ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v TV2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-445/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Public-service broadcaster - Article 106(2) TFEU - Services of general economic interest - Aid compatible with the internal market - Article 108(3) TFEU - Notification - Failure to notify - Recipient’s obligation to pay interest in respect of the period during which that aid was unlawful - Calculation of interest - Amounts to be included)

(2021/C 35/19)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

Defendants: TV2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation incumbent on national courts to order the recipient of State aid implemented in breach of that provision to pay illegality interest in respect of that aid also applies where, by its final decision, the European Commission finds that that aid is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 106(2) TFEU.

2. Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation which is incumbent on national courts to order the recipient of State aid implemented in breach of that provision to pay illegality interest in respect of that aid applies also to aid which that recipient has transferred to affiliated undertakings and to aid received by it from a publicly controlled undertaking.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Husqvarna AB v Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Lidl E-Commerce International GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-607/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(1)(a) - Article 55(1) - Revocation of rights in an EU mark - EU mark which has not been put to genuine use within a continuous period of five years - Expiry of the period of five years - Date of assessment)

(2021/C 62/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Husqvarna AB

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Lidl E-Commerce International GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a counterclaim for the revocation of rights in an EU mark, the relevant date for the purposes of determining whether the continuous five-year period referred to in that provision has ended is the date on which that counterclaim was filed.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, Republic of Finland

(Joined Cases C-475/19 P and C-688/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 - Harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products - Harmonised standards and technical regulations - Harmonised standards EN 14342:2013, EN 14904:2006, EN 13341:2005 + A1:2011 and EN 12285-2:2005 - Action for annulment)

(2021/C 53/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents, and by M. Kottmann, M. Winkelmüller and F. van Schewick, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, M. Huttunen and A. Sipos, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen and A. Laine, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission in relation to the present appeals and to the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union;

3. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings initiated by Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto

(Case C-450/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Manipulation of the bidding procedure - Determination of the duration of the infringement period - Inclusion of the period during which the cartel members implemented the anticompetitive agreement - Economic effects of anticompetitive behaviour - Cessation of the infringement on the definitive award of the contract)

(2021/C 79/12)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto

Intervening parties: Eltel Group Oy, Eltel Networks Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where an undertaking which has allegedly participated in a single and continuous infringement of that provision, the most recent constituent element of which consists in the concerted submission with its competitors of a tender for the award of a public works contract, has won the contract and concluded with the contracting authority a works contract determining the essential characteristics of that contract and, in particular, the overall price to be paid for those works, the performance and payment of the price for which are staggered over time, the infringement period corresponds to the period up to the date of signature of the contract concluded between the undertaking and the contracting authority on the basis of the concerted bid submitted by that undertaking. It is for the national court to ascertain the date on which the essential characteristics of the relevant contract and, in particular, the total price to be paid for the work, have been definitively determined.

(1) OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad — Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against OM

(Case C-393/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to property - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right to an effective remedy - Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA - Confiscation of crime-related proceeds, instrumentalities and property - Directive 2014/42/EU - Freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union - National legislation providing for the confiscation, for the benefit of the State, of property used to commit the offence of smuggling - Property belonging to a third party acting in good faith)

(2021/C 79/09)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Apelativen sad — Plovdiv

Party in the main criminal proceedings

OM

Interveners in the main criminal proceedings: Okrazhna prokuratura — Haskovo, Apelativna prokuratura — Plovdiv

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(1) of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, read in the light of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national law which permits the confiscation of an instrumentality used to commit an aggravated smuggling offence where that property belongs to a third party acting in good faith;

2. Article 4 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding a national law which permits the confiscation, in the context of criminal proceedings, of property belonging to a person other than the person who committed the criminal offence, without the former being afforded an effective remedy.

(1) OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Société Générale SA v Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics

(Case C-403/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Corporation tax - Bilateral conventions for the avoidance of double taxation - Taxation of dividends distributed by a non-resident already subject to a levy in another Member State - Maximum amount of tax credit accorded - Legal double taxation)

(2021/C 138/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Générale SA

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State which, pursuant to a scheme intended to offset the double taxation of dividends received by a company subject to corporation tax in the Member State in which it is established, which has been subject to a levy by another Member State, grants such a company a tax credit limited to the amount which the first Member State would receive if only those dividends were subject to corporation tax, without offsetting in full the levy paid in that other Member State.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Fussl Modestraße Mayr GmbH v SevenOne Media GmbH, ProSiebenSat.1 TV Deutschland GmbH, ProSiebenSat.1 Media SE

(Case C-555/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/13/EU - Provision of audiovisual media services - Article 4(1) - Freedom to provide services - Equal treatment - Article 56 TFEU - Articles 11 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Audiovisual commercial communication - National legislation prohibiting television broadcasters from inserting in their programmes broadcast throughout the national territory television advertisements whose broadcasting is limited to a regional level)

(2021/C 110/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fussl Modestraße Mayr GmbH

Defendants: SevenOne Media GmbH, ProSiebenSat.1 TV Deutschland GmbH, ProSiebenSat.1 Media SE

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (‘the Audiovisual Media Services Directive’) and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which prohibits television broadcasters from inserting in their programmes broadcast throughout the national territory television advertising whose broadcasting is limited to a regional level;

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such national legislation, provided that it is suitable for securing the attainment of the objective of protecting media pluralism at regional and local level which it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;

Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as not precluding such national legislation, provided that it does not give rise to unequal treatment between national television broadcasters and internet advertising providers as regards the broadcasting of advertising at regional level, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 February 2019, Fútbol Club Barcelona v Commission (T-865/16, EU:T:2019:113) in so far as it upholds the second plea in law relied on at first instance, and annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2391 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Les chirurgiens-dentistes de France and Others v Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation, Premier ministre

(Case C-940/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Article 4f(6) - National regulation - Allowing for the possibility of partial access to one of the professions covered by the mechanism for the automatic recognition of professional qualifications)

(2021/C 138/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Les chirurgiens-dentistes de France, Confédération des syndicats médicaux français, Fédération des syndicats pharmaceutiques de France, Syndicat des biologistes, Syndicat des laboratoires de biologie clinique, Syndicat des médecins libéraux, Union dentaire, Conseil national de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes, Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs-kinésithérapeutes, Conseil national de l’ordre des infirmiers

Defendants: Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation, Premier ministre

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4f(6) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation allowing for the possibility of partial access to one of the professions covered by the mechanism for the automatic recognition of professional qualifications laid down by the provisions of Chapter III of Title III of that directive, as amended.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 March 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, Hungary

(Case C-562/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 107(1) TFEU - State aid - Polish tax on the retail sector - Article 108(2) TFEU - Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Information used to determine the reference system - Progressivity of rates - Existence of a selective advantage - Burden of proof)

(2021/C 182/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, P.-J. Loewenthal and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and M. Szydło, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Von Aschenbach & Voss GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-708/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Aluminium foil originating in China - Slightly modified aluminium foil - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 - Admissibility - No action for annulment brought by the applicant in the main proceedings - Locus standi in an action for annulment)

(2021/C 182/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Von Aschenbach & Voss GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf, Germany), made by decision of 21 August 2019, is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — FV v Council of the European Union

(Case C-877/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Application for annulment - Civil service - Staff report - Assessment criteria - Consistency of output - Delays - Submission of a medical certificate - Duty of care)

(2021/C 217/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: FV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders FV to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 77, 09.03.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Slovak Telekom a.s. v European Commission, Slovanet, a.s.

(Case C-165/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Slovak market for broadband internet access services - Regulatory obligation on the part of operators with significant market power to grant access to the local loop - Conditions laid down by the incumbent operator for unbundled access by other operators to the local loop - Indispensability of the access - Margin squeeze - Costs - Competitor at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking - Rights of the defence)

(2021/C 206/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Slovak Telekom a.s. (represented by: D. Geradin, avocat, and R. O’Donoghue QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley, M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents), Slovanet, a.s. (represented by: P. Tisaj, advokát)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Slovak Telekom a.s., in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by E

(Case C-480/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Income tax - Income from capital - Income distributed by a resident undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) constituted in accordance with contract law - Income distributed by a UCITS established in another Member State and constituted in accordance with statute - Difference in treatment - Article 65 TFEU - Objectively comparable situations)

(2021/C 263/04)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

E

joined party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a tax practice of a Member State according to which, for the purpose of the taxation of income of a natural person residing in that Member State, the income received from an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) constituted in accordance with statute and established in another Member State cannot be equated with income received from UCITS established in the first Member State on the ground that the latter do not have the same legal form.

(1) OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — The North of England P & I Association Ltd, as successor in law to Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Case C-786/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct insurance other than life assurance - Second Directive 88/357/EEC - Second indent of Article 2(d) - Directive 92/49/EEC - First subparagraph of Article 46(2) - Taxation of insurance premiums - Concept of ‘Member State where the risk is situated’ - Vehicles of any type - Concept of ‘Member State of registration’ - Insurance of sea-going vessels - Ships entered in the shipping register maintained by one Member State but flying the flag of another Member State or of a third State under a temporary flagging-out authorisation)

(2021/C 217/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The North of England P & I Association Ltd, as successor in law to Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 46(2) of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life insurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (‘third non-life insurance directive’), read together with the second indent of Article 2(d) of Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that, where insurance contracts concern the provision of cover for various risks linked to the operation of sea-going vessels which are entered in the shipping register maintained by a Member State but which fly the flag of another Member State or of a third State under a temporary flagging-out authorisation, the State that must be considered to be the ‘Member State of registration’ of the ship concerned and therefore, to be ‘the Member State where the risk is situated’, within the meaning of those provisions, holding the exclusive power to tax premiums paid with respect to those insurance contracts, is the Member State which maintains the shipping register in which the primary purpose of entering that ship is to prove ownership of that ship.

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero della Giustizia v GN

(Case C-914/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21 - Prohibition of all discrimination on the basis of age - National legislation setting 50 years of age as the age limit for access to the profession of notary - Justification)

(2021/C 289/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministero della Giustizia

Respondent: GN

Intervening parties: HM, JL, JJ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which sets 50 years of age as the age limit for participation in the competition for access to the profession of notary, in so far as such legislation does not appear to pursue the aims of ensuring that that profession is practised in a stable manner for a significant period before retirement, of safeguarding the proper functioning of notarial privileges and of facilitating the natural turnover and rejuvenation of that profession and, in any event, goes beyond what is necessary to achieve those aims, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.