ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — CeDe Group AB v KAN sp. z o.o., in liquidation

(Case C-198/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Articles 4 and 6 - Insolvency proceedings - Applicable law - European order for payment procedure - Failure to pay a contractual claim before bankruptcy - Exception of set-off based on a contractual claim arising prior to bankruptcy)

(2020/C 27/03)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CeDe Group AB

Defendant: KAN sp. z o.o., in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 788/2008 of 24 July 2008, must be interpreted as not applying to an action brought by the liquidator of an insolvent company established in one Member State for the payment of goods delivered under a contract concluded before the insolvency proceedings were opened in respect of that company, against the other contracting company, which is established in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Fujikura Ltd v European Commission, Viscas Corp.

(Case C-590/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for underground and submarine power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Determination of the relative weight of the European and non-European participants in the cartel - Participation of European undertakings at several levels of the cartel - Principle of equal treatment)

(2020/C 61/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fujikura Ltd (represented by: L. Gyselen, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, A. Biolan and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents), Viscas Corp (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Declares that Fujikura Ltd is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Declares that Viscas Corp. is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — TB v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-519/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Immigration policy - Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 10(2) - Optional provision - Prerequisites for exercising the right to family reunification - Member of a refugee’s family not referred to in Article 4 - Concept of a ‘dependant’)

(2020/C 54/09)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TB

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from authorising the family reunification of a refugee’s sister only if she is, on account of her state of health, unable to provide for her own needs, provided that:

— first, that inability is assessed having regard to the special situation of refugees and at the end of a case-by-case examination taking into account all the relevant factors, and

— secondly, that it may be ascertained, having regard also to the special situation of refugees and at the end of a case-by-case examination taking into account all the relevant factors, that the material support of the person concerned is actually provided by the refugee, or that the refugee appears as the family member most able to provide the material support required.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
1.

Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992, in conjunction with Article 31 of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive), Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance, in conjunction with Article 36(1) of that directive, and Article 185(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), in conjunction with Article 186(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the period for exercising the right to cancel a life assurance contract begins to run from the moment when the policyholder is informed that the contract is concluded, even though the information provided by the assurance undertaking to that policyholder — either fails to specify that the national law applicable to the contract does not provide for any formal requirements for the exercise of that right of cancellation, or — indicates formal requirements that are in reality not required by the national law applicable to that contract or by the clauses set out in that contract, provided that such an indication does not essentially limit the circumstances in which the policyholders can exercise their right of cancellation as compared with the circumstances in which they could have done so if that information had been correct. It is for the referring courts to assess, on the basis of an overall assessment taking into account, in particular, the national legislative context and the facts in the main proceedings, whether the error contained in the information provided to the policyholder created such a limitation.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Viscas Corp. v European Commission and Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd

(Case C-582/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for underground and submarine power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Determining the relative weight of the European and non-European members in the cartel - Participation of European undertakings in the cartel at several levels - Principle of equal treatment)

(2020/C 61/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Viscas Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, A. Biolan and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents), Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (represented by: initially, by A. Luke and C. Pouncey, Solicitors, and, subsequently, by A. Luke and K. Fountoukakos, Solicitors)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

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

3. Orders Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
2.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which fines suppliers of services established in another Member State for non-compliance with the obligation to submit a tax declaration for the purposes of their liability to a tax on advertising in a series of fines issued within several days, the amount of which, from the second day, is tripled in relation to the amount of the previous fine if it is still found that that obligation has not been complied with, leading to a total amount of several million euros, without the competent authority giving those suppliers of services the time necessary to comply with their obligations or the opportunity to submit their observations, or having itself examined the seriousness of the infringement, before adopting the final decision fixing the total amount of those fines, whereas the amount of the fine which suppliers of services established in the Member State where the tax is levied who fail to comply with a similar obligation to submit a tax declaration or to register contrary to the general provisions of national tax legislation is significantly less and is not increased, in the event of continued failure to comply with such an obligation, in the same proportions, nor necessarily within such a short period of time.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2020 — PTC Therapeutics International Ltd v European Medicines Agency, European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (Eucope)

(Case C-175/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - First indent of Article 4(2) - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Article 4(3) - Protection of the decision-making process - Documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency in the context of a marketing authorisation application for a medicinal product for human use - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - General presumption of confidentiality - No obligation for an EU institution, body, office or agency to apply a general presumption of confidentiality)

(2020/C 77/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PTC Therapeutics International Ltd (represented by: G. Castle, B. Kelly, and K. Ewert, Solicitors, and by C. Thomas, Barrister, and M. Demetriou QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (initially represented by: T. Jabłoński, S. Marino, S. Drosos, A. Spina and A. Rusanov, and subsequently by T. Jabłoński, S. Marino and S. Drosos, acting as Agents), European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (Eucope) (represented by: S. Cowlishaw, Solicitor, and D. Scannell, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders PTC Therapeutics International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA);

3. Orders the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA v European Commission, Asstra Associazione Trasporti

(Case C-587/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - State aid - Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) - Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) - European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market)

(2020/C 161/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA (represented by: G. Capo and L. Visone, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, P. J. Loewenthal and L. Armati, acting as Agents), Asstra Associazione Trasporti (represented by: M. Malena, avvocato)

Operative part

The Court

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-75/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Tax on the turnover of telecommunications operators - Progressive tax having a greater impact on undertakings owned by natural or legal persons of other Member States than on national undertakings - Progressive tax bands applicable to all taxable persons - Neutrality of the amount of turnover as a criterion of differentiation - Ability to pay of taxable persons - State aid - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Turnover taxes - Meaning)

(2020/C 137/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State that establishes a progressive tax on turnover, the actual burden of which is mainly borne by undertakings controlled directly or indirectly by nationals of other Member States or by companies that have their registered office in another Member State, due to the fact that those undertakings achieve the highest turnover in the market concerned.

2. Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the introduction of a tax which is based on the overall turnover of the taxable person and which is levied periodically, and not at each stage of the production and distribution process, there being no right to deduct tax paid at an earlier stage of that process.

(1) OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
3.

The second subparagraph of Article 16(6) of Regulation No 714/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that, when a national regulatory authority applies that provision to a transmission system operator (TSO) that merely operates a cross-border interconnector, it is for that authority to authorise that TSO to use part of its congestion revenues to make a return as well as for the operation and maintenance of the interconnector, in order to prevent it being discriminated against by comparison with the other TSOs concerned and to ensure that it is in a position in which it is able to carry out its activity in financially acceptable conditions, which includes making an appropriate profit.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 — Czech Republic) — Libuše Králová v Primera Air Scandinavia

(Case C-215/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(1) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Articles 15 to 17 - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 6 and 7 - Right to compensation in the case where a flight is subject to a long delay - Contract for carriage combining travel and accommodation concluded between the passenger and a travel agency - Action for compensation brought against the air carrier which is not a party to that contract - Directive 90/314/EEC - Package travel)

(2020/C 215/05)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Libuše Králová

Defendant: Primera Air Scandinavia

Operative part of the judgment

1. Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger on a flight which has been delayed for three hours or more may bring an action for compensation under Articles 6 and 7 of that regulation against the operating air carrier, even if that passenger and that air carrier have not entered into a contract between them and the flight in question forms part of a package tour covered by Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours.

2. Article 5(1) 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 an action for compensation brought pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004 by a passenger against the operating air carrier comes within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’, within the meaning of that provision, even if no contract was concluded between those parties and the flight operated by that air carrier was provided for by a package travel contract, also including accommodation, concluded with a third party.

3. Articles 15 to 17 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for compensation brought by a passenger against the operating air carrier, with which that passenger has not concluded a contract, does not come within the scope of those articles relating to special jurisdiction over consumer contracts.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
3.

Articles 80 to 82 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, must be interpreted as not conferring power on the competent authority, for the purposes of those provisions, to resolve, by applying the criteria established in Article 75 of that directive, disputes between users and providers of payment services arising from non-execution or defective execution of a payment transaction, where that authority exercises its powers to assess complaints lodged by payment services users and to impose penalties on payment service providers in the event of infringement of the applicable provisions. Such disputes must be resolved through the out-of-court redress procedures referred to in Article 83 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, without prejudice to the right to bring proceedings before a court in accordance with national procedural law. If the national legislature opted to concentrate the powers conferred in Articles 80 to 82 and those conferred in Article 83 of the directive in the hands of the same authority, that authority must exercise each of those powers independently, applying only the relevant respective procedures;
2)

Articles 1(i) and 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011 and Article 2(2) 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 must be interpreted as precluding provisions of a Member State under which frontier workers may receive a family allowance linked to the exercise by them of an activity as an employed person in that Member State only in respect of their own children, excluding those of their spouse with whom they have no parent-child relationship but for whose maintenance they provide, whereas all children residing in that Member State are entitled to receive that allowance.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

(Case C-446/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input VAT - Excess VAT - Retention of the excess following the initiation of a tax inspection procedure - Request for a refund of the excess part relating to transactions not covered by that procedure)

(2020/C 240/03)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AGROBET CZ, s.r.o.

Defendant: Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 179, 183 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not allow the tax authority, before the end of a tax inspection procedure relating to a value added tax (VAT) return showing an excess for a given tax period, to refund that part of the excess relating to transactions which are not covered by that procedure at the time it was initiated, provided that it is not possible to establish in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner that a VAT excess, the amount of which may potentially be lower than the amount relating to the transactions not covered by that procedure, will exist regardless of the outcome of that procedure, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v Ministerraad

(Case C-667/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/138/EC - Legal expenses insurance - Article 201 - Insured person’s right freely to choose a lawyer - Proceedings - Meaning - Mediation proceedings)

(2020/C 240/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone

Defendant: Ministerraad

Operative part of the judgment

Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘proceedings’ referred to in that provision includes judicial and extrajudicial mediation proceedings in which a court is involved or is capable of being involved, whether when those proceedings are initiated or after they are concluded.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.