ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Declares that — by adopting and maintaining in force legislation which applies a rate of excise duty 50 % below the standard national rate to tsipouro and tsikoudia manufactured by ‘systematic distilleries’, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 19 and 21 in conjunction with Article 23(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, and — by adopting and maintaining in force legislation which applies, on conditions laid down by that legislation, a much reduced rate of excise duty to tsipouro and tsikoudia manufactured by small ‘occasional’ distillers, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 19 and 21 in conjunction with Article 22(1) of Directive 92/83 and with Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 July 2019 — FTI Touristik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Harald Prantner, Daniel Giersch

(Case C-99/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Opposition proceedings - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘Fl’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the word element ‘fly.de’ - Rejection - Similarity between the signs - Name in normal script in the European Union Trade Marks Bulletin - Likelihood of confusion)

(2019/C 305/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: FTI Touristik GmbH (represented by: A. Parr, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Walicka and D. Botis, Agents), Harald Prantner, Daniel Giersch (represented by: S. Eble, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders FTI Touristik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO);

3. Orders Mr Harald Prantner and Mr Daniel Giersch to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 September 2019 — HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-123/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant following its inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Action for damages - Conditions which must be met in order for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability - Concept of ‘sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law’ - Assessment - Concept of ‘company owned or controlled’ - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 383/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (represented by M. Schlingmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by R. Tricot, M. Kellerbauer and C. Zadra, and subsequently by R. Tricot, C. Hödlmayr and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 December 2017, HTTS v Council (T-692/15, EU:T:2017:890);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Massimo Gambino, Shpetim Hyka

(Case C-38/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/29/EU - Minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime - Articles 16 and 18 - Victim testimony before a criminal court of first instance - Change in the composition of the bench - Requirement for a victim to repeat his oral evidence at the request of one of the parties to the proceedings - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 47 and 48 - Right to a fair trial and rights of the defence - Principle of immediacy - Scope - Victim’s right to protection during criminal proceedings)

(2019/C 319/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Bari

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

Massimo Gambino, Shpetim Hyka

Interveners: Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Bari, Ernesto Lappostato, Banca Carige SpA — Cassa di Risparmio di Genova e Imperia

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 16 and 18 of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, where the victim of a crime has already given testimony before the bench of a criminal court of first instance and the composition of that bench is changed subsequently, the testimony of that victim must, in principle, be given before that bench in its new composition where one of the parties to the proceedings refuses to allow such a bench to rely on the written record of that victim’s first testimony.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
2.

Article 26(5) of Directive 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, must be interpreted as conferring on the Member States a measure of discretion when laying down the criteria relating to the accuracy and reliability of the information on the location of the caller to the single European emergency call number ‘112’; however, the criteria which they lay down must ensure, within the limits of technical feasibility, that the caller’s position is located as reliably and accurately as is necessary to enable the emergency services usefully to come to the caller’s assistance, this being a matter for the national court to assess;
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Pollo del Campo S.c.a., Avi Coop Società Cooperativa Agricola (C-199/18), C.A.F.A.R. — Società Agricola Cooperativa, Società Agricola Guidi di Roncofreddo di Guidi Giancarlo e Nicolini Fausta (C-200/18) v Regione Emilia-Romagna, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale 104 di Modena, A.U.S.L. Romagna (C-199/18 and C-200/18) and SAIGI Società Cooperativa Agricola a r.l., MA.GE.MA. Società Agricola Cooperativa v Regione Emilia-Romagna, A.U.S.L. Romagna (C-343/18)

(Joined Cases C-199/18, C-200/18 and C-343/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Article 27 - Official controls of feed and food - Financing - Fees or charges payable for official controls - Possibility for the Member States to exempt certain categories of operators - Minimum rates for fees)

(2019/C 383/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Pollo del Campo S.c.a., Avi Coop Società Cooperativa Agricola (C-199/18), C.A.F.A.R. — Società Agricola Cooperativa, Società Agricola Guidi di Roncofreddo di Guidi Giancarlo e Nicolini Fausta (C-200/18) and SAIGI Società Cooperativa Agricola a r.l., MA.GE.MA. Società Agricola Cooperativa (C-343/18)

Respondents: Regione Emilia-Romagna, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale 104 di Modena, A.U.S.L. Romagna (C-199/18 and C-200/18) and Regione Emilia-Romagna, A.U.S.L. Romagna (C-343/18)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are obliged to require the payment of fees relating to official controls on the activities referred to in Annex IV, section A and Annex V, section A to that regulation also from food and feed business operators which carry out the slaughtering and cutting of meat as ancillary activities to their main activity of rearing.

2. Article 27 of Regulation No 882/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow a Member State to apply rates for fees which are lower than the minimum rates specified in Annex IV, section B and Annex V, section B to Regulation No 882/2004.

(1) OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
2.

Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down, as regards fixed-term workers covered by that legislation, a maximum duration of employment relationships that is longer for part-time workers than for comparable full-time workers, if it is established that that legislation adversely affects a significantly higher percentage of women in the workforce than men in the workforce, and if that legislation is not objectively justified by a legitimate aim or the means of achieving that aim are not appropriate and necessary. Article 19(1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that that provision does not require the party who considers himself wronged by such discrimination to submit, in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, specific statistics or specific facts regarding workers affected by the national legislation at issue, if that party does not have access or only has limited access to those statistics or facts.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

(Case C-63/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 71 - Subcontracting - National legislation limiting the possibility of subcontracting to 30 % of the total amount of the contract)

(2019/C 399/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vitali SpA

Defendant: Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

Operative part of the judgment

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, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits to 30 % the share of the contract which the tenderer is permitted to subcontract to third parties.

(1) OJ C 166, 14.5.2018
—

precluding, by contrast, such a legislation which defines the concepts of electricity transmission system and electricity distribution system based on criteria relating not only to the voltage but also to the ownership of the assets used to exercise transmission and distribution activities, respectively. That interpretation is without prejudice, however, first, to the application of Article 17(1)(a) of the directive, according to which the transmission system must be owned by an independent transmission operator and, secondly, to the Member States’ right to require that the distribution system operator own that system, in so far as that requirement does not jeopardise the achievement of the objectives sought by the directive, in particular by making such a system fall outside the scope of the obligation to comply with the rules applicable to it under the directive — which is a matter for the referring court to determine.
3.

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a term in a trust agreement concluded between a professional and a consumer for the management of shares in a limited partnership, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which has not been individually negotiated and according to which the applicable law is the law of the Member State of the partnership’s seat, is unfair, within the meaning of that provision, where it leads the consumer into error by giving him the impression that only the law of that Member State applies to the contract, without informing him that under Article 5(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual relations and Article 6(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 he also enjoys the protection of the mandatory provisions of the national law that would be applicable in the absence of that term.
2.

Regulation No 1107/2009 and, in particular, Article 52 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the adaptation of the period of validity of a parallel trade permit does not automatically follow from the decision to renew the authorisation of the reference product, but requires that a decision be taken in this respect. Regulation No 1107/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that, when it comes to the adaptation of the period of validity of a parallel trade permit to the period of validity of the renewed authorisation of the reference product, the conditions for obtaining that permit laid down in Article 52(1) to (3) of Regulation No 1107/2009 must be satisfied and it is for the competent authority of the Member State concerned to determine whether that is indeed the case. Article 52(3)(a) of Regulation No 1107/2009 must be interpreted as including a situation in which the plant protection product authorised by the Member State of origin is manufactured by company A, while the reference plant protection product is manufactured, using the same process but in a different location from the former, by company B with the consent of company A, provided that that arrangement is a long-term arrangement similar to a licensing arrangement.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — C GmbH & Co. KG (C-573/18), C-eG (C-574/18) v Finanzamt Z

(Joined Cases C-573/18 and C-574/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 11A(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Subsidy directly linked to price - Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 - Article 11(1) and Article 15 - Producer organisation having set up an operational fund - Deliveries made by the producer organisation to its members in exchange for payments not covering the entirety of the purchase price - Additional financing paid by the operational fund)

(2019/C 423/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: C GmbH & Co. KG (C-573/18), C-eG (C-574/18)

Defendant: Finanzamt Z

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11A(1)(a) of the 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 meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which a ‘producer organisation’, within the meaning of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruits and vegetables, purchases goods from input suppliers, supplies those goods to its partner members and obtains from them a payment not covering the purchase price, the amount that an operational fund, such as provided for in Article 15 of that regulation, pays to that producer organisation for the supply of those goods to producers is incorporated in the consideration for that supply and must be regarded as a subsidy directly linked to the price of that supply, paid for by a third party.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Land Berlin

(Case C-379/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Directive 2009/12/EC - Articles 3 and 6 - Article 11(1) and (7) - Airport charges - Protection of airport users’ rights - Whether it is possible for the airport managing body to agree charges lower than those approved by the independent supervisory authority - Remedies available to an airport user - Collateral challenge before a civil court giving judgment on the basis of equitable criteria)

(2020/C 27/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: Land Berlin

Interveners: Berliner Flughafen GmbH, Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the judgment

1. Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges, in particular Article 3, Article 6(5)(a) and Article 11(1) and (7) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision that allows an airport managing body to determine, together with an airport user, airport charges different from those set by that body and approved by the independent supervisory authority, within the meaning of that directive.

2. Directive 2009/12 must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national law whereby an airport user is prevented from challenging directly the decision of the independent supervisory authority approving the charging system, but can bring an action against the airport managing body before a civil court and can plead in that action only that the charges determined in the charging system that that user must pay are inequitable.

(1) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
1.

The concept of ‘change of status’, within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements, must be interpreted as including a transaction, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which an institution ceases, in the course of a year, to be under the supervision of the national resolution authority following a cross-border merger through acquisition by its parent company, and as a result that transaction has no impact on the institution’s obligation to pay in full the ordinary contributions due for the contribution year in question.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E.P.

(Case C-380/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Regulation (EU) 2016/399 - Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) - Article 6 - Entry conditions for third-country nationals - Concept of ‘threat to public policy’ - Return decision issued to an illegally staying third-country national)

(2020/C 54/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Respondent: E.P.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) must be interpreted as not precluding a national practice under which the competent authorities may issue a return decision to a third-country national not subject to a visa requirement, who is present on the territory of the Member States for a short stay, on the basis of the fact that that national is considered to be a threat to public policy because he or she is suspected of having committed a criminal offence, provided that that practice is applicable only if, first, the offence is sufficiently serious, in the light of its nature and of the punishment which may be imposed, to justify that national’s stay on the territory of the Member States being brought to an immediate end and, second, those authorities have consistent, objective and specific evidence to support their suspicions, matters which are for the referring court to establish.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
1.

Article 7(2)(g) and Article 20(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that where a decision requiring payment of a financial penalty has been notified in accordance with the national legislation of the issuing Member State, indicating the right to contest the case and the time limit for such a legal remedy, the authority of the Member State of execution may not refuse to recognise and execute that decision provided that the person concerned has had sufficient time to contest that decision, which is for the national court to verify, and the fact that the procedure imposing the financial penalty in question is administrative in nature is not relevant in that regard;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-752/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Article 6, the first paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2008/50/EC - Atmospheric pollution - Ambient air quality - Air quality plan - Limit values for nitrogen dioxide - Obligation to adopt appropriate measures to ensure that any exceedance period is very short - Obligation on the national courts to take any necessary measure - Refusal of a regional government to comply with an injunction - Coercive detention contemplated in respect of senior political representatives or senior officials of the region concerned - Effective judicial protection - Right to liberty of the person - Legal basis - Proportionality)

(2020/C 61/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances in which a national authority persistently refuses to comply with a judicial decision enjoining it to perform a clear, precise and unconditional obligation flowing from EU law, in particular from Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, it is incumbent upon the national court having jurisdiction to order the coercive detention of office holders involved in the exercise of official authority where provisions of domestic law contain a legal basis for ordering such detention which is sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application and provided that the limitation on the right to liberty, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, that would result from so ordering complies with the other conditions laid down in that regard in Article 52(1) of the Charter. On the other hand, if there is no such legal basis in domestic law, EU law does not empower that court to have recourse to such a measure.

(1) OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.