ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 83/5

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Frédéric Jahin v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

(Case C-45/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 11 - Levies on income from assets contributing to the financing of the social security scheme of a Member State - Exemption for nationals of the European Union affiliated to a social security scheme of another Member State - Natural persons affiliated to a social security scheme of a third country - Difference of treatment - Restriction - Justification))

(2018/C 083/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frédéric Jahin

Defendants: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a national of that Member State who resides in a third country other than a Member State of the European Economic Area (EEA) or the Swiss Confederation and is affiliated to a social security scheme in that third country is subject, in that Member State, to levies on income from assets for the purpose of contributing to the social security scheme established by that Member State, whereas an EU national covered by a social security scheme of another Member State is exempted therefrom by reason of the principle that the legislation of a single Member State only is to apply in matters of social security pursuant to Article 11 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.

(1) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case C-323/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Special areas of conservation — Article 6(3) — Screening in order to determine whether or not it is necessary to carry out an assessment of the implications, for a special area of conservation, of a plan or project — Measures that may be taken into account for that purpose)

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta

(Case C-323/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Special areas of conservation — Article 6(3) — Screening in order to determine whether or not it is necessary to carry out an assessment of the implications, for a special area of conservation, of a plan or project — Measures that may be taken into account for that purpose)’

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman

Respondent: Coillte Teoranta

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(3) 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, in order to determine whether it is necessary to carry out, subsequently, an appropriate assessment of the implications, for a site concerned, of a plan or project, it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of the measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site.

( 1 ) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Case C-8/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 63, 167, 168, 178 to 180, 182 and 219 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Right to deduct VAT — Period allowed by national law for exercising that right — Deduction of additional VAT paid to the State that was the subject of documents rectifying the initial invoices following a tax adjustment — The date from which the period starts to run)

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA

(Case C-8/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 63, 167, 168, 178 to 180, 182 and 219 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Right to deduct VAT — Period allowed by national law for exercising that right — Deduction of additional VAT paid to the State that was the subject of documents rectifying the initial invoices following a tax adjustment — The date from which the period starts to run)’

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA

Defendant: Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63, 167, 168, 178 to 180, 182 and 219 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and also the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings in which, following a tax adjustment, additional value added tax (VAT) was paid to the State and was the subject of documents rectifying the initial invoices several years after the supply of the goods in question, the right to deduct VAT is to be refused on the ground that the period laid down by that legislation for the exercise of that right started to run from the date of issue of those initial invoices and had expired.

( 1 ) OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
2.

Article 16(b) of Regulation No 110/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of establishing that there is an ‘evocation’ of a registered geographical indication, the referring court is required to determine whether, when the average European consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect is confronted with the disputed designation, the image triggered directly in his mind is that of the product whose geographical indication is protected. In making that determination, the referring court, in the absence of (i) any phonetic and/or visual similarity between the disputed designation and the protected geographical indication and (ii) any partial incorporation of that indication in that designation, must take account of the conceptual proximity, if any, between the designation and the indication. Article 16(b) of Regulation No 110/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of establishing that there is an ‘evocation’ of a registered geographical indication, account is not to be taken either of the context surrounding the disputed element, or, in particular, of the fact that that element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product concerned.
Case C-390/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2018 — Irit Azoulay and Others v European Parliament (Appeal — Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Refusal to reimburse education costs — Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union)

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2018 — Irit Azoulay and Others v European Parliament

(Case C-390/17 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Refusal to reimburse education costs — Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union)’

Parties

Appellants: Irit Azoulay, Andrew Boreham, Mirja Bouchard, Darren Neville (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: L. Deneys and E. Taneva, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Irit Azoulay, Mr Andrew Boreham, Ms Mirja Bouchard and Mr Darren Neville to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
1.

Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State in which a new application for international protection has been lodged is responsible for examining that application when no take back request has been made by that Member State within the periods laid down in Article 23(2) of that regulation, even though another Member State was responsible for examining applications for international protection lodged previously and the appeal brought against the rejection of one of those applications was pending before a court of that other Member State when those periods expired.
Case C-20/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — proceedings brought by Vincent Pierre Oberle (Request for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Article 4 — General jurisdiction of a court of a Member State to rule on the succession as a whole — National legislation governing international jurisdiction to issue national certificates of succession — European Certificate of Succession)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — proceedings brought by Vincent Pierre Oberle

(Case C-20/17) ( 1 )

‛(Request for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Article 4 — General jurisdiction of a court of a Member State to rule on the succession as a whole — National legislation governing international jurisdiction to issue national certificates of succession — European Certificate of Succession)’

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Party to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vincent Pierre Oberle

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, although the deceased did not, at the time of death, have his habitual residence in that Member State, the courts of that Member State are to retain jurisdiction to issue national certificates of succession, in the context of a succession with cross-border implications, where the assets of the estate are located in that Member State or the deceased was a national of that Member State.

( 1 ) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
2.

Article 3(2) and Article 4(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, such as that of the Hungarian National Bureau of Investigation in question in the main proceedings, which terminated an investigation opened against an unknown person, during which the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant was interviewed as a witness only, without criminal proceedings having been brought against that person and where the decision was not taken in respect of that person, cannot be relied on for the purpose of refusing to execute that European arrest warrant pursuant to either of those provisions.
1.

The second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a manufacturer of radio equipment makes use of the procedure laid down in the second paragraph of Annex III to that directive and uses the harmonised standards in order to define the test suites referred to in that paragraph, he is not required to consult a notified body as referred to in Article 11(1) of that directive and, consequently, is not required to ensure that the CE marking is accompanied by the identification number of that notified body.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — David Smith v Patrick Meade, Philip Meade, FBD Insurance plc, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-122/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Third Directive 90/232/EEC - Article 1 - Liability for personal injury caused to all passengers other than the driver - Compulsory insurance - Direct effect of directives - Obligation to disapply national legislation contrary to a directive - Non-application of a contractual clause contrary to a directive))

(2018/C 352/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: David Smith

Defendants: Patrick Meade, Philip Meade, FBD Insurance plc, Ireland, Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular Article 288 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing a dispute between private persons, which finds that it is unable to interpret the provisions of its national law that are contrary to a provision of a directive that satisfies all the conditions required for it to produce direct effect in a manner that is compatible with that provision, is not obliged, solely on the basis of EU law, to disapply those provisions of national law and a clause to be found, as a consequence of those provisions of national law, in an insurance contract.

In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a party adversely affected by the incompatibility of national law with EU law or a person subrogated to the rights of that party could however rely on the case-law arising from the judgment of 19 November 1991, Francovich and Others (C 6/90 and C 9/90, EU:C:1991:428), in order to obtain from the Member State, if justified, compensation for any loss sustained.

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli v Pilato SpA

(Case C-445/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 8703, 8704 and 8705 - Hearses))

(2018/C 328/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Defendant: Pilato SpA

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that hearses such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings must be classified under heading 8703 of that combined nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2016.
1.

Article 11 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits the court hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings from reviewing, of its own motion or at the request of the parties, the validity of the enforceable instrument in light of the existence of unfair commercial practices and, in any event, prohibits the court having jurisdiction to rule on the substance regarding the existence of those practices from adopting any interim measures, such as staying the mortgage enforcement proceedings.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2018 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-244/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Decision (EU) 2017/477 - Position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Cooperation Council established under the Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Kazakhstan, of the other part, as regards the working arrangements of the Cooperation Council, the Cooperation Committee, specialised subcommittees or any other bodies - Article 218(9) TFEU - Decision establishing the positions to be adopted on behalf of the European Union in a body set up by an international agreement - Agreement some of whose provisions may be linked with the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Voting rule))

(2018/C 399/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, L. Gussetti and P. Aalto, acting as Agents, subsequently by L. Havas and L. Gussetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (EU) 2017/477 of 3 March 2017 on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Cooperation Council established under the Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Kazakhstan, of the other part as regards the working arrangements of the Cooperation Council, the Cooperation Committee, specialised subcommittees or any other bodies;

2. Orders that the effects of Decision 2017/477 be maintained in force;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
2.

Orders Agria Polska sp. z o.o., Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o. and Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
1.

The concept of ‘inertia selling’ within the meaning of Annex I, point 29 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) must be interpreted as including, subject to verifications by the referring court, conduct, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a telecommunications operator sells SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) cards on which services such as internet browsing services and voicemail services are pre-loaded and pre-activated without first sufficiently informing the consumer of that pre-loading and pre-activation, nor the cost of those services.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — IQ v JP

(Case C-478/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 15 - Transfer to a court better placed to hear the case - Scope - Article 19 - Lis pendens))

(2018/C 436/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: IQ

Respondent: JP

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15 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, must be interpreted as not applying in circumstances, such as those in the main proceedings, in which both courts seised have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter under Articles 12 and 8, respectively, of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte v ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria Niederlassung der ING-DiBa AG

(Case C-191/17) (1)

((Directive 2007/64/EC - Payment services in the internal market - Concept of ‘payment account’ - Potential inclusion of a savings account enabling its user to make payments and withdrawals by way of a current account opened in his name))

(2018/C 436/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte

Defendant: ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria Niederlassung der ING-DiBa AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(14) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC must be interpreted as meaning that a savings account which allows for sums deposited without notice and from which payment and withdrawal transactions may be made solely by means of a current account does not come within the concept of ‘payment account’.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Tänzer & Trasper GmbH v Altenweddinger Geflügelhof Kommanditgesellschaft

(Case C-462/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 - Spirit drinks - Definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications - Category 41 of Annex II - Egg liqueur - Definition - Exhaustive nature of the permissible components)

(2019/C 4/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tänzer & Trasper GmbH

Defendant: Altenweddinger Geflügelhof Kommanditgesellschaft

Operative part of the judgment

Category 41 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be able to bear the sales denomination ‘egg liqueur’, a spirit drink cannot contain ingredients other than those mentioned in that provision.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.