ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

In a situation in which a Union citizen has made use of his freedom of movement by moving to and taking up genuine residence, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, in a Member State other than that of which he is a national, and, whilst there, has created or strengthened a family life with a third-country national of the same sex to whom he is joined by a marriage lawfully concluded in the host Member State, Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the competent authorities of the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national from refusing to grant that third-country national a right of residence in the territory of that Member State on the ground that the law of that Member State does not recognise marriage between persons of the same sex.
5.

Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 35 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that a person registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) must, if he or she is a beneficiary of effective protection or assistance from that agency in a third country that is not the territory in which he or she habitually resides but which forms part of the area of operations of that agency, be considered as enjoying sufficient protection in that third country, within the meaning of that provision, when it: — agrees to readmit the person concerned after he or she has left its territory in order to apply for international protection in the European Union; and — recognises that protection or assistance from UNRWA and supports the principle of non-refoulement, thus enabling the person concerned to stay in its territory in safety under dignified living conditions for as long as necessary in view of the risks in the territory of habitual residence.
2.

Orders that if the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment the Slovak Republic must pay the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 5 000 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 25 April 2013, Commission v Slovakia (C-331/11, not published, EU:C:2013:271), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 25 April 2013, Commission v Slovakia (C-331/11, not published, EU:C:2013:271), has been complied with in full;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona — Spain) — Proceedings brought by Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-207/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Processing of personal data - Directive 2002/58/EC - Articles 1 and 3 - Scope - Confidentiality of electronic communications - Protection - Article 5 and Article 15(1) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7 and 8 - Data processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services - Access of national authorities to the data for the purposes of an investigation - Threshold of seriousness of an offence capable of justifying access to the data))

(2018/C 436/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona

Party to the main proceedings

Ministerio Fiscal

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that the access of public authorities to data for the purpose of identifying the owners of SIM cards activated with a stolen mobile telephone, such as the surnames, forenames and, if need be, addresses of the owners, entails interference with their fundamental rights, enshrined in those articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is not sufficiently serious to entail that access being limited, in the area of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, to the objective of fighting serious crime.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Enzo Buccioni v Banca d’Italia

(Case C-594/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2013/36/EU - Article 53(1) - Obligation of professional secrecy on national authorities charged with prudential supervision of credit institutions - Credit institution which is being compulsorily wound up - Disclosure of confidential information in civil or commercial proceedings))

(2018/C 408/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Enzo Buccioni

Defendant: Banca d’Italia

Intervener: Banca Network Investimenti SpA, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 53(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding the competent authorities of the Member States from disclosing confidential information to a person who so requests in order to be able to institute civil or commercial proceedings with a view to protecting proprietary interests which were prejudiced as a result of the compulsory liquidation of a credit institution. However, the request for disclosure must relate to information in respect of which the applicant puts forward precise and consistent evidence plausibly suggesting that it is relevant for the purposes of civil or commercial proceedings, the subject matter of which must be specifically identified by the applicant and without which the information in question cannot be used. It is for the competent authorities and courts to weigh up the interest of the applicant in having the information in question and the interests connected with maintaining the confidentiality of the information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, before disclosing each piece of confidential information requested.

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 May 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud and from the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers — Czech Republic, Belgium) — M v Ministerstvo vnitra (C-391/16), X (C-77/17), X (C-78/17) v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Joined Cases C-391/16, C-77/17 and C-78/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - International protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Refugee status - Article 14(4) to (6) - Refusal to grant or revocation of refugee status in the event of danger to the security or the community of the host Member State - Validity - Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 78(1) TFEU - Article 6(3) TEU - Geneva Convention)

(2019/C 255/02)

Languages of the case: Czech and French

Referring courts

Nejvyšší správní soud and Conseil du contentieux des étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M (C-391/16), X (C-77/17), X (C-78/17)

Defendants: Ministerstvo vnitra (C-391/16), Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (C-77/17, C-78/17)

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of Article 14(4) to (6) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of those provisions in the light of Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.

OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
3.

Proof of an abusive practice requires, first, a combination of objective circumstances in which, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the EU rules, the purpose of those rules has not been achieved and, second, a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the EU rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down for obtaining it. The presence of a certain number of indications may demonstrate that there is an abuse of rights, in so far as those indications are objective and consistent. Such indications can include, in particular, the existence of conduit companies which are without economic justification and the purely formal nature of the structure of the group of companies, the financial arrangements and the loans.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/16

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti — Romania) — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-104/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Recovery and recycling of waste - National environmental fund contribution - National marketing of packaged products and their packaging, without alteration - ‘Polluter-pays’ principle - Status of polluter))

(2018/C 166/20)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Piteşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Cali Esprou SRL

Defendant: Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste and the ‘polluter-pays’ principle which it implements do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a contribution on an economic operator which does not make any alteration to the packaging which it places on the market, calculated on the basis of the difference in weight between, on the one hand, the quantity of packaging waste corresponding to the minimum targets for energy recovery and recovery by recycling and the quantity of packaging waste actually recovered or recycled.

(1) OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/15

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus — Estonia) — Collect Inkasso OÜ and Others v Rain Aint and Others

(Case C-289/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European enforcement order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification - Minimum standards for uncontested claims procedures - Rights of the debtor - No indication of the address of the institution to which a notice may be addressed contesting the claim or before which an appeal against the decision may be brought))

(2018/C 142/20)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu Maakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS

Defendants: Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(a) and Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that a court judgment delivered without the debtor having been informed of the address of the court to which to respond or before which to appear, or, as appropriate, before which an appeal can be lodged against such a decision, cannot be certified as a European Enforcement Order.

(1) OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.
Case C-335/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) — Bulgaria) — Neli Valcheva v Georgios Babanarakis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Scope — Concept of ‘rights of access’ — Article 1(2)(a) and Article 2.7 and 2.10 — Rights of access of grandparents)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) — Bulgaria) — Neli Valcheva v Georgios Babanarakis

(Case C-335/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Scope — Concept of ‘rights of access’ — Article 1(2)(a) and Article 2.7 and 2.10 — Rights of access of grandparents)’

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Neli Valcheva

Respondent: Georgios Babanarakis

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘rights of access’ referred to in Article 1(2)(a) and in Article 2.7 and 2.10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as including rights of access of grandparents to their grandchildren.

( 1 ) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Case C-458/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 — Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria and against influential members of the Assad and Makhlouf families — Rights of defence — Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded)

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 — Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-458/17 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria and against influential members of the Assad and Makhlouf families — Rights of defence — Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded)’

Parties

Appellant: Rami Makhlouf (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Havas and R. Tricot. acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Rami Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

( 1 ) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Case C-49/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Koppers Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 21(3) — Chargeable event giving rise to taxation — Consumption of energy products produced within the curtilage of an establishment producing energy products — Energy products used for purposes other than as motor fuels or as heating fuels — Consumption of solvent as fuel at the coal tar distillation plant)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Koppers Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-49/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 21(3) — Chargeable event giving rise to taxation — Consumption of energy products produced within the curtilage of an establishment producing energy products — Energy products used for purposes other than as motor fuels or as heating fuels — Consumption of solvent as fuel at the coal tar distillation plant)’

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Koppers Denmark ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the consumption of energy products, within the curtilage of an establishment that has produced them, for the purpose of producing other energy products does not fall within the exception, laid down in that provision, concerning the chargeable event giving rise to taxation where, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the energy products produced by virtue of the main activity of that establishment are used for purposes other than as motor fuels or as heating fuels.

( 1 ) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
1.

Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as requiring the Member State of which a Union citizen is a national to facilitate the provision of a residence authorisation to the unregistered partner, a third-country national with whom that Union citizen has a durable relationship that is duly attested, where the Union citizen, having exercised his right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, returns with his partner to the Member State of which he is a national in order to reside there.
Case C-230/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Erdem Deha Altiner, Isabel Hanna Ravn v Udlændingestyrelsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Article 21(1) TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national — Entry by that family member into the territory of the Member State in question subsequent to the return of the Union citizen to that Member State)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Erdem Deha Altiner, Isabel Hanna Ravn v Udlændingestyrelsen

(Case C-230/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Article 21(1) TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national — Entry by that family member into the territory of the Member State in question subsequent to the return of the Union citizen to that Member State)’

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Erdem Deha Altiner, Isabel Hanna Ravn

Defendant: Udlændingestyrelsen

Operative part of the judgment

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which does not provide for the grant of a derived right of residence in another Member State, under Union law, to a third-country national family member of a Union citizen who is a national of that Member State and who returns there after having resided, pursuant to and in conformity with Union law, in another Member State, when the family member of the Union citizen concerned has not entered the territory of the Member State of origin of the Union citizen or has not applied for a residence permit as a ‘natural consequence’ of the return to that Member State of the Union citizen in question, provided that such rules require, in the context of an overall assessment, that other relevant factors also be taken into account, in particular factors capable of showing that, in spite of the time which elapsed between the return of the Union citizen to that Member State and the entry of the family member who is a third-country national, in the same Member State, the family life created and strengthened in the host Member State has not ended, so as to justify the granting to the family member in question of a derived right of residence; it is for the referring court to verify whether this is the case.

( 1 ) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Combaro SA

(Case C-574/17) (1)

((Appeal - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 239 - Remission of import duties - Import of linen fabrics from Latvia between 1999 and 2002 - Special situation - Supervision and monitoring obligations - Corruption alleged of the customs authorities - Inauthentic movement certificate - Mutual trust))

(2018/C 328/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: European Commission (represented by A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Combaro SA (represented by: D. Ehle, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2017, Combaro v Commission (T-752/14, EU:T:2017:529);

2. Dismisses the action brought by Combaro SA;

3. Orders Combaro SA to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
3.

Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12 must be interpreted as meaning that a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings may be classified as ‘another indirect tax’ as regards its environmental objective, which is intended to finance additional costs resulting from the obligation to purchase green energy, but not as regards its objectives of territorial and social cohesion, such as the geographical price-balancing mechanism and the reduction in the price of electricity for low-income households, or as regards its purely administrative objectives, including the financing of costs inherent in the administrative operations of public authorities or institutions such as the médiateur national de l’énergie and the Caisse des dépôts et consignations, subject to verification by the referring court of compliance with the tax rules applicable for excise duty purposes.
2)

Article 72(1)(a), Article 91(1) and (2), Article 93(1) and Article 94 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 4(1)(b), (c) and (e) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements relating to good agricultural and environmental conditions, provided for by Regulation No 1306/2013 must be complied with on the whole of the agricultural holding and not solely on the agricultural area in respect of which the payment is specifically requested.