ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission

(Case C-173/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clauses - Doc@Hand Agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 - Eligible costs - European Commission decision - Obligation to reimburse sums paid - Counter-claim))

(2018/C 408/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: S. Paliou, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Catlin Europe SE v O.K. Trans Praha spol. s r.o.

(Case C-21/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - European order for payment procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - Issue of an order for payment together with the application for the order - No translation of the application for the order - European order for payment declared enforceable - Application for review after expiry of the period for opposition - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Applicability - Article 8 and Annex II - Informing the addressee of the right to refuse to accept a document instituting proceedings that has not been translated - Lack of the standard form - Consequences))

(2018/C 399/08)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant (defendant at first instance): Catlin Europe SE

Applicant at first instance: O.K. Trans Praha spol. s r.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a European order for payment is served on the defendant without the application for the order, annexed to the order, being written in or accompanied by a translation into a language he is deemed to understand, as required by Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1393/2007, the defendant must be duly informed, by means of the standard form in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, of his right to refuse to accept the document in question.

If that formal requirement is omitted, the procedure must be regularised in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 1393/2007, by communicating to the addressee the standard form in Annex II to that regulation.

In that case, as a result of the procedural irregularity affecting the service of the European order for payment together with the application for the order, the order does not become enforceable and the period in which the defendant may lodge a statement of opposition cannot start to run, so that Article 20 of Regulation No 1896/2006 cannot apply.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Stefan Rudigier

(Case C-518/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 5(1) - Award of public service contracts - Article 7(2) - Obligation to publish certain information in the Official Journal of the European Union at least one year before the launch of the procedure - Consequences of non-publication - Annulment of the call for tenders - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 27(1) - Article 47(1) - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 45(1) - Article 66(1) - Contract notice))

(2018/C 408/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Stefan Rudigier

Other party: Salzburger Verkehrsverbund GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that

— the obligation to provide prior information laid down in that provision applies to contracts for public transport services by bus which are in principle awarded in accordance with the procedures provided for by Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC or by Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC;

— an infringement of that obligation to provide prior information does not entail the annulment of the call for tenders concerned, provided that the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and equal treatment are complied with, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm — Germany) — Surjit Singh Bedi v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Prozessstandschaft für das Vereinigte Königreich von Großbritannien und Nordirland

(Case C-312/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(2) - Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of disability - Collective agreement on social security - Bridging assistance paid to former civilian employees of the Allied forces in Germany - Termination of the payment of that assistance when the recipient becomes entitled to early payment of a retirement pension for disabled persons under the statutory pension scheme))

(2018/C 408/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Surjit Singh Bedi

Defendants: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Prozessstandschaft für das Vereinigte Königreich von Großbritannien und Nordirland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, as precluding a provision in a collective agreement under which the payment of bridging assistance — granted with the aim of ensuring a reasonable means of subsistence to a worker who has lost his job until he is entitled to a retirement pension under the statutory pension scheme — must cease once that worker is entitled to early payment of a retirement pension for severely disabled persons under that scheme.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
1.

Declares that, by not ensuring that the minimum levels of taxation applicable to motor fuels laid down by Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity were applied to gas oil used as fuel for propelling private pleasure craft, and by permitting the use of marked fuel for propelling private pleasure craft, even where that fuel is not subject to any exemption from, or reduction in, excise duty, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 7 of Directive 2003/96 and Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene respectively;
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Società Immobiliare Al Bosco Srl

(Case C-379/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial co-operation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial matters - Time limit laid down in the law of the Member State addressed for enforcing a preventive attachment order - Applicability of that time limit to a preventive attachment instrument obtained in another Member State and declared enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought))

(2018/C 436/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Società Immobiliare Al Bosco Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 38 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a time limit for the enforcement of a preventive attachment order, from being applied in the case of an order which has been adopted in another Member State and is enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova — Romania) — Cartrans Spedition Srl v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova, Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii

(Case C-495/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 146(1)(e) and Article 153 - Road transport transactions directly connected with the export of goods - Supply of services by intermediaries taking part in such transactions - Rules on proof of export of goods - Customs declaration - TIR carnet))

(2019/C 16/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Prahova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cartrans Spedition Srl

Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova, Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii

Operative part of the judgment

Article 146(1)(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, on the one hand, and that provision in conjunction with Article 153 of that directive, on the other hand, must be interpreted as precluding a tax practice of a Member State under which the exemption from value added tax, for, respectively, the supply of transport services directly connected with the export of goods and for the supply of services by intermediaries taking part in those supplies of transport services is subject to the taxable person producing a customs export declaration in respect of the relevant goods. In that regard, it is for the competent authorities, for the purposes of granting those exemptions, to examine whether the meeting of the condition relating to the export of the relevant goods can be inferred, with a sufficiently high degree of probability, from all of the information available to those authorities. In that context, a TIR carnet which is certified by the customs offices of the third country for which the goods are destined, and which is produced by the taxable person, constitutes evidence which, in principle, those authorities must duly take into account, unless they have specific reasons to doubt the authenticity or reliability of that document.

(1) OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
3.

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, must be interpreted to the effect that a decision of a contracting authority to conclude employment contracts with natural persons for the provision of certain services without using a public procurement procedure in accordance with Directive 2014/24, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2015/2170, on the ground that, in its opinion, those contracts do not fall within the scope of that directive, may be challenged under that provision by an economic operator with an interest in participating in a public procurement procedure with the same purpose as those contracts and which considers that those contracts do fall within the scope of that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad — Bulgaria) — Wiemer & Trachte GmbH, in liquidation v Zhan Oved Tadzher

(Case C-296/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 3(1) - International jurisdiction - Action to set a transaction aside - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened))

(2019/C 16/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Wiemer & Trachte GmbH, in liquidation

Respondent in cassation: Zhan Oved Tadzher

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of the debtor’s insolvency which has been brought against a defendant whose registered office or habitual residence is in another Member State is exclusive.

(1) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
1.

Article 3(1)(g) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin must be interpreted as meaning that the award by a private foundation of scholarships to support research projects or studies abroad falls within the concept of ‘education’, within the meaning of that provision, where there is a sufficiently close link between the assigned financial payments and participation in those research projects or studies which, themselves, fall within that same concept of ‘education’. That is the case, in particular, where such financial payments are linked to the participation of potential candidates in such research projects or studies, and are designed to remove all or some of the potential financial barriers to participation, and where those payments are appropriate to achieve that aim.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster — Germany) — Harry Mensing v Finanzamt Hamm

(Case C-264/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 314 - Article 316 - Article 322 - Special arrangements for works of art - Margin scheme - Taxable dealers - Supply of works of art by the creator or his successors in title - Intra-Community transactions - National tax authorities’ refusal to grant a taxable person the right to opt for application of the margin scheme - Conditions under which applicable - Right to deduct input tax - Works of art, collectors’ items and antiques))

(2019/C 35/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Harry Mensing

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamm

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 316(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable dealer may opt for the application of the margin scheme to the input supply of works of art which were supplied in the context of an exempt intra-Community supply, by the creator or his successors in title, when those persons do not fall within the categories of persons listed in Article 314 of that directive.

2. A taxable dealer may not opt for the application of the margin scheme laid down in Article 316(1)(b) of the VAT Directive to an input supply of works of art that were supplied to him in the context of an exempt intra-Community supply and, at the same time, claim a right to deduct input VAT in the situations in which such a right is precluded under Article 322(b) of that directive, if that latter provision has not been transposed into national law.

(1) OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța — Romania) — Sindicatul Familia Constanţa, Ustinia Cvas and Others v Direcția Generală de Asistență Socială și Protecția Copilului Constanța

(Case C-147/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31 - Directive 2003/88/EC - Scope - Derogation - Article 1(3) - Directive 89/391/EEC - Article 2(2) - Work performed by foster parents))

(2019/C 25/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Sindicatul Familia Constanţa, Ustinia Cvas, Silvica Jianu, Dumitra Bocu, Cader Aziz, Georgeta Crângaşu, Sema Cutlacai

Respondent: Direcția Generală de Asistență Socială și Protecția Copilului Constanța

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, must be interpreted as meaning that the work performed by a foster parent under an employment contract with a public authority, which consists in taking in a child, integrating that child into his or her household and ensuring, on a continuous basis, the harmonious upbringing and education of that child, does not come within the scope of Directive 2003/88.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
1.

Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that an alteration to the system of financing the public broadcasting of a Member State which, like that at issue in the main proceedings, consists in replacing a broadcasting fee payable on the basis of possession of a receiving device by a broadcasting contribution payable in particular on the basis of occupation of a dwelling or business premises does not constitute an alteration to existing aid within the meaning of that provision which should be notified to the Commission under Article 108(3) TFEU.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — J. Portugal Ramos Vinhos SA v Adega Cooperativa de Borba CRL

(Case C-629/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Trade mark law - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1)(c) - Grounds for invalidity - Word marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve in trade to designate the characteristics of goods or services - Other characteristics of goods or services - Production facility for a product - Word mark composed of a sign designating wine products and of a geographical name, constituting a word element of the trade mark proprietor’s business name))

(2019/C 44/05)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J. Portugal Ramos Vinhos SA

Defendant: Adega Cooperativa de Borba CRL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the registration of a trade mark consisting of a word sign, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, designating wine products and including a geographical name, must be refused, where that sign contains, in particular, a term which is commonly used to designate facilities or sites in which those products are produced and is also one of the word elements of the business name of the legal entity seeking to register that trade mark.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
2.

Article 1(b)(iv) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings. In so far as the subsidies at issue in the main proceedings were granted in breach of the obligation of prior notification laid down in Article 93 of the EEC Treaty, State entities cannot rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where an action for damages against the Member State is brought by a competitor of the beneficiary company, the principle of legal certainty does not permit, by analogy, a limitation period, such as that laid down in Article 15(1) of that regulation, to be imposed on the applicant.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — S v EA, EB, EC

(Case C-367/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Article 4(2)(e) - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 7(1)(e) - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin - Application to amend the product specification - Ham originating from the Black Forest, Germany (‘Schwarzwälder Schinken’) - Requirements to package in the area of production - Applicability of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 or of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012))

(2019/C 65/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S

Defendants: EA, EB, EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, in conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 of 14 December 2006 laying down detailed rules of implementation of Regulation No 510/2006, and Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement to package a product covered by a protected geographical indication in its geographical area of production is justified, under Article 4(2)(e), if it constitutes a necessary and proportionate means to safeguard the quality of the product, to guarantee its origin or to ensure the verification of the specification of the protected geographical indication. It is for the national court to assess whether that requirement is duly justified by one of the objectives mentioned above, regarding the protected geographical indication ‘Schwarzwälder Schinken’.

(1) OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.