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

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 — European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion for Energy v Yosu Galocha

(Case C-243/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Competition - Judgment annulling a decision - Extent of the annulment - Weighing up of interests involved - Annulment of reserve lists - Annulment of the decisions to appoint successful candidates from those lists)

(2019/C 230/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion for Energy (represented by: G. Poszler and R. Hanak, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Yosu Galocha (represented by: A. Asmaryan Degtyareva, abogada)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion for Energy to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — TopFit e.V., Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V.

(Case C-22/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU - Rules of a sports association - Participation in the national championship of a Member State by an amateur athlete holding the nationality of another Member State - Different treatment on the basis of nationality - Restriction on free movement)

(2019/C 263/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TopFit e.V., Daniele Biffi

Defendant: Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a national sports association, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which an EU citizen, who is a national of another Member State and who has resided for a number of years in the territory of the Member State where that association, in which he runs in the senior category and in an amateur capacity, is established, cannot participate in the national championships in those disciplines in the same way as nationals can, or can participate in them only ‘outside classification’ or ‘without classification’, without being able to progress to the final and without being eligible to be awarded the title of national champion, unless those rules are justified by objective considerations which are proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

(Case C-420/18) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 10 - Taxable person - Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ - Definition - Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation)

(2019/C 263/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IO

Defendant: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 9 and 10 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 member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who, although he is not bound to the governing body of that foundation by any employer-employee relationship or to the Supervisory Board of that foundation by such a relationship in respect of the performance of his role as a member of that board, does not act in his name, on his own behalf or under his own responsibility, but on behalf of and under the responsibility of that Supervisory Board and does not bear the economic risk arising from his activities, since he receives a fixed remuneration which is not dependent on his participation in meetings or hours actually worked, does not carry out an economic activity independently.

(1) OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — Mykola Yanovych Azarov v Council of the European Union

(Case C-416/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds and economic resources - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name - Decision by an authority of a third State - Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2019/C 305/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 April 2018, Azarov v Council (T-190/16, not published, EU:T:2018:232);

2. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov.

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present appeal.

(1) OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
1.

Declares that, first, by providing that the measure consisting in lowering the retirement age of the judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) is to apply to judges in post who were appointed to that court before 3 April 2018 and, secondly, by granting the President of the Republic the discretion to extend the period of judicial activity of judges of that court beyond the newly fixed retirement age, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. v DAF Trucks NV

(Case C-451/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Special jurisdiction - Article 7(2) - Tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred - Claim for compensation for damage caused by a cartel found to be contrary to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area)

(2019/C 319/20)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft.

Defendant: DAF Trucks NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for compensation for damage caused by an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, consisting, inter alia, of collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases for trucks, ‘the place where the harmful event occurred’ covers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the place where the market which is affected by that infringement is located, that is to say, the place where the market prices were distorted and in which the victim claims to have suffered that damage, even where the action is directed against a participant in the cartel at issue with whom that victim had not established contractual relations.

(1) OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — A v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet

(Case C-89/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - Standstill clause - Family reunification of spouses - New restriction - Overriding reason in the public interest - Successful integration - Efficient management of migration flows - Proportionality)

(2019/C 305/16)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other hand, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure which makes family reunification between a Turkish worker legally resident in the Member State concerned and his spouse conditional upon their overall attachment to that Member State being greater than their overall attachment to a third country, constitutes a ‘new restriction’, within the meaning of that provision. Such a restriction is unjustified.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Lombardi Srl v Comune di Auletta, Delta Lavori SpA, Msm Ingegneria Srl

(Case C-333/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Review procedures on the award of public supply and public works contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Action for annulment of the decision awarding a public contract by a tenderer whose bid was unsuccessful - Counterclaim brought by the successful tenderer - Admissibility of the main action in the event that the counterclaim is well founded)

(2019/C 383/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lombardi Srl

Respondents: Comune di Auletta, Delta Lavori SpA, Msm Ingegneria Srl

Intervener: Robertazzi Costruzioni Srl

Operative part of the judgment

The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) and (3) 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 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as precluding a main action for review brought by a tenderer with an interest in obtaining a particular contract who has been or could be adversely affected by an alleged breach of EU public procurement law or rules transposing that law, and seeking the exclusion of another tenderer, from being declared inadmissible in application of national jurisprudential procedural rules or which concern the treatment of reciprocal ‘excluding’ actions brought by the parties, irrespective of the number of tenderers having participated in the procurement procedure or the number of those having brought actions for review.

(1) OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 September 2019 — HX v Council of the European Union

(Case C-540/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria - Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded)

(2019/C 383/36)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: HX (represented by: S. Koev, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Gurov and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders HX to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 408, 12.11.2018
1.

Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, and Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, must be interpreted as applying to judicial proceedings, such as those provided for by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which authorise, on therapeutic and safety grounds, the committal to a psychiatric hospital of persons who, in a state of insanity, have committed acts representing a danger to society. Directive 2012/13 must be interpreted as meaning that persons suspected of having committed a criminal offence must be informed as soon as possible of their rights from the moment when they are subject to suspicions which justify, in circumstances other than an emergency, the restriction of their liberty by the competent authorities by means of coercive measures and, at the latest, before they are first officially questioned by the police.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid — Spain) — José Manuel Ortiz Mesonero v UTE Luz Madrid Centro

(Joined Cases C-366/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2010/18/EU - Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave - National legislation making the granting of parental leave conditional on a reduction in working time, with a proportional reduction in pay - Shift work with variable hours - Request of the worker to perform his work at a fixed schedule to care for his minor children - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation - Indirect discrimination - Partial inadmissibility)

(2019/C 399/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant): José Manuel Ortiz Mesonero

Defendant: UTE Luz Madrid Centro

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a worker’s right, in order to take direct care of minors or dependent family members, to reduce his ordinary hours of work, with a proportional reduction in his salary, without being able, when his usual work system is in shifts with a variable schedule, to benefit from a fixed working schedule while maintaining his ordinary hours of work.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.08.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Freistaat Thüringen

(Case C-239/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Derogation provided for in Article 14 - Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 - Article 11(1) and (2) - Requests for information - Information provided by official bodies - Request for information on the actual use of material of specific species or varieties - Content of the request)

(2019/C 423/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Defendant: Freistaat Thüringen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights must be interpreted as meaning that it does not provide the possibility for the holder of the Community plant variety right to request information from an official body on the use of material of species, without such a request defining the specific protected variety for which that information is requested.

(1) OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Trier v Cardpoint GmbH, successor in law to Moneybox Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-42/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemptions - Article 13B(d)(3) - Transactions concerning payments - Services supplied by a company to a bank relating to the operation of cash points)

(2019/C 413/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Trier

Defendant: Cardpoint GmbH, successor in law to Moneybox Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that services supplied to a bank operating cashpoints, consisting in operating and maintaining those cashpoints, replenishing them, installing computer hardware and software necessary to read the data from bank cards, sending a cash withdrawal authorisation request to the bank which issued the bank card used, providing the cash requested and registering withdrawal transactions, do not constitute a transaction concerning payments which is exempt from value added tax for the purposes of that provision.

(1) OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
1.

By systematically and persistently exceeding the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) since 1 January 2010 in twelve French agglomerations and air quality zones, namely Marseille (FR03A02), Toulon (FR03A03), Paris (FR04A01), Auvergne-Clermont-Ferrand (FR07A01), Montpellier (FR08A01), Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées (FR12A01), zone urbaine régionale (Regional urban area, ‘ZUR’) Reims Champagne-Ardenne (FR14N10), Grenoble Rhône-Alpes (FR15A01), Strasbourg (FR16A02), Lyon-Rhône-Alpes (FR20A01), ZUR Vallée de l’Arve Rhône-Alpes (FR20N10) and Nice (FR24A01), and by systematically and persistently exceeding the hourly limit value for NO2 since 1 January 2010 in two agglomerations and air quality zones, namely Paris (FR04A01) and Lyon Rhône-Alpes (FR20A01), the French Republic has, since that date, continued to fail to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, read in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive, since the coming into force of the limit values in 2010. The French Republic has failed, since 11 June 2010, to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex XV to that directive, and in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive to ensure that the exceedance period is kept as short as possible;
1.

Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality must be interpreted as precluding a national practice, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in considering in all cases that there is no supply of goods, within the meaning of that former provision, and in refusing as a result the value added tax (VAT) exemption, where the goods concerned were exported to a destination outside the European Union and where, following their exportation, the tax authorities found that the person acquiring those goods was not the person stated on the invoice issued by the taxable person but another entity which has not been identified. In such circumstances, the VAT exemption provided for in Article 146(1)(a) and (b) of that directive must be refused if the failure to identify the person actually acquiring the goods prevents it from being proved that the transaction at issue constitutes a supply of goods within the meaning of that provision or if it is established that that taxable person knew or ought to have known that that transaction was part of a fraud committed to the detriment of the common system of VAT.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 November 2019 — Outsource Professional Services Ltd v Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-528/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absolute grounds for invalidity - Article 52(1)(b) - Bad faith at the time that an application for a trade mark is filed)

(2020/C 10/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Outsource Professional Services Ltd (represented by: A. Kempter, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd (represented by: S.O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, Rechtsanwälte), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Outsource Professional Services Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd in relation to the appeal proceedings;

3. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
1.

Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 March 2018, Rose Vision v Commission (T-45/13 RENV and T-587/15, not published, EU:T:2018:124) in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court ruled, in paragraph 160 thereof, that, on the basis of Article 340, first paragraph, TFEU, the appellant had not suffered damage … as a result of the breach of paragraph II.22(1) of the general terms and conditions that form an integral part of the agreements concluded between Rose Vision SL and the European Commission, under the Seventh Framework programme, adopted by Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013);