ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 32(3) to (6) and the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of Ley 40/2015 de Régimen Jurídico del Sector Público (Law 40/2015 on the legal system governing the public sector) of 1 October 2015 and the third subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Ley 39/2015 del Procedimiento Administrativo Común de las Administraciones Públicas (Law 39/2015 on the common administrative procedure of the public authorities) of 1 October 2015, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principle of effectiveness, in that those provisions make compensation for the loss or harm caused to individuals by the Spanish legislature as a result of an infringement of EU law subject to: — the condition that there is a decision of the Court of Justice declaring that the statutory provision applied is incompatible with EU law; — the condition that the individual harmed has obtained, before any court, a final decision dismissing an action brought against the administrative act which caused the loss or harm, without providing for an exception for cases in which the loss or harm stems directly from an act or omission on the part of the legislature, contrary to EU law, without there being any administrative act open to challenge; — a limitation period of one year from the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision of the Court of Justice declaring that the statutory provision applied is incompatible with EU law, without covering cases in which such a decision does not exist, and — the condition that compensation may be awarded only in respect of loss or harm which occurred within five years preceding the date of that publication, unless otherwise provided for in that decision;
1.

Article 21(1)(b)(i) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that an employee may, in the courts for the last place where or from where he or she habitually carried out his or her work, sue a person, whether domiciled in a Member State or not, to whom the employee is not bound by a formal contract of employment, but who, by virtue of a letter of comfort on which the conclusion of the contract of employment with a third party depended, is directly liable to that employee for the fulfilment of that third party’s obligations, provided that there is a relationship of subordination between that person and the employee.
2.

In so far as Article 49 TFEU is applicable, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, a piece of national legislation which temporarily reduces, during the term of licensing agreements concluded between companies and the administration of the Member State concerned, the license holders’ commissions agreed to in those agreements, unless it appears, in view of the extent of the impact of that reduction on the profitability of the investments made by licence holders and in view of the possible suddenness and unforeseeable nature of that measure, that those licence holders were not given the time necessary to adapt to that new situation.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Orde van Vlaamse Balies, IG, Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers, CD, JU v Vlaamse Regering

(Case C-694/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation - Mandatory automatic exchange of information in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements - Directive 2011/16/EU, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/822 - Article 8ab(5) - Validity - Legal professional privilege of the lawyer - Exemption from the reporting obligation for the benefit of lawyer-intermediaries subject to legal professional privilege - Obligation on that lawyer-intermediary to notify any other intermediary who is not his or her client of that intermediary’s reporting obligations - Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2023/C 35/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Orde van Vlaamse Balies, IG, Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers, CD, JU

Defendant: Vlaamse Regering

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8ab(5) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018, is invalid in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the Member States’ application of that provision has the effect of requiring a lawyer acting as an intermediary, within the meaning of Article 3(21) of that directive, as amended, where he or she is exempt from the reporting obligation laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 8ab of that directive, as amended, on account of the legal professional privilege by which he or she is bound, to notify without delay any other intermediary who is not his or her client of that intermediary’s reporting obligations under paragraph 6 of that Article 8ab.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Impexeco NV v Novartis AG (C-253/20), PI Pharma NV v Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV (C-254/20)

(Joined Cases C-253/20 and C-254/20) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Free movement of goods - Intellectual property - Trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(2) - Article 13 - Directive 2008/95 - Article 5(1) - Article 7 - Rights conferred by a trade mark - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark - Parallel imports of medicinal products - Reference medicinal product and generic medicinal product - Economically linked undertakings - Repackaging of the generic medicinal product - New outer packaging - Affixing the trade mark of the reference medicinal product - Opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark - Artificial partitioning of the markets between the Member States)

(2023/C 15/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Impexeco NV (C-253/20), PI Pharma NV (C-254/20)

Defendants: Novartis AG (C-253/20), Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV (C-254/20)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2) and Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015, and Article 5(1) and Article 7 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, read in the light of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU,

must be interpreted as meaning that

the proprietor of the trade mark of a reference medicinal product and the trade mark of a generic medicinal product may oppose the placing on the market of a Member State, by a parallel importer, of that generic medicinal product imported from another Member State, where that medicinal product has been repackaged in new outer packaging to which the trade mark of the corresponding reference medicinal product has been affixed, unless, first, the two medicinal products are identical in all respects and, second, the replacement of the trade mark satisfies the conditions laid down in paragraph 79 of the judgment of 11 July 1996, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others (C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, EU:C:1996:282); in paragraph 32 of the judgment of 26 April 2007, Boehringer Ingelheim and Others (C-348/04, EU:C:2007:249); and in paragraph 28 of the judgment of 17 May 2018, Junek Europ-Vertrieb (C-642/16, EU:C:2018:322).

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
1.

Declares that, by refusing the deduction of maintenance annuities or capital sums in lieu of such annuities and supplementary annuities from taxable income to debenture holders who are not resident in Belgium and who receive less than 75 % of their professional income there and who cannot benefit from the same deduction in their Member State of residence on the basis of the small amount of their taxable income in that State, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — HJ v Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí

(Case C-101/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/94/EC - Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency - Article 2(2) - Concept of ‘employee’ - Article 12(a) and (c) - Limitations on the responsibility of the guarantee institutions - Person exercising, on the basis of a contract of employment entered into with a trading company, the functions of a management board member and chief executive officer of that company - Concurrent exercise of functions - National case-law refusing that person the benefit of the guarantees laid down by that directive)

(2022/C 257/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HJ

Defendant: Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2) and Article 12(a) and (c) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as precluding national case-law according to which a person who, on the basis of a valid contract of employment under national law, performs concurrently the duties of chief executive officer and of a member of a statutory body of a trading company cannot be regarded as an employee within the meaning of that directive and, therefore, cannot benefit from the guarantees provided for by that directive.

(1) OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.
1.

Declares that the French Republic, by not having ensured that the daily limit value applicable to concentrations of microparticles (PM10) was not systematically and persistently exceeded, from 1 January 2005 to 2019 inclusive, in the Paris agglomeration and quality zone (FR04A01/FR11ZAG01) and, from 1 January 2005 to 2016 inclusive, with the exception of 2008, in the Martinique/Fort-de-France agglomeration and quality zone (FR39N10/FR02ZAR01), failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of 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, read in conjunction with Annex XI of that directive, and by not having ensured that the air quality plans set out appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period of that limit value could be kept as short as possible in those two zones, from 11 June 2010, failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Annex XV of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X

(Case C-194/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 184 and 185 - Adjustment of deductions - Taxable person who did not exercise their right of deduction before the expiry of a limitation period - No possibility of making that deduction in the context of adjustment)

(2022/C 318/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: X

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 184 and 185 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010

must be interpreted as not precluding a taxable person who failed to exercise, before the expiry of the limitation period laid down by national law, the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) relating to the acquisition of goods or services, from being denied the possibility of subsequently making that deduction, by way of an adjustment, at the time when those goods or services are first used for the purposes of taxed transactions, even where no abuse of rights, fraud or loss of tax revenue has been established.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
2.

Article 30(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authority of a Member State may exclude, when determining the customs value, transaction values relating to other transactions entered into by the applicant for customs clearance, even if those values have not been challenged either by that customs authority or by the customs authorities of other Member States, provided that (i) for transaction values relating to imports into that Member State, that authority first calls them into question pursuant to Article 78(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2913/92, within the time limits imposed by Article 221 thereof and following the procedure laid down in Article 181a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994, and (ii) for transaction values relating to imports into other Member States, that customs authority sets out the grounds for that exclusion in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 by reference to factors affecting their plausibility;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — CC v VO

(Case C-572/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 8(1) and Article 61(a) - General jurisdiction - Perpetuatio fori principle - Transfer, during the proceedings, of the habitual residence of a child from a Member State of the European Union to a third State that is party to the 1996 Hague Convention)

(2022/C 359/12)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CC

Defendant: VO

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, read in conjunction with Article 61(a) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State that is hearing a dispute relating to parental responsibility does not retain jurisdiction to rule on that dispute under Article 8(1) of that regulation where the habitual residence of the child in question has been lawfully transferred, during the proceedings, to the territory of a third State that is a party to the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, signed at The Hague on 19 October 1996.

(1) OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR

(Case C-105/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 47 - Right to freedom of movement and residence - Right to an effective judicial remedy - Principles of equality and mutual trust - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Letter of Rights on arrest - Right of a person to be informed of the accusation against him or her in relation to a national arrest warrant - Right of access to the materials of the case - Conditions for issuing a European arrest warrant in respect of an accused person who is in the executing Member State - Primacy of EU law)

(2022/C 318/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main criminal proceedings

IR

Interested party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the right to freedom of movement and residence and the principles of equality and mutual trust must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authority issuing a European arrest warrant, adopted under Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is under no obligation to forward to the person who is the subject of that arrest warrant the national decision on the arrest of that person and information on the possibilities of challenging that decision, while that person is in the Member State executing the European arrest warrant and has not been surrendered to the competent authorities of the Member State issuing that arrest warrant.

2. The principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the issuing judicial authority to give, as far as is possible, an interpretation of its national law that is in conformity with EU law, which enables it to ensure an outcome that is compatible with the aim pursued by Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, which precludes national law from requiring that authority to forward to the person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant, before his or her surrender to the judicial authorities of the issuing Member State, the national decision on his or her arrest and information on the possibilities of challenging that decision.

(1) OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — FK

(Case C-58/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 13 - Determination of the legislation applicable - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Annex II - Article 1(2) - Person pursuing the profession of lawyer the centre of interest of whose private and professional activities is situated in Switzerland and who also pursues that profession in two other Member States - Application for the award of an early retirement pension - National legislation requiring that the person concerned waive his right to practise the profession in question in the territory of the Member State concerned and abroad)

(2022/C 418/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FK

Interested party: Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien

Operative part of the judgment

1. The conflict rules laid down in Article 13(2) 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 are not applicable to the situation of a person who resides in the Member State in which the centre of interests of his or her activities is also situated, whilst pursuing an activity — which is distributed unevenly — in two other Member States, where it is necessary to determine whether that person has direct rights vis-à-vis the institutions of one of those two other Member States by virtue of contributions paid during a given period.

2. Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the award of an early retirement pension applied for conditional on the waiver by the person concerned of the right to practise as a lawyer, without taking into account, in particular, the Member State in which the activity concerned is pursued.

(1) OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — IRnova AB v FLIR Systems AB

(Case C-399/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 24(4) - Exclusive jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over the registration or validity of patents - Scope - Patent application deposited and patent granted in a third State - Status of inventor - Proprietor of the right to an invention)

(2022/C 408/24)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IRnova AB

Defendant: FLIR Systems AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,

must be interpreted as:

not applying to proceedings aimed at determining, in the context of an action based on alleged inventor or co-inventor status, whether a person is the proprietor of the right to inventions covered by patent applications deposited and by patents granted in third countries.

(1) OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.