ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Aviabaltika’ UAB v ‘Ūkio bankas’ AB, in liquidation

(Case C-107/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/47/EC - Enforcement of financial collateral arrangements - Commencement of insolvency proceedings against the collateral taker - Occurrence of the enforcement event - Inclusion of the financial collateral in the assets remaining after the insolvency - Obligation to satisfy the claims primarily from the financial collateral))

(2018/C 328/14)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Aviabaltika’ UAB

Respondent:‘Ūkio bankas’ AB, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(5) of Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to adopt rules which enable a taker of collateral provided under a security financial collateral arrangement to recover its claim, arising from a failure to discharge the relevant financial obligations, from that collateral, where the enforcement event occurs after insolvency proceedings have been commenced against that taker.

2. Article 4(1) and (5) of Directive 2002/47, as amended by Directive 2009/44, must be interpreted as not requiring the taker of collateral provided under a security financial collateral arrangement to recover its claim, arising from a failure to discharge the financial obligations covered by that arrangement, primarily from that collateral.

(1) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA

(Case C-129/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5 - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9 - Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA)))

(2018/C 328/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV

Respondents: Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a mark is entitled to oppose a third party, without its consent, removing all the signs identical to that mark and affixing other signs on products placed in the customs warehouse, as in the main proceedings, with a view to importing them or trading them in the EEA where they have never yet been marketed.

(1) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Château du Grand Bois SCI v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

(Case C-59/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Market in wine - Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 - Support for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards - Unannounced on-the-spot checks - Powers of control officials - Whether officials may enter agricultural land without having obtained the vine grower’s permission))

(2018/C 352/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Château du Grand Bois SCI

Respondent: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 76, 78 and 81 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, must be interpreted as not authorising officials carrying out an on-the-spot check to enter agricultural land without having obtained the vine grower’s permission.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Nefiye Yön v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart

(Case C-123/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association - Decision No 2/76 - Article 7 - Standstill clause - Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker - Visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State))

(2018/C 352/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nefiye Yön

Defendant: Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart

Interveners: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 of 20 December 1976 adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, taken during the period from 20 December 1976 to 30 November 1980, which makes the grant, for the purposes of family reunification, of a residence permit to third-country nationals who are family members of a Turkish worker residing lawfully in the Member State concerned, subject to such nationals obtaining, before entering national territory, a visa for the purpose of that reunification, constitutes a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that provision. Such a measure may nevertheless be justified on the grounds of the effective control of immigration and the management of migratory flows, but may be accepted only provided that the detailed rules relating to its implementation do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued, which it is for the national court to verify.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy România SRL, formerly Gamesa Wind România SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-69/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Right of deduction - Acquisitions made by a taxpayer declared ‘inactive’ by the tax authorities - Refusal of the right of deduction - Principles of proportionality and neutrality of VAT))

(2018/C 408/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy România SRL, formerly Gamesa Wind România SRL

Respondents: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, in particular Articles 213, 214 and 273 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which it is permissible for the tax authorities to refuse, on account of a failure to submit tax returns, a taxable person which has made acquisitions in the period during which its value added tax identification number was revoked the right to deduct value added tax on those acquisitions using value added tax returns filed — or invoices issued — after the reactivation of its identification number, on the sole ground that those acquisitions took place in the period during which its value added tax identification number was de-activated and where the substantive requirements have been satisfied and the right of deduction is not being invoked fraudulently or abusively.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Starman AS v Tarbijakaitseamet

(Case C-332/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 21 - Consumer contracts - Telephone communications - Practice of a telecommunication services provider consisting in offering its customers who have already concluded a contract a speed dial number at a rate higher than the basic rate))

(2018/C 408/30)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Starman AS

Defendant: Tarbijakaitseamet

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as precluding a situation in which, if a trader has made available to all its customers one or more speed dial numbers at a rate higher than the basic rate, consumers who have concluded a contract with the trader in question pay more than the basic rate when contacting that trader by telephone in relation to that contract.

(1) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
1.

The second subparagraph of Article 4(2) 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 meaning: — first, that a church or other organisation the ethos of which is based on religion or belief and which manages a hospital in the form of a private limited company cannot decide to subject its employees performing managerial duties to a requirement to act in good faith and with loyalty to that ethos that differs according to the faith or lack of faith of such employees, without that decision being subject, where appropriate, to effective judicial review to ensure that it fulfils the criteria laid down in Article 4(2) of that directive; and — second, that a difference of treatment, as regards a requirement to act in good faith and with loyalty to that ethos, between employees in managerial positions according to the faith or lack of faith of those employees is consistent with that directive only if, bearing in mind the nature of the occupational activities concerned or the context in which they are carried out, the religion or belief constitutes an occupational requirement that is genuine, legitimate and justified in the light of the ethos of the church or organisation concerned and is consistent with the principle of proportionality, which is a matter to be determined by the national courts.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

(Case C-372/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification of goods - Volatile-memory camera, meaning that recorded images are deleted when the camera is switched off or when new images are captured - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 8525 80 19 and 8525 80 30 - Explanatory Notes - Interpretation - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 - Interpretation - Validity))

(2018/C 408/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vision Research Europe BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8525 80 30 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as covering a camera, such as the camera at issue in the main proceedings, that is capable of capturing a large number of photographic images per second and of storing them in its volatile internal memory — images that are deleted from that memory when the camera is switched off — and that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 of 4 February 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature, in so far as it is applicable by analogy to goods that have the characteristics of that camera, is invalid.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
2.

Article 1(2)(a) and Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings which, by treating private ‘classified’ hospitals as equivalent to public hospitals on account of their integration into the system of national public healthcare planning governed by special agreements that are distinct from ordinary accreditation relationships with other private parties that participate in the system of provision of healthcare services, take them outside the scope of national and EU rules on public contracts, including in cases where such classified hospitals are entrusted with the manufacture and supply, free of charge, to public healthcare establishments of specific products which are necessary for the provision of healthcare services and where, at the same time, they receive public funding specifically for the manufacture and supply of those products.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg/Okrajno Sodišče Pliberk — Austria) — Čepelnik d.o.o. v Michael Vavti

(Case C-33/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Labour law - Posting of workers in order to carry out construction works - Reporting of workers - Retention and translation of payslips - Suspension of payments - Payment of a security by the recipient of the services - Surety for a possible fine to be imposed on the service provider))

(2019/C 16/07)

Languages of the case: German and Slovenian

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Bleiburg/Okrajno Sodišče Pliberk

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Čepelnik d.o.o.

Defendant: Michael Vavti

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the competent authorities can order a commissioning party established in that Member State to suspend payments to his contractor established in another Member State, or even to pay a security in an amount equivalent to the price still owed for the works in order to guarantee payment of the fine which might be imposed on that contractor in the event of a proven infringement of the labour law of the first Member State.

(1) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by ‘Roche Lietuva’ UAB

(Case C-413/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public supply contract for medical diagnostic equipment and materials - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 42 - Award - Margin of appreciation of the contracting authority - Detailed formulation of the technical specifications)

(2019/C 4/06)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

‘Roche Lietuva’ UAB

In the presence of: Kauno Dainavos poliklinika VšĮ

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18 and 42 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 not imposing on the contracting authority, in establishing technical specifications in a procurement procedure concerning the acquisition of medical supplies, by principle, prioritising either the importance of the individual characteristics of the medical supplies or the importance of the result of their functioning, but requiring that the technical specifications, as a whole, comply with the principles of equality of treatment and proportionality. It is for the national court to assess whether, in the dispute before it, the technical specifications at issue comply with those requirements.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
2.

Article 12(1) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which permits an application for family reunification lodged on behalf of a member of a refugee’s family, on the basis of the more favourable provisions for refugees of Chapter V of that directive, to be rejected on the ground that that application was lodged more than three months after the sponsor was granted refugee status, whilst affording the possibility of lodging a fresh application under a different set of rules provided that that legislation: — lays down that such a ground of refusal cannot apply to situations in which particular circumstances render the late submission of the initial application objectively excusable; — lays down that the persons concerned are to be fully informed of the consequences of the decision rejecting their initial application and of the measures which they can take to assert their rights to family reunification effectively; and — ensures that sponsors recognised as refugees continue to benefit from the more favourable conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification applicable to refugees, specified in Articles 10 and 11 or in Article 12(2) of the directive.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — X (C-47/17), X (C-48/17) v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Joined Cases C-47/17 and C-48/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Criteria and mechanisms for determination - Request to take charge of or take back an asylum seeker - Negative reply from the requested Member State - Re-examination request - Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1560/2003 - Time limit for replying - Expiry - Effects))

(2019/C 16/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X (C-47/17), X (C-48/17)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 118/2014 of 30 January 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the course of the procedure for determining the Member State that is responsible for processing an application for international protection, the Member State which receives a take charge or take back request under Articles 21 and 23 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, which, after making the necessary checks, has replied in the negative to that request within the time limits laid down in Articles 22 and 25 of Regulation No 604/2013 and which, thereafter, receives a re-examination request under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003, must endeavour, in the spirit of sincere cooperation, to reply to the re-examination request within a period of two weeks.

Where the requested Member State does not reply within that period of two weeks to the re-examination request, the additional re-examination procedure shall be definitively terminated, with the result that the requesting Member State must, as from the expiry of that period, be considered to be responsible for the examination of the application for international protection, unless it still has available to it the time needed to lodge, within the mandatory time limits laid down for that purpose in Article 21(1) and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 604/2013, a further take charge or take back request.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 — Bank Tejarat v Council of the European Union

(Case C-248/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Annulment of a listing by the General Court - Re-listing - Reasons for the listing relating to financial support to the Government of Iran and the procurement of prohibited goods and technologies - Scope - Financing of oil and gas projects - Evidence dating from before the first listing - Facts known before the first listing - Article 266 TFEU - Res judicata - Scope - Effective judicial protection))

(2019/C 35/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bank Tejarat (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and A. Meskarian, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, T. Otty QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Kneale and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Bank Tejarat to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
2.

Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person not only performs activities consisting in the negotiation of the sale or purchase of goods for another person, or the negotiation and conclusion of those transactions on behalf of and in the name of that other person, but also performs, for the same person, activities of another kind, without those other activities being subsidiary to the first kind of activities, does not preclude that person from being classified as a ‘commercial agent’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that that fact does not prevent the former activities from being performed in an independent manner, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.