ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Deutsche Bank SAE

(Case C-55/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2003/88/EC - Articles 3 and 5 - Daily and weekly rest - Article 6 - Maximum weekly working time - Directive 89/391/EEC - Safety and health of workers at work - Requirement to set up a system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured)

(2019/C 255/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO)

Defendant: Deutsche Bank SAE

Interveners: Federación Estatal de Servicios de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FES-UGT), Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT), Confederación Solidaridad de Trabajadores Vascos (ELA), Confederación Intersindical Galega (CIG)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3, 5 and 6 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, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 4(1), Article 11(3) and Article 16(3) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, must be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State that, according to the interpretation given to it in national case-law, does not require employers to set up a system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured.

(1) OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Jadran Dodič v Banka Koper, Alta Invest

(Case C-194/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Scope - Criteria for assessment of the transfer - Transfer of clients - Transfer of all the financial services of a bank, excluding staff, to a stock brokering company)

(2019/C 230/16)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Jadran Dodič

Respondents: Banka Koper, Alta Invest

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(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 transfer, to a second undertaking, of financial instruments and other assets of the clients of a first undertaking, following the cessation of the first undertaking’s activity, under a contract the conclusion of which is required by national legislation, even though the first undertaking’s clients remain free not to entrust the management of their stock market securities to the second undertaking, may constitute a transfer of an undertaking or of part of an undertaking if it is established that there was a transfer of clients, that being a matter for the referring court to determine. In that context, the number of clients actually transferred, even if very high, is not, in itself, decisive as regards classification as a ‘transfer’ and the fact that the first undertaking cooperates with the second undertaking as a dependent stock-exchange intermediary, is, in principle, irrelevant.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Terre wallonne ASBL v Région wallonne

(Case C-321/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Decree - Establishment of conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 network, in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC - Definition of ‘plans and programmes’ - Obligation to undertake an environmental assessment)

(2019/C 263/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Terre wallonne ASBL

Defendant: Région wallonne

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) and (4) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, must be interpreted as meaning that a decree, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which a body of a Member State establishes, at regional level for its Natura 2000 network, conservation objectives which have an indicative value, whereas the conservation objectives at site level have a statutory value, is not one of the ‘plans and programmes’, within the meaning of that directive, for which an environmental impact assessment is mandatory.

(1) OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019 — Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Munich SL

(Case C-223/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Revocation proceedings - Figurative mark representing a cross on the side of a sports shoe - Rejection of the application for revocation)

(2019/C 263/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Deichmann SE (represented by: C. Onken, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent), Munich SL (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. del Mar Guix Vilanova, abogados)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
1.

Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, when the declarant has the option to choose the price of the goods sold for export to the territory of the European Union as the valuation basis for the determination of their customs value and when it follows from a post-clearance inspection that the customs declaration which it made contains an error in the customs classification of the relevant goods leading to the application of a higher customs duty, the declarant may request, on the basis of that Article 78, the revision of that declaration for the purposes of obtaining a substitution of the initially indicated price by a lower transaction price in order to obtain a reduction in the amount of its customs debt.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.

(Case C-407/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Proceedings for the enforcement of a mortgage claim - Directly enforceable notarial instrument - Judicial review of unfair terms - Suspension of enforcement - Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the request for enforcement - Consumer protection - Principle of effectiveness - Proper interpretation)

(2019/C 280/09)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar

Defendants: Addiko Bank d.d.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, in the light of the principle of effectiveness, as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the national court hearing an application for the enforcement of a mortgage loan agreement, concluded between a trader and a consumer in the form of a directly enforceable notarial deed, does not have the possibility, either at the request of the consumer or ex officio, of examining whether the terms contained in such a deed are unfair within the meaning of that Directive and, on that basis, of suspending the requested enforcement.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
1.

In the first place, Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the sum referred to in that provision is not intended to compensate for damage such as loss of salary, in the second place, that damage may be the subject of the further compensation provided for in Article 12(1) of Regulation No 261/2004, and in the third place, it is for the referring court to determine and assess the various constituent elements of that damage and the extent of the compensation for that damage on the relevant legal basis.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schienen-Control Kommission — Austria) — WESTbahn Management GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

(Case C-210/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Single European Railway Area - Directive 2012/34/EU - Article 3 - Concept of ‘railway infrastructure’ - Annex II - Minimum access - Inclusion of the use of passenger platforms)

(2019/C 305/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schienen-Control Kommission

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WESTbahn Management GmbH

Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

Operative part of the judgment

Annex II to Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area must be interpreted as meaning that ‘passenger platforms’, referred to in Annex I to that directive, are an element of the railway infrastructure the use of which is part of the minimum access package, in accordance with point 1(c) of Annex II.

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Lublin-Wschód w Lublinie z siedzibą w Świdniku — Poland) — Lexitor sp. z o.o. v Spółdzielcza Kasa Oszczędnościowo — Kredytowa im. Franciszka Stefczyka, Santander Consumer Bank S.A. and mBank S.A.

(Case C-383/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Article 16(1) - Early repayment - Right of the consumer to a reduction in the total cost of the credit, consisting of the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract)

(2019/C 383/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Lublin-Wschód w Lublinie z siedzibą w Świdniku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lexitor sp. z o.o.

Defendants: Spółdzielcza Kasa Oszczędnościowo — Kredytowa im. Franciszka Stefczyka, Santander Consumer Bank S.A. and mBank S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the right of the consumer to a reduction in the total cost of the credit in the event of early repayment of the credit includes all the costs imposed on the consumer.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
2.

Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/65, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(3)(a) and Article 6(2)(c) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of a trader, who concludes a contract for financial services with a consumer at a distance, to communicate in a manner that would be clear and comprehensible to an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, in accordance with the requirements of EU law, before that consumer is bound by a distance contract or offer, the information regarding the existence of the right of withdrawal, is not infringed where that trader informs the consumer that the right of withdrawal does not apply to a contract that had been performed in full by both parties at the express request of the consumer before the consumer exercised his right of withdrawal, even if that information does not accord with national rules, as interpreted by national case-law, which provide that in such a case, the right of withdrawal applies.
2.

The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that, the fact that an automotive manufacturer opens, for the benefit of authorised dealers and repairers, a further channel for information on the sale of original replacement parts by authorised dealers and repairers by engaging an information service provider does not constitute access for independent operators that is discriminatory in comparison to the access granted to authorised dealers and repairers, within the meaning of that provision, since the independent operators also have access to vehicle repair and maintenance information that is non-discriminatory with regard to the content provided and the access granted to authorised dealers and repairers.
2.

Article 3(3) of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with point 1(q) of the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning, first, that it does not cover a term which has the object or effect of giving the consumer good reason to believe that he is required to fulfil all his contractual obligations, even though he considers that certain payments are not due, provided that that term does not alter the consumer’s legal position in view of the applicable national legislation and, secondly, that it covers a term which has the object or the effect of hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy where the outstanding amount is determined by a notarised instrument with probative force making it possible for the lender to put an end to the litigation unilaterally and definitively;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X v Belgische Staat

(Case C-302/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Immigration policy - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Conditions for acquiring long-term resident status - Article 5(1)(a) - Stable, regular and sufficient resources)

(2019/C 413/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘resources’ referred to in that provision does not concern solely the ‘own resources’ of the applicant for long-term resident status, but may also cover the resources made available to that applicant by a third party provided that, in the light of the individual circumstances of the applicant concerned, they are considered to be stable, regular and sufficient.

(1) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
1.

Declares that, in establishing, by Article 13(1) to (3) of the ustawa o zmianie ustawy — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Law amending the Law on the system of ordinary courts and certain other laws) of 12 July 2017, a different retirement age for men and women who are judges in the ordinary Polish courts and the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) or are public prosecutors in Poland, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 157 TFEU and Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation;
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Caseificio Cirigliana Srl, Mail Srl, Sorì Italia Srl v Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Salute

(Case C-569/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 4(c) and Article 7(1)(e) - Quality schemes applicable to agricultural products and foodstuffs - Fair competition - PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana - Obligation to separate production areas for ‘PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’)

(2019/C 423/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties in the main proceedings

Appellants: Caseificio Cirigliana Srl, Mail Srl, Sorì Italia Srl

Respondents: Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Salute

Intervener: Consorzio di Tutela del Formaggio Mozzarella di Bufala Campana

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(c) and Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and the product specification for ‘PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’ must be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which provide that ‘PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’ must be produced in areas exclusively designated for the production of that cheese, including within one set of premises, in which the holding and storage of milk originating from farms that are not subject to the monitoring system for the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Mozzarella di Bufala Campana’ is prohibited, if those rules are a necessary and proportionate means of safeguarding the quality of that product or ensuring that the specification for that PDO is monitored, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.11.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Organisation juive européenne, Vignoble Psagot Ltd v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-363/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Provision of food information to consumers - Mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of a foodstuff where failure to indicate this might mislead the consumer - Requirement that foodstuffs originating in territories occupied by the State of Israel bear the indication of their territory of origin, accompanied, where those foodstuffs come from an Israeli settlement within that territory, by the indication of that provenance)

(2020/C 10/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Organisation juive européenne, Vignoble Psagot Ltd

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1)(i) 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, read in conjunction with Article 26(2)(a) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that foodstuffs originating in a territory occupied by the State of Israel must bear not only the indication of that territory but also, where those foodstuffs come from a locality or a group of localities constituting an Israeli settlement within that territory, the indication of that provenance.

(1) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — K.H.K. v B.A.C., E.E.K.

(Case C-555/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 - European Account Preservation Order - Article 5(a) - Obtention procedure - Article 4(8) to (10) - Definition of ‘judgment’, ‘court settlement’ and ‘authentic instrument’ - National order for payment against which an objection may be lodged - Article 18(1) - Time limits - Article 45 - Exceptional circumstances - Definition)

(2020/C 10/20)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K.H.K.

Debtors: B.A.C., E.E.K.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(10) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an order for payment, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is not enforceable, does not constitute an ‘authentic instrument’ within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 5(a) of Regulation No 655/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that ongoing proceedings for an order for payment, such as those in the main proceedings, may be regarded as proceedings ‘on the substance of the matter’ within the meaning of that provision.

3. Article 45 of Regulation No 655/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that judicial vacations are not covered by the concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — UB v VA, Tiger SCI, WZ, acting as UB’s trustee in bankruptcy, Banque patrimoine et immobilier SA

(Case C-493/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 3(1) - Actions which derive directly from insolvency proceedings and which are closely connected with such proceedings - Sale of immovable property and creation of a mortgage - Action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy seeking a declaration that the transactions concerned are ineffective - Article 25(1) - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the insolvency proceedings were opened)

(2020/C 36/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UB

Defendants: VA, Tiger SCI, WZ, acting as UB’s trustee in bankruptcy, Banque patrimoine et immobilier SA

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that an action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy appointed by a court of the Member State within the territory of which the insolvency proceedings were opened seeking a declaration that the sale of immovable property situated in another Member State and the mortgage granted over it are ineffective as against the general body of creditors falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the first Member State.

2. Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment by which a court of the Member State in which the insolvency proceedings were opened authorises the trustee in bankruptcy to bring an action in another Member State, even if that action falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of that court, cannot have the effect of conferring international jurisdiction on the courts of that other Member State.

(1) OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.