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2019 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-377/17) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 15 - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Fees of architects and engineers for planning services - Minimum and maximum tariffs)

(2019/C 305/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, L. Malferrari and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by: T. Henze and D. Klebs, and subsequently by D. Klebs, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and M.M. Tátrai, acting as Agents

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining fixed tariffs for the planning services of architects and engineers, the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market.

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

3. Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
1.

Article 2(f) and of Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in conjunction with Article 2(h) 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 and Article 4(11) and Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46 (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that the consent referred to in those provisions is not validly constituted if, in the form of cookies, the storage of information or access to information already stored in a website user’s terminal equipment is permitted by way of a pre-checked checkbox which the user must deselect to refuse his or her consent.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte von Medienunternehmen mbH v Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc.

(Case C-299/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Industrial policy - Approximation of laws - Directive 98/34/EC - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Article 1(11) - Concept of ‘technical regulation’)

(2019/C 383/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte von Medienunternehmen mbH

Defendant: Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998), must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits only commercial operators of search engines and commercial service providers that similarly publish content from making newspapers or magazines or parts thereof (excluding individual words and very short text excerpts) available to the public, constitutes a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of that provision, the draft of which is subject to prior notification to the Commission pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 98/48.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
3.

The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 must be interpreted as not precluding legislation which makes the installation of a wind turbine subject to compliance with the condition of a minimum distance between that wind turbine and buildings with a residential function, provided that that legislation is necessary and proportionate in the light of the mandatory national overall target of the Member State concerned, which it is for the referring court to determine.
1.

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which dividends distributed by a resident company to a resident pension fund (i) are subject to a withholding tax which can be set off in its entirety against the corporation tax payable by such a fund, and give rise to a refund when the tax withheld at source exceeds the corporation tax due, and (ii) do not result in any increase in the profit liable to corporation tax or only a comparatively small one, due to the possibility of deducting from that profit provisions for pension commitments, whereas dividends paid to a non-resident pension fund are subject to a withholding tax which constitutes a definitive tax for such a fund, when the non-resident pension fund allocates dividends received to make provisions for pensions which it will have to pay in the future, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — NK

(Case C-231/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 - Obligation to use a tachograph - Exception for vehicles used for the carriage of live animals from farms to local markets and vice versa or from markets to local slaughterhouses)

(2019/C 131/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

NK

Other parties to the proceedings: Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg, Staatliches Gewerbeaufsichtsamt Oldenburg

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘local markets’ in Article 13(1)(p) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014, must be interpreted as referring neither to the transaction carried out between a livestock wholesaler and a farmer nor to the livestock wholesaler himself, so that the exception provided for in that provision cannot be extended to include vehicles transporting live animals directly from farms to local slaughterhouses.

(1) OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureș — Romania) — Criminal proceedings against Virgil Mailat, Delia Elena Mailat, Apcom Select SA

(Case C-17/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 19 and 29 and Article 135(1)(l) - Transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof - Exemption for lettings of immovable property - Rental contract concerning an immovable property used for commercial purposes and the movable property necessary for that use - Supply of services relating to that immovable property which gave rise to the deduction of VAT - Adjustment))

(2019/C 65/22)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Mureș

Parties in the main proceedings

Virgil Mailat, Delia Elena Mailat, Apcom Select SA

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’, within the meaning of Article 19 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as not covering the transaction by which an immovable property which was used for commercial purposes is let with all capital equipment and inventory items necessary for that use, even if the lessee pursues the activity of the lessor under the same name.

2. Article 135(1)(l) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a lease contract for an immovable property which was used for commercial purposes and for all capital equipment and inventory items necessary for that use constitutes a single supply in which the letting of the immovable property is the principal supply.

(1) OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — SM v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section

(Case C-129/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the European Union - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Directive 2004/38/EC - Family members of a citizen of the Union - Article 2(2)(c) - ‘Direct descendant’ - Child in permanent legal guardianship under the Algerian kafala (provision of care) system - Article 3(2)(a) - Other family members - Article 7 and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Family life - Best interests of the child)

(2019/C 187/29)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SM

Respondents: Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section

in the presence of: Coram Children’s Legal Centre (CCLC), AIRE Centre

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of a ‘direct descendant’ of a citizen of the Union referred to in Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as not including a child who has been placed in the permanent legal guardianship of a citizen of the Union under the Algerian kafala system, because that placement does not create any parent-child relationship between them.

However, it is for the competent national authorities to facilitate the entry and residence of such a child as one of the other family members of a citizen of the Union pursuant to Article 3(2)(a) of that directive, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by carrying out a balanced and reasonable assessment of all the current and relevant circumstances of the case which takes account of the various interests in play and, in particular, of the best interests of the child concerned. In the event that it is established, following that assessment, that the child and its guardian, who is a citizen of the Union, are called to lead a genuine family life and that that child is dependent on its guardian, the requirements relating to the fundamental right to respect for family life, combined with the obligation to take account of the best interests of the child, demand, in principle, that that child be granted a right of entry and residence in order to enable it to live with its guardian in his or her host Member State.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag

(Case C-21/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Concept of ‘shape’ - Shape giving substantial value to the goods - Two-dimensional mark - Figurative mark also constituting a work for the purpose of copyright - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(e)(iii) - Regulation (EU) 2015/2424)

(2019/C 155/15)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin

Defendant: Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to marks registered before the entry into force of Regulation No 207/2009, as amended by Regulation 2015/2424.

2. Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a sign such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of two-dimensional decorative motifs, which are affixed to goods, such as fabric or paper, does not ‘consist exclusively of the shape’, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León -Spain) — Violeta Villar Láiz v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

(Case C-161/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4 - Prohibition of any discrimination on the ground of sex - Indirect discrimination - Part-time work - Calculation of retirement pension)

(2019/C 230/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Violeta Villar Láiz

Respondent: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the amount of retirement pension based on contributions of a part-time worker is to be calculated by multiplying a basic amount, established from the remuneration actually received and contributions actually paid, by a percentage which relates to the length of the period of contribution, that period being itself modified, by a reduction factor equal to the ratio of the time of part-time work actually carried out to the time of work carried out by a comparable full-time worker, and increased by the application of a factor of 1.5, to the extent that that legislation places at a particular disadvantage workers who are women as compared with workers who are men.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Akvilė Jarmuškienė

(Case C-265/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common System of Value Added Tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Special scheme for small enterprises - Articles 282 to 292 - VAT exemption for small enterprises whose annual turnover is below the fixed threshold - Simultaneous supply of two immovable properties in a single transaction - Annual turnover limit exceeded in view of the sale price of one of the two properties - Obligation to pay tax on the total value of the transaction)

(2019/C 220/13)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Respondent: Akvilė Jarmuškienė

Other party: Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 282 to 292 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where a supply, to the same purchaser, comprises two immovable properties, linked by their nature and coming under a single contract of sale, and the annual turnover limit serving as a reference for the purposes of applying the special scheme for small enterprises provided for by that directive is exceeded, the taxable person is required to pay tax on the basis of the entire value of the supply in question, that is to say, taking into account the value of both the properties being supplied, even where taking into account the value of one of those properties would not lead to that annual limit being exceeded.

(1) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of PF

(Case C-509/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by the Prosecutor General of a Member State - Legal position - Guarantee of independence)

(2019/C 263/27)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Party to the main proceedings

PF

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as including the Prosecutor General of a Member State who, whilst institutionally independent from the judiciary, is responsible for the conduct of criminal prosecutions and whose legal position, in that Member State, affords him a guarantee of independence from the executive in connection with the issuing of a European arrest warrant.

(1) OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 May 2019 — CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

(Case C-170/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Contract staff - European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control - Fixed-term contract - Termination of the contract - Compliance with a judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal - Res judicata by means of a judgment annulling a decision - Limits)

(2019/C 255/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders CJ to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Italy) — Meca Srl v Comune di Napoli

(Case C-41/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/12/EU - Article 57(4)(c) and (g) - Award of public service contracts - Optional grounds for exclusion from participation in a public procurement procedure - Grave professional misconduct calling into question the integrity of an economic operator - Termination of an earlier contract on account of failures in its execution - Action before the courts preventing the contracting authority from assessing the breach of contract until the end of the judicial proceedings)

(2019/C 270/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Meca Srl

Defendant: Comune di Napoli

Intervener: Sirio Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 57(4)(c) and (g) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which an action before the courts against a decision to terminate a public contract, taken by a contracting authority on account of significant deficiencies arising in the execution of that contract, prevents the contracting authority which issues a new call for tenders from conducting any assessment, at the stage of the selection of tenderers, of the reliability of the operator concerned by that termination.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court, High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Proceedings relating to the execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of OG (C-508/18), PI (C-82/19 PPU)

(Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State - Legal position - Whether subordinate to a body of the executive - Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case - No guarantee of independence)

(2019/C 263/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court, High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OG (C-508/18) and PI (C-82/19 PPU)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU are joined for the purposes of the judgment.

2. The concept of an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as not including public prosecutors’ offices of a Member State which are exposed to the risk of being subject, directly or indirectly, to directions or instructions in a specific case from the executive, such as a Minister for Justice, in connection with the adoption of a decision to issue a European arrest warrant.

(1) OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.

OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.