ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Banco de Portugal, Fundo de Resolução, Novo Banco SA, Sucursal en España v VR

(Case C-504/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Banking supervision - Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions - Directive 2001/24/EC - Reorganisation measure adopted by an administrative authority in the home Member State of a credit institution - Transfer of rights, assets or liabilities to a ‘bridge institution’ - Transfer back to the credit institution subject to the reorganisation measure - Article 3(2) - Lex concursus - Effect of a reorganisation measure in other Member States - Mutual recognition - Article 32 - Effects of a reorganisation measure on a pending lawsuit - Exception to the application of the lex concursus - Article 47, first paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial protection - Principle of legal certainty)

(2021/C 278/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Banco de Portugal, Fundo de Resolução, Novo Banco SA, Sucursal en España

Defendant: VR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) and Article 32 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions, read in the light of the principle of legal certainty and of the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding recognition, without further conditions, in legal proceedings on the merits pending in a Member State other than the home Member State relating to a liability which a credit institution had been relieved of by a first reorganisation measure taken in the latter Member State, the effects of a second reorganisation measure seeking to transfer back, with retroactive effect at a date prior to the opening of such proceedings, that liability to that credit institution, where such recognition has the result that the credit institution to which the liabilities had been transferred by the first measure can no longer be sued, with retroactive effect, the purposes of those proceedings, thereby calling into question judicial decisions already adopted in favour of the applicant who is the subject of those same proceedings.

(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
1.

Orders that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations: — under Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by Council Directive 2013/64/EU of 17 December 2013, read in conjunction with point 2.2 of Annex II thereto by failing to take into account the unlawful abstraction of groundwater and the abstraction of water for urban supply in the estimation of groundwater abstraction in the Doñana region (Spain), as part of the more detailed characterisation of the Plan Hidrológico del Guadalquivir 2015-2021 (Guadalquivir Basin Hydrological Plan 2015-2021), approved by the Real Decreto 1/2016 por el que se aprueba la revisión de los Planes Hidrológicos de las demarcaciones hidrográficas del Cantábrico Occidental, Guadalquivir, Ceuta, Melilla, Segura y Júcar, y de la parte española de las demarcaciones hidrográficas del Cantábrico Oriental, Miño-Sil, Duero, Tajo, Guadiana y Ebro (Royal Decree 1/2016 approving the revision of the Hydrographic Plans of the river basin districts of Western Cantabria, Guadalquivir, Ceuta, Melilla, Segura and Júcar, and the Spanish part of the river basin districts of Eastern Cantabria, Miño-Sil, Duero, Tagus, Guadiana and Ebro), of 8 January 2016; — under Article 11 of Directive 2000/60, read in conjunction with Article 4(1)(c) of that directive, by failing to provide, in the programme of measures drawn up in the context of the Guadalquivir Basin Hydrological Plan 2015-2021, for any measures to prevent disturbance of the types of protected habitats located in the ‘Doñana’ protected area bearing the code ZEPA/LIC ES0000024, as a result of the abstraction of groundwater for the purposes of the tourist area of Matalascañas (Spain), and; — under Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, by failing to take appropriate measures to prevent significant disturbance of the types of protected habitats, located in the ‘Doñana’ protected area bearing the code ZEPA/LIC ES0000024, the ‘Doñana Norte y Oeste’ protected area bearing the code ZEPA/LIC ES6150009 and the ‘Dehesa del Estero y Montes de Moguer’ protected area bearing the code ZEC ES6150012, caused by the abstraction of groundwater from the Doñana protected natural area since 19 July 2006;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Van Ameyde España SA v GES, Seguros y Reaseguros SA

(Case C-923/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 1, points 1 and 2 - Article 3, first, second and final paragraphs - Concept of ‘vehicle’ - Obligation to cover damage to property - Scope - Traffic accident involving an articulated vehicle the parts of which are covered by separate compulsory insurance - Damage caused to the semi-trailer by the tractor vehicle to which it was coupled when the accident occurred - Interpretation of national legislation excluding cover for that damage by the compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of that road tractor)

(2021/C 297/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Van Ameyde España SA

Defendant: GES, Seguros y Reaseguros SA

Operative part of the judgment

The first, second and final paragraphs of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, read in conjunction with Article 1, points 1 and 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude an interpretation of national legislation which excludes from cover, and therefore from compensation, by compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of a road tractor, material damage caused by that tractor to the semi-trailer which was coupled to it when the accident occurred.

(1) OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
1.

Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, and Regulation No 882/2004 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, where an official veterinarian refuses to affix a health mark to a carcass and the owner of that carcass does not concur with that decision, the official veterinarian must bring the matter before a court so that the latter may give a decision on the merits and on the basis of the evidence of experts called by each side whether a carcass fails to comply with food safety requirements, without being able formally to annul decisions of the official veterinarian or order the lifting of the effects of such decisions.
1.

Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in the light of Article 4(2) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a security activity performed by a member of military personnel is excluded from the scope of that directive: — where that activity takes place in the course of initial or operational training or an actual military operation; or — where it is an activity which is so particular that it is not suitable for a staff rotation system which would ensure compliance with the requirements of that directive; or — where it appears, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, that that activity is carried out in the context of exceptional events, the gravity and scale of which require the adoption of measures indispensable for the protection of the life, health and safety of the community at large, measures whose proper implementation would be jeopardised if all the rules laid down in that directive had to be observed; or — where the application of that directive to such an activity, by requiring the authorities concerned to set up a rotation system or a system for planning working time, would inevitably be detrimental to the proper performance of actual military operations.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates (UK) Ltd

(Case C-410/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 1(2) - Definition of ‘commercial agent’ - Supply of computer software to customers by electronic means - Grant of a perpetual licence for use - Concepts of ‘sale’ and ‘goods’)

(2021/C 471/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Software Incubator Ltd

Defendant: Computer Associates (UK) Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘sale of goods’ referred to in Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that it can cover the supply, in return for payment of a fee, of computer software to a customer by electronic means where that supply is accompanied by the grant of a perpetual licence to use that software.

(1) OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
3.

Article 43(4) of Directive 2014/23 and Article 1(3) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator may bring an action against a decision to renew a concession on the ground that the conditions of performance of the initial concession contract have been substantially amended, even though that operator did not participate in the initial award procedure for that concession, provided that, at the time when the renewal of the concession is due to take place, that operator can show an interest in being awarded such a concession.
1.

Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as precluding the cost of a public service obligation consisting in supplying electricity at a reduced rate to certain vulnerable consumers from being borne solely by the parent companies of groups of companies or, where applicable, companies that simultaneously carry on electricity production, distribution and retail activities, since that criterion, chosen by the national legislature in order to distinguish among companies which must bear that cost and those which are exempted entirely from that burden, results in a difference in treatment which is not objectively justified between the various companies operating on that market;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad SA v European Commission

(Case C-55/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification for the difference in treatment)

(2021/C 481/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad SA (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against WB (C-748/19), XA and YZ (C-749/19), DT (C-750/19), ZY (C-751/19), AX (C-752/19), BV (C-753/19) and CU (C-754/19)

(Joined Cases C-748/19 to C-754/19) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Rule of law - Independence of the judiciary - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - National legislation providing the possibility for the Minister for Justice to second judges to higher courts and to terminate those secondments - Adjudicating panels in criminal cases including judges seconded by the Minister for Justice - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Presumption of innocence)

(2022/C 24/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Criminal proceedings against

WB (C-748/19), XA and YZ (C-749/19), DT (C-750/19), ZY (C-751/19), AX (C-752/19), BV (C-753/19) and CU (C-754/19)

other parties: Prokuratura Krajowa, formerly Prokuratura Rejonowa w Mińsku Mazowieckim (C-748/19), Prokuratura Rejonowa Warszawa-Żoliborz w Warszawie (C-749/19), Prokuratura Rejonowa Warszawa-Wola w Warszawie (C-750/19, C-753/19 and C-754/19), Prokuratura Rejonowa w Pruszkowie (C-751/19) and Prokuratura Rejonowa Warszawa-Ursynów w Warszawie (C-752/19), as well as Pictura sp. z o.o. (C-754/19)

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in the light of Article 2 TEU, and Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as precluding provisions of national legislation pursuant to which the Minister for Justice of a Member State may, on the basis of criteria which have not been made public, second a judge to a higher criminal court for a fixed or indefinite period and may, at any time, by way of a decision which does not contain a statement of reasons, terminate that secondment, irrespective of whether that secondment is for a fixed or indefinite period.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo v ZV, AX, ‘Meditsinski tsentar po dermatologia i estetichna meditsina PRIMA DERM’ ООD

(Case C-319/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2014/42/EU - Scope - National legislation providing for the confiscation of illegally obtained assets in the absence of a criminal conviction)

(2022/C 2/02)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo

Defendants: ZV, AX, ‘Meditsinski tsentar po dermatologia i estetichna meditsina PRIMA DERM’ ООD

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union, must be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State which provides that confiscation of illegally obtained assets is to be ordered by a national court in the context of or following proceedings which do not relate to a finding of one or more criminal offences.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 — European Commission v Freistaat Bayern and Others

(Joined Cases C-167/19 P and C-171/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid in favour of the German dairy sector - Financing of milk quality tests - Article 108(2) TFUE - Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 6(1) - Obligation for the European Commission to summarise the relevant issues of fact and law in that decision - Scope - Rights of interested parties to be involved in the administrative procedure - Breach of an essential procedural requirement - Consequences for the lawfulness of the final decision)

(2022/C 171/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, P. Němečková and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Freistaat Bayern (Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész and H. Weiß, Rechtsanwälte) (C-167/19 P), Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns eV, Genossenschaftsverband Bayern eV, Verband der Bayerischen Privaten Milchwirtschaft eV (represented by: C. Bittner and N. Langhans, Rechtsanwälte) (C-171/19 P)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Joined Cases C-478/19 and C-479/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Closed-ended mutual investment funds - Open-ended mutual investment funds - Investments in real estate - Mortgage registration tax and land registry fees - Tax advantage granted only to closed-ended real estate investment funds - Difference in treatment - Comparability of situations - Objective criteria of differentiation)

(2022/C 84/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC (now, after amendment, Article 63 TFEU) must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which restricts the benefit of the reduction in mortgage registration tax and in land registry fees solely to closed-ended real estate funds, to the exclusion of open-ended real estate funds, provided that those two categories of fund are in objectively comparable situations, unless such a difference in treatment is justified by the objective of limiting systemic risks on the real estate market.

(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — L v Unicaja Banco SA, formerly Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria S.A.U.

(Case C-869/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Mortgage agreement - Unfairness of the ‘floor clause’ in the agreement - National rules concerning the judicial appeal procedure - Limitation of the temporal effects of the declaration that an unfair term is void - Restitution - Power of review by the national appeal court of its own motion)

(2022/C 266/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L

Defendant: Unicaja Banco SA, formerly Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria S.A.U.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding the application of principles of national judicial procedure, under which a national court, hearing an appeal against a judgment temporally limiting the repayment of sums wrongly paid by the consumer under a term declared to be unfair, cannot raise of its own motion a ground relating to the infringement of that provision and order the repayment of those sums in full, where the failure of the consumer concerned to challenge that temporal limitation cannot be attributed to his or her complete inaction.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
1.

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court to find that a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, even if it has been contractually amended by those parties. Such a finding leads to the restoration of the situation that the consumer would have been in in the absence of the term found to be unfair, except where the consumer, by means of amendment of the unfair term, has waived such restoration by free and informed consent, which it is for the national court to ascertain. However, it does not follow from that provision that a finding that the original term is unfair would, in principle, lead to annulment of the contract, since the amendment of that term made it possible to restore the balance between the obligations and rights of those parties arising under the contract and to remove the defect which vitiated it;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — UAB ‘P.’ v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w B.

(Case C-48/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 203 - Taxes improperly invoiced - Good faith on the part of the issuer of the invoice - Risk of loss of tax revenue - Obligations of the Member States to provide for the possibility of adjusting tax improperly invoiced - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)

(2021/C 182/26)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UAB ‘P.’

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w B.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principles of proportionality and neutrality of VAT must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not allow a taxable person acting in good faith to adjust invoices improperly indicating VAT following the initiation of a tax investigation procedure, even though the recipient of those invoices would have been entitled to reimbursement of that tax if the transactions which were the subject of those invoices had been duly declared.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.