ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 4 of Directive 2011/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the authority responsible for examining applications for international protection, or, where an action has been brought against a decision of that authority, the courts or tribunals seised, from ordering that an expert’s report be obtained in the context of the assessment of the facts and circumstances relating to the declared sexual orientation of an applicant, provided that the procedures for such a report are consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that that authority and those courts or tribunals do not base their decision solely on the conclusions of the expert’s report and that they are not bound by those conclusions when assessing the applicant’s statements relating to his sexual orientation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Rezon OOD

(Case C-418/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) - Article 57(2) and (3) - Article 64 - Article 76(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 22(2) - Rule 40(6) - Invalidity proceedings - Applications for a declaration of invalidity based on an earlier national trade mark - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Burden of proof - Rejection of the applications - Taking into account by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of new evidence - Annulment of the decisions of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO - Referral - Consequences))

(2018/C 142/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH (represented by: T. Lührig, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent), Rezon OOD (represented by: P. Kanchev, advokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders mobile.de GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Rezon ODD.

(1) OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 — LL v European Parliament

(Case C-326/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Action for annulment - Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Time limit for instituting proceedings - Calculation - Former Member of the European Parliament - Decision relating to the recovery of parliamentary assistance allowances - Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament - Article 72 - Complaint procedure within the European Parliament - Notification of the decision adversely affecting a Member of the European Parliament - Registered letter not collected by its addressee))

(2018/C 134/05)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: LL (represented by: J. Petrulionis, advokatas)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Toliušis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 19 April 2016, LL v Parliament (T-615/15, not published, EU:T:2016:432);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a decision on the merits;

3. The costs are reserved.

(1) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Georg Stollwitzer v ÖBB Personenverkehr AG

(Case C-482/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 45 TFEU - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21(1) - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2, 6 and 16 - Reference date for the purpose of advancement - Discriminatory legislation of a Member State which does not allow periods of activity completed before reaching the age of 18 to be taken into account for the purpose of determining remuneration - Abolition of provisions that are contrary to the principle of equal treatment))

(2018/C 166/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georg Stollwitzer

Defendant: ÖBB Personenverkehr AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Articles 2, 6 and 16 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to end discrimination on grounds of age arising as a result of the application of national law that took into account, for the purpose of the categorisation of the employees of an undertaking within pay scales, only periods of activity completed after the age of 18, retroactively abolishes that age limit in respect of all such workers and allows only experience acquired with other undertakings operating in the same economic sector to be taken into account.

(1) OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/11

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — DW v Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra

(Case C-651/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Maternity benefit - Calculation of the amount on the basis of the income of the insured person during a reference period of 12 months - Person employed, during that period, by an EU institution - National legislation fixing the amount at issue at 70 % of the average contribution basis - Restriction on freedom of movement for workers - Principle of sincere cooperation))

(2018/C 161/12)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DW

Defendant: Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings that, for the purposes of determining the average contribution basis when calculating the amount of maternity benefit, equates the months of the reference period in which the person concerned worked in an EU institution and was not insured in that Member State with a period of unemployment and applies to them the average contribution basis in that Member State, which has the effect of substantially reducing the amount of the maternity benefit granted to that person in comparison with the amount to which she would have been entitled had she been gainfully employed in that Member State alone.

(1) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Case C-541/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 — Article 2(6) — Article 8 — Cabotage operations — Definition — Definition contained in a ‘Questions and answers’ document drawn up by the European Commission — Legal force — National implementing measures limiting the number of loading points and unloading points which may be part of the same cabotage operation — Discretion — Restriction — Proportionality)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-541/16) ( 1 )

‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 — Article 2(6) — Article 8 — Cabotage operations — Definition — Definition contained in a ‘Questions and answers’ document drawn up by the European Commission — Legal force — National implementing measures limiting the number of loading points and unloading points which may be part of the same cabotage operation — Discretion — Restriction — Proportionality)’

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, L. Grønfeldt and U. Nielsen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, J. Nymann-Lindegren and M. Sønndahl Wolff, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Case C-526/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2011/92/EC — Assessment of the effects on the environment of drilling to locate or search for shale gas — Deep drillings — Selection criteria — Determination of thresholds)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-526/16) ( 1 )

‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2011/92/EC — Assessment of the effects on the environment of drilling to locate or search for shale gas — Deep drillings — Selection criteria — Determination of thresholds)’

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung, D. Milanowska and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, D. Krawczyk, M. Orion Jędrysek, H. Schwarz and K. Majcher, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by excluding projects to locate or search for shale gas deposits by means of drilling to a depth of 5000 metres — with the exception of drilling to a depth of more than 1000 metres in areas intended for water extraction, areas containing protected inland waters and nature protection areas in the form of national parks, nature reserves, landscape parks and ‘Natura 2000’ protection areas and the contiguous protection zones — from the procedure for determining whether an environmental impact assessment is necessary, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 2(1) and 4(2) and (3) of, and Annexes II and III to, Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

( 1 ) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Case C-642/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH v Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Trade-mark law — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 13 — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Parallel imports — Repackaging of the product bearing the mark — New labelling — Conditions applicable to medical devices)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH v Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-642/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Trade-mark law — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 13 — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Parallel imports — Repackaging of the product bearing the mark — New labelling — Conditions applicable to medical devices)’

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH

Defendant: Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a mark cannot oppose the further commercialisation, by a parallel importer, of a medical device in its original internal and external packaging where an additional label, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, has been added by the importer, which, by its content, function, size, presentation and placement, does not give rise to a risk to the guarantee of origin of the medical device bearing the mark.

( 1 ) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
1.

Article 54(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that all information relating to the supervised entity and communicated by it to the competent authority, and all statements of that authority in its supervision file, including its correspondence with other bodies, do not constitute, unconditionally, confidential information that is covered, consequently, by the obligation to maintain professional secrecy laid down in that provision. Information held by the authorities established by the Member States to perform the functions laid down by that directive that is information (i) which is not public and (ii) the disclosure of which is likely to affect adversely the interests of the natural or legal person who provided that information or of third parties, or the proper functioning of the system for monitoring the activities of investment firms that the EU legislature established in adopting Directive 2004/39, is to be so classified.
Case C-574/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Grupo Norte Facility SA v Angel Manuel Moreira Gómez (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Definition of ‘employment conditions’ — Comparability of situations — Justification — Definition of ‘objective grounds’ — Compensation in the event of termination of a permanent employment contract on objective grounds — Lesser amount of compensation paid on expiry of a fixed-term ‘relief’ employment contract)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Grupo Norte Facility SA v Angel Manuel Moreira Gómez

(Case C-574/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Definition of ‘employment conditions’ — Comparability of situations — Justification — Definition of ‘objective grounds’ — Compensation in the event of termination of a permanent employment contract on objective grounds — Lesser amount of compensation paid on expiry of a fixed-term ‘relief’ employment contract)’

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Grupo Norte Facility SA

Respondent: Angel Manuel Moreira Gómez

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the compensation paid to workers employed under fixed-term contracts entered into in order to cover working hours no longer covered as a result of a worker taking partial retirement, such as the relief contract at issue in the main proceedings, on expiry of the term for which those contracts were concluded, is less than the compensation awarded to permanent workers on termination of their employment contract on objective grounds.

( 1 ) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
2.

Delegated Regulation No 665/2013, read in the light of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the display, in a place other than the label relating to the energy class of vacuum cleaners, the model of which is shown in Annex II to Delegated Regulation No 665/2013, of labels or symbols recalling the information contained on that energy label, if such display is likely to mislead or confuse end-users with respect to the consumption of energy of the vacuum cleaner marketed at retail at issue during its use, which is for the referring court to verify, in view of all the relevant factors and having regard to the perception of the average end-user, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account social, cultural and linguistic factors.
Case C-635/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission (Appeal — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Determination of the subject-matter of the proceedings — Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 — Call for proposals — Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) — Email informing the appellant of the rejection of its proposal — Subsequent decision of the European Commission establishing the list of selected proposals — Effective judicial protection)

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission

(Case C-635/16 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Determination of the subject-matter of the proceedings — Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 — Call for proposals — Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) — Email informing the appellant of the rejection of its proposal — Subsequent decision of the European Commission establishing the list of selected proposals — Effective judicial protection)’

Parties

Appellant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (represented by: Y. de Vries, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of 11 October 2016, Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission (T-564/15, not published, EU:T:2016:611);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.
5.

Article 4(3) TEU and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as, in the absence of a specific procedure in Bulgaria holding that Member State liable for harm caused by a national authority’s breach of EU law: — not precluding national legislation which provides for two different remedies falling within the jurisdiction of different courts subject to different conditions, provided that the referring court ascertains whether, in respect of national law, a national authority such as the Bulgarian Central Bank must be held liable on the basis of the Zakon za otgovornostta na darzhavata i obshtinite za vredi (Law on Liability of the State and of Municipalities for Damage) or the Zakon za zadalzheniata i dogovorite (Law on Obligations and Contracts) and that each of the two remedies complies with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness; — precluding national legislation which subjects the right of individuals to obtain damages to the additional condition that the national authority in question intended to cause the harm; — not precluding national legislation which subjects the right of individuals to obtain damages to the duty of providing proof of fault provided that, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, the concept of ‘fault’ does not go beyond that of a ‘sufficiently serious breach’; — not precluding national legislation which provides for the payment of a fixed-fee or fee proportional to the value in dispute provided that, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, the payment of a fixed-fee or fee proportional to the value in dispute is not contrary to the principle of effectiveness, in the light of the amount and level of the fee, whether or not that fee might represent an insurmountable obstacle to access to the courts, whether it is mandatory and of the possibilities of exemption; and — not precluding national legislation which subjects the right of individuals to obtain damages to prior annulment of the administrative measure which caused the harm, provided that, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, that requirement may reasonably be required of the injured party.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2018 — ClientEarth v European Commission

(Case C-57/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the EU institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Impact assessment report, draft impact assessment report and opinion of the Impact Assessment Board - Legislative initiatives in respect of environmental matters - Refusal to grant access - Disclosure of the documents requested in the course of the proceedings - Continuing interest in bringing proceedings - Exception relating to the protection of the ongoing decision-making process of an EU institution - General presumption))

(2018/C 399/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, J. Wolfhagen and F. Heringa, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the appellant: Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and J. Heliskoski, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and N. Otte Widgren, 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 November 2015, ClientEarth v Commission (T-424/14 and T-425/14, EU:T:2015:848);

2. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 1 April 2014 refusing to grant access to an impact assessment report for a proposed binding instrument setting a strategic framework for risk-based inspection and surveillance in relation to EU environmental legislation and an opinion of the Impact Assessment Board;

3. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 3 April 2014 refusing to grant access to a draft impact assessment report relating to access to justice in environmental matters at Member State level in the field of EU environmental policy and an opinion of the Impact Assessment Board;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ClientEarth at first instance and on appeal;

5. Orders the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
2.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 6030 final of 19 August 2014 concerning the marketing authorisations for high concentration of estradiol containing human medicinal products for topical use in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in so far as that decision directs the Member States to comply with the requirements which it stipulated for the medicinal products, for which Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel and Remedia d.o.o. hold marketing authorisation, with 0.01% estradiol by weight for topical use referenced and non-referenced in Annex I thereto, excluding the restriction that the medicinal products with 0.01% estradiol by weight for topical use;