ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 April 2018, Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal) v ECB (T-251/15, EU:T:2018:234), in so far as, by that point, the General Court annulled the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 1 April 2015 partially refusing access to certain documents relating to the ECB’s decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA in so far as, by that decision, the ECB refused to disclose the amount of credit indicated in the extracts from the minutes recording the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 28 July 2014;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2019 — Mytilinaios Anonymos Etairia — Omilos Epicheiriseon, formerly Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE v European Commission, Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI)

(Case C-332/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Production of aluminium - Preferential electricity supply tariff granted by a contract - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Termination of the contract - Judicial suspension, as an interim measure, of the effects of termination - Decision declaring the aid unlawful)

(2020/C 54/02)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Mytilinaios Anonymos Etairia — Omilos Epicheiriseon, formerly Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, N. Keramidas, E. Chrysafis, D. Diakopoulos and A. Komninos, dikigoroi, and by K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (A. Bouchagiar and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents), Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas and D. Waelbroeck, avocats, and by C. Synodinos, H. and E. Salaka, dikigoroi)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mytilinaios Anonymos Etairia — Omilos Epicheiriseon to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — AV, BU v Comune di Bernareggio

(Case C-465/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Sale of a pharmacy under a tendering procedure - National legislation - Right of pre-emption granted to employees of the pharmacy being sold)

(2020/C 68/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AV, BU

Defendant: Comune di Bernareggio

Intervener: CT

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national measure that grants an unconditional right of pre-emption to pharmacists employed by a municipal pharmacy, in the event of the sale of that pharmacy by tender.

(1) OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
1.

Article 66(1) of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to act on a subsidy application from a producer organisation for fishery and aquaculture products in respect of the expenditure it has incurred preparing and implementing a production and marketing plan, on the ground that, at the date on which it submitted its application, that State had not yet provided, in its internal legal order, for the possibility for such an application to be processed;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 February 2020 — European External Action Service v Ruben Alba Aguilera and Others

(Case C-427/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials and members of staff - European External Action Service (EEAS) - Remuneration - Staff Regulations - Article 110 - EU staff posted to a third country - Annex X - Third subparagraph of Article 1 and Article 10 - Allowance for living conditions - Annual revision and adjustment - Reduction for staff posted to Ethiopia - Requirement to adopt general implementing provisions beforehand - Scope)

(2020/C 137/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents, M. Troncoso Ferrer and S. Moya Izquierdo, abogados, F.-M. Hislaire, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ruben Alba Aguilera, Simone Barenghi, Massimo Bonannini, Antonio Capone, Stéphanie Carette, Alejo Carrasco Garcia, Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Carl Daspect, Nathalie Devos, Jean-Baptiste Fauvel, Paula Cristina Fernandes, Stephan Fox, Birgitte Hagelund, Chantal Hebberecht, Karin Kaup-Laponin, Terhi Lehtinen, Sandrine Marot, David Mogollon, Clara Molera Gui, Daniele Morbin, Charlotte Onraet, Augusto Piccagli, Gary Quince, Pierre-Luc Vanhaeverbeke, Tamara Vleminckx, Birgit Vleugels, Robert Wade, Luca Zampetti (represented by: T. Martin and S. Orlandi, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraphs 1 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 April 2018, Alba Aguilera and Others v EEAS (T-119/17, EU:T:2018:183).

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

3. Orders that the costs be reserved.

(1) OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 January 2020 — České dráhy a.s. v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-538/18 P and C-539/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 20(4) - Inspection decisions - Duty to state reasons - Reasonable grounds for finding an infringement of competition rules - Evidence lawfully gathered - Inspection ordered on the basis of evidence obtained from a previous inspection)

(2020/C 137/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: České dráhy a.s. (represented by: K. Muzikář, advokát, J. Kindl, advokáti)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, G. Meessen, P. Němečková and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the appeals;

2. České dráhy a.s. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — Mowi ASA, formerly Marine Harvest ASA v European Commission

(Case C-10/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Control of concentrations between undertakings - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Article 4(1) - Prior notification obligation for concentrations - Article 7(1) - Standstill obligation - Article 7(2) - Exemption - Concept of a ‘single concentration’ - Article 14(2) - Decision imposing fines for the implementation of a concentration before it has been notified and authorised - Principle ne bis in idem - Set off principle - Concurrent offences)

(2020/C 161/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mowi ASA, formerly Marine Harvest ASA (represented by: R. Subiotto QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mowi ASA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
2.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a settlement agreement with respect to pending court proceedings between a manufacturer of originator medicines and a manufacturer of generic medicines, who are potential competitors, concerning whether a process patent (for the manufacture of an active ingredient of an originator medicine that is in the public domain) held by the manufacturer of originator medicines is valid and whether a generic version of that medicine infringes the patent, whereby that manufacturer of generic medicines undertakes not to enter the market of the medicine containing that active ingredient and not to pursue its action for the revocation of that patent for the duration of that agreement, in return for transfers of value in its favour by the manufacturer of originator medicines, constitutes an agreement which has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition: — if it is clear from all the information available that the net gain from the transfers of value by the manufacturer of originator medicines in favour of the manufacturer of generic medicines can have no explanation other than the commercial interest of the parties to the agreement not to engage in competition on the merits; — unless the settlement agreement concerned is accompanied by proven pro-competitive effects capable of giving rise to a reasonable doubt that it causes a sufficient degree of harm to competition;
1.

Article 5(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, read in combination with Article 1(3) thereof, as well as with Article 1(a), Article 3(3) and (4) and Article 25 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, when the executing Member State makes the return of a person who, being a national or resident of that Member State, is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of criminal prosecution, subject to the condition that that person, after being heard, is returned to that Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order imposed on him in the issuing Member State, that Member State must return that person as soon as the sentencing decision has become final, unless concrete grounds relating to the rights of defence of the person concerned or to the proper administration of justice make his presence essential in the issuing Member State pending a definitive decision on any procedural step coming within the scope of the criminal proceedings relating to the offence underlying the European arrest warrant.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — AR v Cooper International Spirits LLC, St Dalfour SAS, Établissement Gabriel Boudier SA

(Case C-622/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5(1)(b) - First subparagraph of Article 10(1) - Article 12(1) - Revocation of a trade mark for lack of genuine use - Right of the trade mark proprietor to plead infringement of his or her exclusive rights as a result of the use by a third party of an identical or similar sign during the period preceding the date on which the revocation took effect)

(2020/C 215/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AR

Defendants: Cooper International Spirits LLC, St Dalfour SAS, Établissement Gabriel Boudier SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(b), the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, read in conjunction with recital 6 thereof, must be interpreted as leaving Member States the option of allowing the proprietor of a trade mark whose rights in that mark have been revoked on expiry of the five-year period from its registration because he or she failed to make genuine use of the mark in the Member State concerned in connection with the goods or services for which it was registered to retain the right to claim compensation for the injury sustained as a result of the use by a third party, before the date on which the revocation took effect, of a similar sign in connection with identical or similar goods or services that is liable to be confused with his or her trade mark.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
2.

Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which an association of lawyers whose objective, according to its statutes, is the judicial protection of persons having in particular a certain sexual orientation and the promotion of the culture and respect for the rights of that category of persons, automatically, on account of that objective and irrespective of whether it is a for-profit association, has standing to bring legal proceedings for the enforcement of obligations under that directive and, where appropriate, to obtain damages, in circumstances that are capable of constituting discrimination, within the meaning of that directive, against that category of persons and it is not possible to identify an injured party.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon FC Graben GmbH, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl

(Case C-567/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9 - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 9 - Rights conferred by a trade mark - Use - Stocking of goods for the purposes of offering them or putting them on the market - Storage with a view to dispatching goods sold in an online marketplace which infringe trade mark rights)

(2020/C 222/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

Defendants: Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon FC Graben GmbH, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl, Amazon EU Sàrl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark and Article 9(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trade mark rights, without being aware of that infringement, must be regarded as not stocking those goods in order to offer them or put them on the market for the purposes of those provisions, if that person does not itself pursue those aims.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — World Comm Trading Gfz SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti

(Case C-684/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90 - Articles 184 to 186 - Principle of neutrality of VAT - Adjustment of the initial tax deduction - Discounts granted for intra-Community and internal supplies of good)

(2020/C 255/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: World Comm Trading Gfz SRL

Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 185 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the national tax authorities must require a taxable person to adjust the deduction of the value added tax initially made where, following the obtaining by that person of discounts on internal supplies of goods, those authorities consider that the deduction initially made was greater than that which that taxable person was entitled to make.

2. Article 185 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a adjustment of a deduction of value added tax (VAT) initially made is required in respect of a taxable person established in a Member State, even where that taxable person’s supplier has ceased his activities in that Member State and that supplier can therefore no longer claim repayment of part of the VAT he has paid.

(1) OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
1.

Art. 3(1) of Decision No 565/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 introducing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas for transit through or intended stays on their territories not exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period and repealing Decisions No 895/2006/EC and No 582/2008/EC must be interpreted as producing direct effect in the form of rights that third country nationals can assert against the Member State of destination, in particular, the right not to be required to have a visa to enter the territory of that Member State, where those nationals are in possession of a visa or residence permit included in the list of visas and residence permits recognised on the basis of that decision, which that Member State has undertaken to apply;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 June 2020 — SC v Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-730/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Staff of EU international missions - Internal competition - Non-renewal of a contract of employment - Measure separable from the contract)

(2020/C 279/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SC (represented by: A. Kunst, Rechtsanwältin and L. Moro, avvocatessa)

Other party to the proceedings: Eulex Kosovo (represented by: E. Raoult, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 19 September 2018, SC v Eulex Kosovo (T-242/17, EU:T:2018:586);

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

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
3.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the first to fourth grounds of appeal and on the second and third parts of the fifth ground of appeal;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2020 — Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung v European Commission

(Case T-784/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10(1) - Internal review of administrative acts - Limitation to measures of individual application - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 - Extension of the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ - Application for internal review - Measure of general application - Dismissal)

(2020/C 378/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung (represented by: A. Willand, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Bayer Agriculture BVBA (represented by: H. Berger, A. Burghardt, J. Wauters, Rechtsanwälte, and G. Forwood, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bayer Agriculture BVBA and by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Santen SAS v Directeur général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle

(Case C-673/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal product for human use - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(d) - Conditions for the grant of a certificate - Obtaining the first authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product - Authorisation to place on the market a new therapeutic application of a known active ingredient)

(2020/C 287/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Santen SAS

Defendant: Directeur général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(d) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that a marketing authorisation cannot be considered to be the first marketing authorisation, for the purpose of that provision, where it covers a new therapeutic application of an active ingredient, or of a combination of active ingredients, and that active ingredient or combination has already been the subject of a marketing authorisation for a different therapeutic application.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 September 2020 — Rosneft Oil Company PAO, formerly NK Rosneft OAO, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, RN-Shelf-Far East, formerly RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO, RN-Exploration OOO, Tagulskoe OOO v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission

(Case C-732/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the actions of the Russian Federation destabilising the situation in Ukraine - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to freezing of funds and economic resources - Listing of the appellants in the list of the entities to which restrictive measures apply)

(2020/C 423/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Rosneft Oil Company PAO, formerly NK Rosneft OAO, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, RN-Shelf-Far East, formerly RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO, RN-Exploration OOO, Tagulskoe OOO (represented by: L. Van den Hende, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and B. Driessen, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission (represented initially by: L. Havas, J. Norris and A. Tizzano, and subsequently by L. Havas and J. Norris, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Rosneft Oil Company PAO, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, RN-Shelf-Far East AO, RN-Exploration OOO and Tagulskoe OOO to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.