ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 9(2) and Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, and Article 10(2) and Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, read in conjunction with Articles 34 and 36 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to oppose the marketing, by a parallel importer, of a medicinal product repackaged in new outer packaging to which that trade mark is affixed where the replacement of the anti-tampering device of the original outer packaging, carried out in accordance with Article 47a(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, would leave visible or tangible traces of that original outer packaging having been opened, provided that: — there is no doubt that those traces of opening are attributable to the repackaging of that medicinal product by that parallel importer and — those traces do not cause, on the market of the Member State of importation or on a substantial part of it, such strong resistance from a significant proportion of consumers to the medicinal products repackaged in that way that it would constitute a barrier to effective access to that market.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG v Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-183/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive (EU) 2015/2436 - Article 19 - Genuine use of a trade mark - Burden of proof - Application to revoke for non-use - National procedural rule obliging the applicant to carry out market research concerning use of the mark)

(2022/C 171/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as precluding a procedural rule of a Member State which, in proceedings concerning an application for revocation of a trade mark for non-use, requires the applicant to carry out market research concerning the possible use of that mark by its proprietor and to make in that regard, to the extent possible, substantiated submissions in support of its application.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 August 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — A v B

(Case C-262/21 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Scope - Article 2(11) - Definition of ‘wrongful removal or retention of a child’ - Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 - Application for the return of a young child whose parents have joint custody - Third-country nationals - Transfer of the child and his or her mother to the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III))

(2021/C 382/04)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: B

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(11) 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 meaning that the situation in which one parent, without the consent of the other parent, is led to take his or her child from his or her Member State of habitual residence to another Member State in application of a transfer decision, made by the former Member State on the basis 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, and then to remain in the latter Member State after that transfer decision has been annulled without the authorities of the former Member State deciding to take back the persons transferred or to grant them residence, cannot constitute a wrongful removal or retention within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-44/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 9(1) - European patent - Interim measures - Power of national judicial authorities to issue an interlocutory injunction to prevent an imminent infringement of an intellectual property right - National case-law dismissing applications for interim measures where the validity of the patent in question has not been confirmed, at the very least, by a decision given at first instance in opposition or invalidity proceedings - Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law)

(2022/C 237/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG

Defendants: HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding national case-law under which applications for interim relief for patent infringement must, in principle, be dismissed where the validity of the patent in question has not been confirmed, at the very least, by a decision given at first instance in opposition or invalidity proceedings.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention and by failing to notify the text of such provisions to the European Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of that framework decision;
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v ‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD

(Case C-55/21) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 11 - Reimbursement of excise duty on excise goods released for consumption - Directive 2011/64/EU - point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 17 - Reimbursement of excise duty already paid, by means of tax markings, affixed to manufactured tobacco destroyed under administrative supervision - Obligation of Member States to adopt regulations providing for the reimbursement of excise duties on manufactured tobacco released for consumption and destroyed under customs supervision - None)

(2022/C 294/12)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Defendant:‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as meaning that those provisions do not require Member States to provide for the reimbursement of excise duty in respect of excise goods, including manufactured tobacco, destroyed under customs supervision, which have already been released for consumption.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — R. en R. v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-189/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy (CAP) - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Annex II - Statutory management requirement 10 - Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009 - Article 55, first paragraph and first sentence of second paragraph - Direct support schemes - Common rules - Reduction or exclusion of support received under the CAP in whole or in part - Non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules - Use of a plant protection product which is not or is no longer authorised in the Member State concerned and, in the latter scenario, the use-by date of which has expired)

(2022/C 257/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: R. en R.

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Operative part of the judgment

Statutory management requirement 10, as is provided for in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, which makes reference to the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers also the use of a plant protection product which is not or is no longer authorised in the Member State concerned and, in the latter scenario, the use-by date of which has expired.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH v L.B. (C-257/21), R.G. (C-258/21),

(Joined Cases C-257/21 and C-258/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 153 TFEU - Protection of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Night work - Collective agreement which provides for a lower supplementary allowance for regular night work than that established for irregular night work - Equal treatment - Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of Union law for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2022/C 318/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH

Defendants: L.B. (C-257/21), R.G. (C-258/21)

Operative part of the judgment

A provision of a collective agreement which provides for a higher supplementary allowance for irregular night work than that established for regular night work is not implementing 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 for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 — Danske Slagtermestre v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-99/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Contributions scheme for the collection of waste water - Complaint - Decision finding that there is no State aid - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Locus standi - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern)

(2022/C 318/12)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: Danske Slagtermestre (represented by: H. Sønderby Christensen, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and P. Němečková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Nymann-Lindegren, V. Pasternak Jørgensen, M. Søndahl Wolff and L. Teilgård, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 1 December 2020, Danske Slagtermestre v Commission (T-486/18, not published, EU:T:2020:576);

2. Declares the appeal at first instance admissible;

3. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the merits;

4. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Uniqa Asigurări SA v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-267/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 56 - Supply of insurance services - Point of reference for tax purposes - Claims settlement services provided by third-party companies in the name and on behalf of an insurer)

(2022/C 408/20)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uniqa Asigurări SA

Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that claims settlement services provided by third-party companies, in the name and on behalf of an insurance company, do not come within the scope of the ‘services of consultants, engineers, consultancy bureaux, lawyers, accountants and other similar services, as well as data processing and the provision of information’ referred to in that provision.

(1) OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.
Operativ e part of the judgment
1.Article 2(4) and Article 4.1 of 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 Framewo rk Decision 
2009/299/JHA of 26 Febr uary 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of double criminality of the act, 
provided for in those provisions, is met in the situation in which a European arrest warrant has been issued for the 
enforcement of a custodial sent ence handed down for acts which are covered, in the issuing Member State, by an offence 
which requires that those acts impair a legal interest prot ected in that Member State, where such acts are also covered by 
a criminal offence under the law of the executing Member State and the imp airment of that legal interest is not an 
element constituting that criminal offenc e.
2.Article 2(4) and Article 4.1 of Framewo rk Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in 
the light of Article 49(3) of the Char ter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning 
that the executing judicial author ity may not refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the enforcement of a 
cust odial sentence where that sente nce was imposed in the issuing Member State for the commission by the request ed 
person of a sing le offence consisting of several acts and only some of those acts constitute a criminal offence in the 
executing Member State.
(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Judgment of the Cour t (Four th Chamber) of 14 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of 
Poland and Others
(Case C-207/21 P) (1)
(Appeal — Annulment of Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 — Article 16(4) and (5) TEU — 
Article 3(2) and (3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions — Application ratione tempor is — 
Council’s voting rules — Qualified major ity)
(2022/C 359/06)
Language of the case: Polish
Parties
Appellant: European Commission (represente d by: Ł. Habiak, K. Herrmann, R. Tricot and C. Valero, acting as Agents)
Other parties to the proce edings: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Belgium, 
Republic of Bulg aria, Frenc h Republic, Hungary , Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by H. Eklinder , J. Lundberg, 
C. Mey er-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salbor n Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson, H. Shev and O. Simonsson, and subsequently 
by H. Eklinder , C. Mey er-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salbor n Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson, H. Shev and O. Simonsson, 
acting as Agents)
Operativ e part of the judgment
The Cour t:
1.Dismisses the appeal;
2.Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incur red by the Republic of Poland.
(1) OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.C 359/6 EN Official Jour nal of the European Union 19.9.2022
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht — Germany) — SI and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-497/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Application for international protection - Grounds for inadmissibility - Article 2(q) - Concept of ‘subsequent application’ - Article 33(2)(d) - Rejection by a Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible on account of the rejection of a previous application made by the person concerned in the Kingdom of Denmark - Final decision taken by the Kingdom of Denmark)

(2022/C 424/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SI, TL, ND, VH, YT, HN

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof and Article 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty,

must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State other than the Kingdom of Denmark which provides for the possibility of rejecting as inadmissible, in whole or in part, an application for international protection within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that directive, which has been made to that Member State by a national of a third country or a stateless person whose previous application for international protection, made to the Kingdom of Denmark, has been rejected by the latter Member State.

(1) OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Uniqa Versicherungen AG v VU

(Case C-18/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - European order for payment procedure - Regulation No 1896/2006 - Article 16(2) - 30-day time limit for lodging a statement of opposition to the European order for payment - Article 20 - Review procedure - Article 26 - Application of national law for procedural issues not specifically dealt with in that regulation - COVID 19 pandemic - National legislation which interrupted the procedural periods in civil matters for several weeks)

(2022/C 418/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uniqa Versicherungen AG

Defendant: VU

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 16, 20 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015,

must be interpreted as not precluding the application of national legislation, which was adopted when the COVID-19 pandemic arose and which interrupted the procedural periods in civil matters for approximately five weeks, to the 30-day time limit laid down by Article 16(2) of that regulation for the defendant to lodge a statement of opposition to a European order for payment.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — DN v Finanzamt Österreich

(Case C-199/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 67 and 68 - Family benefits - Right to benefits under a pension - Pensioner in receipt of pensions from two Member States - Member State(s) in which that pensioner is entitled to family benefits - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Third sentence of Article 60(1) - Legislation of a Member State providing for the award of family benefits to the parent who has taken the child into his or her household - Failure by that parent to claim the award of those benefits - Obligation to take into account the application submitted by the other parent - Request for the recovery of family benefits paid to the other parent - Whether permissible)

(2022/C 463/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DN

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich

Operative part of the judgment

1. The second sentence of Article 67 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a person is in receipt of pensions in two Member States, that person is entitled to family benefits in accordance with the legislation of those two Member States. Where the receipt of such benefits in one of those Member States is precluded pursuant to the national legislation, the priority rules referred to in Article 68(1) and (2) of that regulation do not apply.

2. The third sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the recovery of family benefits awarded, where the parent entitled to such benefits pursuant to that legislation has not applied for them, to the other parent, whose application has been taken into account, in accordance with that provision, by the competent institution, and who in fact bears the entire cost associated with the maintenance of the child.

(1) OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.