ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 December 2020 — Hungary v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-620/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Directive (EU) 2018/957 - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Terms and conditions of employment - Remuneration - Duration of posting - Determination of the legal basis - Articles 53 and 62 TFEU - Amendment of an existing directive - Article 9 TFEU - Misuse of powers - Principle of non-discrimination - Necessity - Principle of proportionality - Extent of the principle of freedom to provide services - Road transport - Article 58 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Scope - Principles of legal certainty and legislative clarity)

(2021/C 44/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Tornyai, and M.M Tátrai, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: M. Martínez Iglesias, L. Visaggio and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented: initially by A. Norberg, M. Bencze and E. Ambrosini, then by A. Norberg, E. Ambrosini, A. Sikora-Kalėda and Zs. Bodnár, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the European Parliament: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier, A. L. Desjonquères, C. Mosser and R. Coesme, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, C. Schillemans and J. Langer, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, M. Kellerbauer, B. R. Killmann and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the Council of the European Union: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier, A. L. Desjonquères, C. Mosser and R. Coesme, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, C. Schillemans and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, M. Kellerbauer, B. R. Killmann and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hungary to bears its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 July 2022 — Italian Republic, Comune di Milano v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-59/18 and C-182/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the institutions - EU bodies, offices and agencies - European Medicines Agency (EMA) - Competence to determine the location of the seat - Article 341 TFEU - Scope - Decision adopted by the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States in the margins of a Council meeting - Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 263 TFEU - Author and legal nature of the act - Absence of binding effects in the EU legal order)

(2022/C 340/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by C. Colelli, S. Fiorentino and G. Galluzzo, avvocati dello Stato), Comune di Milano (represented by: M. Condinanzi, A. Neri and F. Sciaudone, avvocati)

Intervener in support of the Comune di Milano: Regione Lombardia (represented by: M. Tamborino, avvocato)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, J. Bauerschmidt, F. Florindo Gijón and E. Rebasti, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, Agents), European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, M. Konstantinidis and D. Nardi, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders the Italian Republic, the Comune di Milano and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs;

3. Orders the Regione Lombardia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission to bear their own costs

(1) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — Hungary v European Parliament

(Case C-650/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Article 7(1) TEU - European Parliament resolution on a proposal calling on the Council of the European Union to determine the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the values on which the European Union is founded - Articles 263 and 269 TFEU - Jurisdiction of the Court - Admissibility of the appeal - Challengeable act - Article 354 TFEU - Rules for counting votes in the Parliament - Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Rule 178(3) - Concept of ‘votes cast’ - Abstentions - Principles of legal certainty, equal treatment, democracy and sincere cooperation)

(2021/C 289/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented: initially by M.Z. Fehér, G. Tornyai and Zs. Wagner, and subsequently by M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, N. Görlitz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

3. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
3.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the Member States from imposing a ‘must carry’ obligation to broadcast a television channel free of charge on undertakings which rebroadcast, by means of satellite networks owned by third parties, television programmes protected by a conditional access system and offer their customers television programme packages, provided, first, that that obligation to broadcast allows a significant number or percentage of end users of all of the means of broadcasting television programmes to access the channel benefiting from that obligation and, secondly, that account is taken of the geographical distribution of the end users of the services supplied by the operator on whom that ‘must carry’ obligation is imposed, of the fact that the latter rebroadcasts that channel unencrypted and of the fact that that channel is freely available online and via the terrestrial broadcasting network, which it is for the referring court to verify.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — San Domenico Vetraria SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-94/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Articles 2 and 6 - Scope - Taxable transactions - Services supplied for consideration - Secondment of staff by a parent company to its subsidiary - Reimbursement by the subsidiary limited to the costs incurred)

(2020/C 215/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: San Domenico Vetraria SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Supported by: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2, point 1, 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 precluding national legislation under which the lending or secondment of staff of a parent company to its subsidiary, carried out in return for only the reimbursement of the related costs, is irrelevant for the purposes of VAT, provided that the amounts paid by the subsidiary to the parent company, on the one hand, and that lending or secondment, on the other, are interdependent.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — AT v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

(Case C-32/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 17(1)(a) - Right of permanent residence - Acquisition before completion of a continuous period of five years of residence - Workers who, at the time they stop working, have reached the age for entitlement to an old age pension)

(2020/C 77/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AT

Defendant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1)(a) 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 meaning that, for the purpose of acquiring the right of permanent residence in the host Member State before completion of a continuous period of 5 years of residence, the conditions that a person must have been working in that Member State at least for the preceding 12 months and must have resided in that Member State continuously for more than 3 years apply to workers who, at the time they stop working, have reached the age laid down by the law of that Member State for entitlement to an old age pension.

(1) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
1.

Article 2e(2) of Council Directive 89/665/ 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 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, Article 2e(2) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66, recitals 19 to 21 of Directive 2007/66, as well as recitals 12, 113, 115 and 117, Article 1(2) and Article 89 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in the context of a review procedure initiated ex officio by a supervisory authority, allows an infringement to be attributed and a fine imposed not only on the contracting authority but also on the tenderer, in the event that, where a public procurement contract is modified in the course of its performance, public procurement rules have been unlawfully set aside. However, where such a possibility is provided for in national legislation, the review procedure must comply with EU law, including the general principles thereof, in so far as the public contract concerned itself falls within the material scope of the Public Procurement Directives, be it ab initio or further to the unlawful modification of that contract.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ryanair Ltd, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust, Ryanair Ltd, Ryanair DAC

(Case C-28/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Air services - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Article 23(1) - Indication of the final price to be paid - Online passenger check-in fees - VAT - Administrative fees for purchases made by means of a credit card other than that approved by the air carrier - Unavoidable and foreseeable elements of the final price to be paid - Optional price supplements - Concept)

(2020/C 230/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ryanair Ltd, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust

Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust, Ryanair Ltd, Ryanair DAC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that passengers’ check-in fees whose payment cannot be avoided because there is no alternative method of checking-in free of charge, the value added tax (VAT) applied to fares for domestic flights, and administrative fees for purchases made by means of a credit card other than that approved by the air carrier constitute price elements that are unavoidable and foreseeable within the meaning of the second sentence of that provision. By contrast, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that passengers’ check-in fees whose payment can be avoided by using a free check-in option and the VAT applied to optional supplements relating to domestic flights constitute an optional price supplement within the meaning of the fourth sentence of that provision.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Kancelaria Medius SA z siedzibą w Krakowie v RN

(Case C-495/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7(1) - Consumer credit - Review of whether the contractual terms are unfair - Failure of the consumer to appear at the hearing - Scope of the court’s powers and obligations)

(2020/C 262/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Regional Court, Poznań, Poland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kancelaria Medius SA z siedzibą w Krakowie

Defendant: RN

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding the interpretation of a national provision whereby a court hearing an action brought against a consumer by a seller or supplier, which falls within the scope of Directive 93/13, and giving judgment in default, where that consumer has failed to appear at the hearing to which he was invited, is prevented from adopting the measures of inquiry needed in order to examine of its own motion whether the contractual terms on which the seller or supplier based its action are unfair, when that court has doubts as to whether those terms are unfair, within the meaning of that directive.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
1.

Articles 7, 11 and 15 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages and Article 5 of Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that they do not require that identical rates of excise duty be fixed on alcoholic beverages in the category ‘wine’, within the meaning of Directive 92/83, and on those in the category ‘fermented beverages other than wine and beer’, within the meaning of that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — IE v Magistrat der Stadt Wien

(Case C-477/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 12(1) - System of strict protection for animal species - Annex IV - Cricetus cricetus (European hamster) - Resting places and breeding sites - Deterioration or destruction - Areas which have been abandoned)

(2020/C 279/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IE

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘resting places’ referred to in that provision also includes resting places which are no longer occupied by one of the protected animal species listed in Annex IV(a) to that directive, such as the Cricetus cricetus (European hamster), where there is a sufficiently high probability that that species will return to such places, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
3.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that for an air carrier to re-route a passenger, on the ground that the aircraft carrying that passenger was affected by an extraordinary circumstance, by means of a flight operated by that carrier and resulting in that passenger arriving on the day following the day originally scheduled, does not constitute a ‘reasonable measure’ releasing that carrier from its obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of that regulation, unless there was no other possibility of direct or indirect re-routing by a flight operated by itself or any other air carrier and arriving at a time which was not as late as the next flight of the air carrier concerned or unless the implementation of such re-routing constituted an intolerable sacrifice for that air carrier in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time, which is a matter for the national court to assess.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Unipack’ АD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Dunavska’ kam Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’, Prokuror ot Varhovna administrativna prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria

(Case C-391/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - The Union Customs Code - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 - Article 172(2) - Authorisation for the use of the end-use procedure - Retroactive effect - Concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ - Change of tariff classification - Binding tariff information decision no longer valid)

(2020/C 287/20)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Unipack’ АD

Defendants: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Dunavska’ kam Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’, Prokuror ot Varhovna administrativna prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria

Operative part of the judgment

Article 172(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of the grant, under Article 254 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, of authorisation with retroactive effect for the use of the end-use customs procedure, as provided for in that provision, factors such as the premature end of the validity of a binding tariff information decision as a result of an amendment to the Combined Nomenclature, that there was no action by the customs authorities concerning imports bearing an incorrect code or the fact that the goods were used for a purpose exempted from the anti-dumping duty cannot be classified as ‘exceptional circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC, Google Inc.

(Case C-264/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Internet video platform - Uploading of a film without the consent of the rightholder - Proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 8 - Applicant’s right of information - Article 8(2)(a) - Definition of ‘addresses’ - Email address, IP address and telephone number - Not included)

(2020/C 287/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Constantin Film Verleih GmbH

Defendants: YouTube LLC, Google Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘addresses’ contained in that provision does not cover, in respect of a user who has uploaded files which infringe an intellectual property right, his or her email address, telephone number and IP address used to upload those files or the IP address used when the user’s account was last accessed.

(1) OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.
2.

Orders achtung! GmbH to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v BV

(Case C-129/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/80/EC - Article 12(2) - National schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crime guaranteeing fair and appropriate compensation - Scope - Victim residing in the Member State in which the violent intentional crime was committed - Obligation for the national compensation scheme to cover that victim - Concept of ‘fair and appropriate compensation’ - Liability of Member States in the event of a breach of EU law)

(2020/C 297/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendant: BV

Intervening party: Procura della Repubblica di Torino

Operative part of the judgment

1. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that the rules on the non-contractual liability of a Member State for damage caused by the breach of that law applies, on the ground that that Member State did not transpose, within the appropriate time, Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, as regards victims residing in that Member State, on the territory of which the violent intentional crime was committed;

2. Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80 must be interpreted as meaning that a fixed rate of compensation awarded to victims of sexual violence under the national scheme of compensation to victims of violent intentional crime cannot be classified as ‘fair and appropriate’, within the meaning of that provision, if it is fixed without taking into account the seriousness of the consequences, for the victims, of the crime committed and does not therefore represent an appropriate contribution to the reparation of the material and non-material harm suffered.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.