ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

Article 8 of Directive 2008/94, which lays down an obligation to provide a minimum degree of protection, is capable of having direct effect, so that it may be relied upon against an institution governed by private law that is designated by the State as the institution which guarantees occupational pensions against the risk of an employer’s insolvency where, in the light of the task with which it is vested and the circumstances in which it performs the task, that institution can be treated as comparable to the State, provided that the task of providing a guarantee with which the institution is vested actually covers the type of old-age benefits in respect of which the minimum degree of protection provided for in Article 8 is sought.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 14 de Madrid — Spain) — Almudena Baldonedo Martín v Ayuntamiento de Madrid

(Case C-177/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Clause 5 - Measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships - Compensation if the employment relationship is terminated - Articles 151 and 153 TFEU - Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Applicability - Difference of treatment based on whether a public or private regime, within the meaning of national law, governs the employment relationship)

(2020/C 77/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 14 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Almudena Baldonedo Martín

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Madrid

Operative part of the judgment

1. Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding a national law that does not provide for the payment of any compensation either for fixed-term workers employed as interim civil servants or for established civil servants who have an employment relationship of indefinite duration, upon the termination of their employment, whereas it provides for the payment of such compensation to contract workers employed for an indefinite duration upon the termination of their contract of employment on an objective ground;

2. Articles 151 and 153 of the TFEU and Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work set out in the annex to Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as not precluding a national law that does not provide for payment of any compensation to fixed-term workers employed as interim civil servants upon the termination of their employment, whereas compensation is granted to fixed-term contract workers upon the expiry of their contract of employment.

(1) OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — GRDF SA v Eni Gas & Power France SA, Direct énergie, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Procureur général at the Cour d’appel de Paris

(Case C-236/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common rules for the internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Article 41(11) - Settlement of disputes concerning the obligations imposed on a system operator - Temporal effects of decisions of the dispute settlement authority - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations)

(2020/C 68/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GRDF SA

Defendants: Eni Gas & Power France SA, Direct énergie, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Procureur général at the Cour d’appel de Paris

Operative part of the judgment

It follows from the foregoing considerations that the answer to the question referred is that Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC must be interpreted as not precluding that the effects of a decision of a regulatory authority, referred to in Article 41(11) of that directive, extend to the situation of the parties to the dispute before that authority which prevailed between them before the emergence of that dispute, inter alia, as regards a contract for the transmission of natural gas, by requiring a party to that dispute to bring that contract into conformity with Union law for the entire contractual period.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg — Germany) — Reiner Grafe, Jürgen Pohle v Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH

(Case C-298/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Transfer of an undertaking - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Operation of bus routes - Re-employment of the staff - Operating resources not taken over - Grounds)

(2020/C 137/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Reiner Grafe, Jürgen Pohle

Defendants: Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH

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, in the context of the takeover by an economic entity of an activity the pursuit of which requires substantial operating resources, under a procedure for the award of a public contract, the fact that that entity does not take over those resources, which are the property of the economic entity previously engaged in that activity, on account of legal, environmental and technical constraints imposed by the contracting authority, cannot necessarily preclude the classification of that takeover of activity as a transfer of an undertaking, since other factual circumstances, such as the taking-over of the majority of the employees and the pursuit, without interruption, of that activity, make it possible to establish that the identity of the economic entity concerned has been retained, this being a matter for the referring court to assess.

(1) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
1.

Article 12 of Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007, read in conjunction with Articles 21 and 22 of Directive 82/891, must be interpreted as not precluding the creditors of the company being divided whose credit interests antedate that division, who did not take advantage of the creditor protection tools provided for in the national legislation implementing that article, from bringing an actio pauliana after the division has been implemented, in order to obtain a declaration that the division in question has no effect against them and to bring enforcement or protective action in relation to the assets transferred to the newly formed company.
3.

Orders Burlington Fashion GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Tulliallan Burlington Ltd in relation both to the first-instance proceedings in Cases T-120/16 to T-123/16 and the procedures on appeal, in equal shares.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA v Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-395/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement of supplies, works or services - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 18(2) - Article 57(4) - Optional grounds for exclusion - Ground for exclusion of a subcontractor mentioned in the economic operator’s tender - Subcontractor’s failure to comply with environmental, social and labour law obligations - National legislation providing for automatic exclusion of the economic operator for such a failure)

(2020/C 137/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA

Defendant: Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Intervener: E-VIA SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 57(4)(a) 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 does not preclude national legislation under which the contracting authority has the option, or even the obligation, to exclude the economic operator who submitted the tender from participation in the contract award procedure where the ground for exclusion referred to in that provision is established in respect of one of the subcontractors mentioned in that operator’s tender. However, that provision, read in conjunction with Article 57(6) of that directive, and the principle of proportionality preclude national legislation providing for the automatic nature of such exclusion.

(1) OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘GVC Services (Bulgaria)’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

(Case C-458/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Directive 2011/96/EU - Article 2(a)(i) and (iii), and Annex I, Part A(ab) and the last indent of Part B - Concepts of ‘companies incorporated under United Kingdom law’ and ‘United Kingdom corporation tax’ - Companies registered in Gibraltar which are subject to corporation tax there)

(2020/C 222/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘GVC Services (Bulgaria)’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

Operative part

Article 2(a)(i) and (iii) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, read in conjunction with Part A(ab) and the last indent of Part B of Annex I to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the concepts ‘companies incorporated under United Kingdom law’ and ‘corporation tax in the United Kingdom’ in those provisions do not cover companies incorporated in Gibraltar which are subject to corporation tax there.

(1) OJ C 341 of 24.9.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi and the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Miasto Łowicz v Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Łódzki (C-558/18) and Prokurator Generalny, represented by the Prokuratura Krajowa, formerly the Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku v VX, WW, XV (C-563/18)

(Joined Cases C-558/18 and C-563/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Rule of law - Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by Union law - Principle of judicial independence - Disciplinary regime applicable to national judges - Jurisdiction of the Court - Article 267 TFUE - Admissibility - Interpretation necessary for the referring court to be able to give judgment - Meaning)

(2020/C 215/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi, Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-558/18)

Applicant: Miasto Łowicz

Defendant: Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Łódzki

In the presence of: Prokurator Generalny, represented by the Prokuratura Krajowa, formerly the Prokuratura Regionalna w Łodzi, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

(Case C-563/18)

Applicant: Prokurator Generalny, represented by the Prokuratura Krajowa, formerly the Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku

Defendants: VX, WW, XV

Operative part of the judgment

The requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Regional Court, Łódź, Poland) and by the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Regional Court, Warsaw, Poland), by decisions of 31 August 2018 and 4 September 2018, are inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
—

not precluding the legislation of a Member State under which a two-week period for lodging an objection against a penalty order imposing a driving ban on a person begins to run from service of the order on their authorised person, provided that, as soon as that person becomes aware of it, they can benefit from the two-week period for lodging an objection to the order and where appropriate, following or in the context of the procedure for a person’s position being restored to the status quo ante without having to show that they have taken the necessary steps to inform themselves as soon as possible from their authorised person of the existence of that order, and that the effects of that order are suspended during that period,
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 March 2020 — ClientEarth v European Commission

(Case C-612/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(1)(a), third indent, and (6) - Exceptions to the right of access - Protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Documents drawn up by the European Commission’s legal service concerning Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements - Partial refusal of access)

(2020/C 222/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: O. W. Brouwer and E. M. Raedts, advocaten, and N. Frey, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Thomas Leonhard v DSL-Bank — a branch of DB Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG

(Case C-301/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2002/65/EC - Distance loan agreement - Right of withdrawal - Consequences - Article 7(4) - Return of the services received - Payment of compensation for benefit of use - Supplier’s obligation - Precluded)

(2020/C 262/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thomas Leonhard

Defendant: DSL-Bank — a branch of DB Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(4) 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, where a consumer exercises his or her right to withdraw from a distance loan agreement concluded with a supplier, that consumer has the right to receive from that supplier, subject to certain sums which the consumer himself or herself is required to pay to the supplier under the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) and (3) of that directive, the principal repaid and the interest paid under that agreement, but does not have the right to receive compensation for the benefit of use of that principal and that interest.

(1) OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Dong Yang Electronics sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-547/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 44 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 - Article 11(1) - Supply of services - Point of reference for tax purposes - Concept of a ‘fixed establishment’ - Taxable person for VAT purposes - Subsidiary of a company of a non-Member State located in a Member State)

(2020/C 240/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dong Yang Electronics sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, and Article 11(1) and Article 22(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112, must be interpreted as meaning that the existence, in the territory of a Member State, of a fixed establishment of a company established in a non-Member State may not be inferred by a supplier of services from the mere fact that that company has a subsidiary there, and that supplier is not required to inquire, for the purposes of such an assessment, into contractual relationships between the two entities.

(1) OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2020 — French Republic v European Parliament

(Case C-92/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law of the institutions - Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union - European Parliament - Concept of ‘budgetary session’ held in Strasbourg (France) - Article 314 TFEU - Exercise of budgetary powers during an additional plenary part-session held in Brussels (Belgium))

(2020/C 279/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented initially by: E. de Moustier, A.-L. Desjonquères, J.-L. Carré, F. Alabrune, D. Colas and B. Fodda, and subsequently by E. de Moustier, A.-L. Desjonquères, A. Daly and J.-L. Carré, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: R. Crowe, U. Rösslein and S. Lucente, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented initially by: D. Holderer, C. Schiltz and T. Uri, and subsequently by C. Schiltz and T. Uri, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay, in addition to its own costs, those of the European Parliament;

3. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD SA,

(Case C-581/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU law - General principles - Article 18 TFEU - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality - Applicability of EU law - Defective breast implants - Insurance against civil liability arising from the production of medical devices - Insurance contract prescribing a geographical limitation on insurance coverage)

(2020/C 271/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RB

Defendant: TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD SA,

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a clause, stipulated in a contract concluded between an insurance company and a manufacturer of medical devices, limiting the geographical extent of the insurance coverage against civil liability arising from those devices to harm that has occurred in the territory of a single Member State, since such a situation does not fall, as EU law currently stands, within the scope of application of EU law.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
1.

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 transfer of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, having regard in particular to Article 3(1) and (4) and Article 5(2)(a) of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking subject to insolvency proceedings that is carried out by the insolvency administrator of that undertaking, national legislation, as interpreted by national case-law, which provides that, on the occurrence, after the opening of insolvency proceedings, of an event that confers eligibility for a retirement pension under a supplementary occupational pension scheme, the transferee is not liable for an employee’s rights conferring prospective entitlement to that retirement pension where those rights have accrued with respect to periods of employment that preceded the opening of the insolvency proceedings, provided that, with respect to the portion of the amount for which the transferee is not liable, the measures adopted to protect the interests of the employees are at a level that is at least equivalent to the level of protection required under Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.
1.

Declares that, by having failed to adopt, on the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion of 8 December 2017, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, and, therefore, by having failed to notify those provisions to the European Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67 of Directive 2015/849;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Pirelli & C. SpA v European Commission, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl

(Case C-611/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Powers of the European Commission in the area of fines - Imputability of the infringement - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights - Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2020/C 433/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Pirelli & C. SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa and G. Rizza, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, P. Rossi, C. Sjödin and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents), Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (represented initially by C. Tesauro and L. Armati, avvocati, subsequently by V. Roppo and P. Canepa, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.