ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 2(6) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, must be interpreted as not precluding a national procedural rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the possibility of asserting a claim under civil law in the event of an infringement of the rules governing public procurement and the award of public contracts subject to the condition that the infringement be definitively established by an arbitration committee or, in the context of judicial review of an decision of that arbitration committee, by a court.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket

(Case C-404/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 31(8) and Article 32(2) - Manifestly unfounded application for international protection - Concept of safe country of origin - No national rules concerning that concept - Applicant’s representations considered to be reliable but insufficient having regard to the satisfactory protection offered by the applicant’s country of origin))

(2018/C 328/24)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 31(8)(b) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 32(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as not allowing an application for international protection to be regarded as manifestly unfounded in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which, first, it is apparent from the information on the applicant’s country of origin that acceptable protection can be ensured for him in that country and, secondly, the applicant has provided insufficient information to justify the grant of international protection, where the Member State in which the application was lodged has not adopted rules implementing the concept of safe country of origin.

(1) OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — X, Y v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-180/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46 - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 13 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Principle of non-refoulement - Decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return - National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction - Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance))

(2018/C 408/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X, Y

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection and Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Articles 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, whilst making provision for appeals against judgments delivered at first instance upholding a decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return, does not confer on that remedy automatic suspensory effect even in the case where the person concerned invokes a serious risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement.

(1) OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Christoph Klein v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-346/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Directive 93/42/EEC - Medical devices - Article 8(1) and (2) - Safeguard clause procedure - Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device - Absence of a decision by the European Commission - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage alleged - Evidence of the existence and extent of the damage))

(2018/C 399/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Christoph Klein (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, A. Sipos and A.C. Becker, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 September 2016, Klein v Commission (T-309/10 RENV, not published, EU:T:2016:570), in so far as it held that Mr Christoph Klein had not established the existence of a direct and sufficient causal link capable of engaging the European Union’s liability;

2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3. Dismisses the action brought by Mr Christoph Klein seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained following a breach by the European Commission of its obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices;

4. Orders Mr Christoph Klein and the European Commission to bear their own costs in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings;

5. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Josef Baumgartner

(Case C-513/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 19(2), first subparagraph - Administrative penalty for an infringement committed in the Member State of the seat of an undertaking imposed by the competent authorities of another Member State in which the infringement was detected))

(2018/C 408/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Josef Baumgartner

Other parties: Bundesamt für Güterverkehr, Staatsanwaltschaft Köln

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as directly authorising the competent authorities of a Member State to impose a penalty on an undertaking or a manager of the undertaking for an infringement of that regulation detected in its territory for which no penalty has already been imposed, even if the infringement was committed in the territory of another Member State in which the undertaking has its seat.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento — Italy) — Chiara Motter v Provincia autonoma di Trento

(Case C-466/17) (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 - Public sector - Secondary school teachers - Employment of fixed-term workers as career civil servants through recruitment based on qualification - Determination of the period of service deemed accrued - Account taken only in part of periods of service completed under fixed-term contracts))

(2018/C 408/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Chiara Motter

Defendant: Provincia autonoma di Trento

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed 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, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which for the purpose of classifying a worker in a salary grade at the time of his recruitment on the basis of qualifications as a career civil servant, takes full account only of the first four years of service completed under fixed-term contracts, only two thirds of subsequent periods of service being taken into consideration.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
1.

Declares that by allowing the use of marked fuel for the purposes of propelling private pleasure craft, even where that fuel is not subject to any exemption from or reduction in excise duty, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite v Evelina Kamenova

(Case C-105/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Article 2(b) and (d) - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 2(2) - Concepts of ‘trader’ and ‘commercial practices’))

(2018/C 436/09)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite

Defendant: Evelina Kamenova

Other party: Okrazhna prokuratura — Varna

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(b) and (d) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) and Article 2(2) 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 meaning that a natural person, such as the defendant in the main proceedings, who publishes simultaneously on a website a number of advertisements offering new and second-hand goods for sale can be classified as a ‘trader’, and such an activity can constitute a ‘commercial practice’, only if that person is acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, this being a matter for the national court to determine, in the light of all relevant circumstances of the individual case.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL v MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com

(Case C-595/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Jurisdiction clause in a distribution contract - Action for damages by the distributor based on the infringement of Article 102 TFEU by the supplier)

(2019/C 4/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL

Defendants: MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the application, in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, of a jurisdiction clause within the contract binding the parties is not excluded on the sole ground that that clause does not expressly refer to disputes relating to liability incurred as a result of an infringement of competition law.

2. Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not a prerequisite for the application of a jurisdiction clause, in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, that there be a finding of an infringement of competition law by a national or European authority.

(1) OJ C 437,18.12.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Ryanair Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners

(Case C-249/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Concept of taxable person - Holding company - Deduction of input tax - Expenditure for consultancy services received for the purpose of the acquisition of another company’s shares - Acquiring company’s intention to provide management services to the target company - Those services not provided - Right to deduct VAT charged on the services received))

(2018/C 455/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4 and 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as conferring on a company, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which intends to acquire all the shares of another company in order to pursue an economic activity consisting in the provision of management services subject to value added tax (VAT) to that other company, the right to deduct, in full, input VAT paid on expenditure relating to consultancy services provided in the context of a takeover bid, even if ultimately that economic activity was not carried out, provided that the exclusive reason for that expenditure is to be found in the intended economic activity.

(1) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 — BPC Lux 2 Sàrl v European Commission, Portuguese Republic

(Case C-544/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo SA - Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank - Decision of the European Commission declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action before the national courts seeking annulment of the decision to put Banco Espírito Santo into resolution))

(2019/C 16/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (represented by: J. Webber and M. Steenson, Solicitors, B. Woolgar, Barrister, and K. Bacon QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2017, BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (T-812/14, not published, EU:T:2017:560);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
2.

Article 15(1) and (4) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which permits an application for an autonomous residence permit, lodged by a third country national who has resided over five years in a Member State by virtue of family reunification, to be rejected on the ground that he has not shown that he has passed a civic integration test on the language and society of that Member State provided that the detailed rules for the requirement to pass that examination do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of facilitating the integration of those third country nationals.
1.

Article 29 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, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that refugees with a temporary right of residence in a Member State are to be granted social security benefits which are less than those received by nationals of that Member State and refugees who have a permanent right of residence in that Member State.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — proceedings relating to the extradition of Denis Raugevicius

(Case C-247/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - European Union Citizenship - Articles 18 and 21 TFEU - Request to a Member State by a third country seeking extradition of an EU citizen who is a national of another Member State and who has exercised his right to free movement in the first Member State - Request made for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence and not for the purpose of prosecution - Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals - Restriction on free movement - Justification based on the prevention of impunity - Proportionality))

(2019/C 16/13)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Denis Raugevicius

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18 and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where an extradition request has been made by a third country for an EU citizen who has exercised his right to free movement, not for the purpose of prosecution, but for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence, the requested Member State, whose national law prohibits the extradition of its own nationals out of the European Union for the purpose of enforcing a sentence and makes provision for the possibility that such a sentence pronounced abroad may be served on its territory, is required to ensure that that EU citizen, provided that he resides permanently in its territory, receives the same treatment as that accorded to its own nationals in relation to extradition.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AREX CZ a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-414/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(b)(i) and (iii) - Article 3(1) - Intra-Community acquisitions of goods subject to excise duties - Article 138(1) and (2)(b) - Intra-Community supply of goods - Chain transactions with a single transport - Transaction to which the transport should be ascribed - Transport under an excise duty suspension arrangement - Impact on the classification of an intra-Community purchase))

(2019/C 65/13)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AREX CZ a.s.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to intra-Community acquisitions of excise goods, in respect of which the excise duty is chargeable in the Member State of destination of the dispatch or transport of those goods, carried out by a taxable person whose other acquisitions are not subject to value added tax pursuant to Article 3(1) of that directive.

2. Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a chain of successive transactions which gave rise only to a single intra-Community transport of excise goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement, the acquisition carried out by the trader liable for payment of the excise duty in the Member State of destination of the dispatch or transport of those goods cannot be classified as an intra-Community acquisition subject to value added tax under that provision, where that transport cannot be ascribed to that acquisition.

3. Article 2(1)(b)(i) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a chain of successive acquisitions concerning the same excise goods and which gave rise only to a single intra-Community transport of those goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement, the fact that those goods are transported under that arrangement does not constitute a decisive factor in determining to which acquisition the transport is to be ascribed for the purposes of applying value added tax under that provision.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava — Slovakia) — FENS spol. s r.o. v Slovenská republika — Úrad pre reguláciu sieťových odvetví

(Case C-305/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Customs duties - Charges having equivalent effect - Levy on the transmission of electricity generated domestically and intended for export - Compatibility of such legislation with the principle of free movement of goods))

(2019/C 44/02)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Bratislava

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FENS spol. s r.o.

Defendant: Slovenská republika — Úrad pre reguláciu sieťových odvetví

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 28 TFEU and 30 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for a pecuniary charge, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is imposed on electricity exported to another Member State or to a third country only in the case where that electricity was generated within the national territory.

(1) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.