ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Article 55(1) of Regulation No 1198/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that an amount invoiced to the beneficiary of a subsidy granted under the European Fisheries Fund and paid by him may be regarded as expenditure actually paid, as referred to in that provision, even if the third party who invoiced that amount has also made a financial contribution to the subsidised project, either by a set-off of the debt owed to him by the beneficiary against that beneficiary’s claim against him, stemming from his commitment to make a contribution, or by issuing a separate invoice, provided that the expenditure and the contribution concerned are duly supported by receipted invoices or accounting documents of equivalent probative value, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo, Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 20 de Barcelona — Spain) — Bondora AS v Carlos V.C. (Case C-453/18), XY (C-494/18)

(Joined Cases C-453/18 and C-494/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - European order for payment procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - Provision of additional documents to support the claim - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Review by the court seised in the context of an application for a European payment order)

(2020/C 68/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo, Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 20 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bondora AS

Defendants: Carlos V.C. (Case C-453/18), XY (C-494/18)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2)(d) and (e) 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 and Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as interpreted by the Court and read in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as allowing a ‘court’, within the meaning of that regulation, seised in the context of a European order for payment procedure, to request from the creditor additional information relating to the terms of the agreement relied on in support of the claim at issue, in order to carry out an ex officio review of the possible unfairness of those terms and, consequently, that they preclude national legislation which declares the additional documents provided for that purpose to be inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v J. and Others

(Case C-341/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) 2016/399 - Schengen Borders Code - Control at the external borders - Third-country nationals - Article 11(1) - Affixing of stamps on travel documents - Exit stamp - Determination of the time of exit from the Schengen area - Signing-on of seamen with ships that are in long-term mooring in a sea port)

(2020/C 137/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendants: J. and Others

Interveners: C. and H. and Others

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) must be interpreted as meaning that, when a seaman who is a third-country national signs on with a ship in long-term mooring in a sea port of a State forming part of the Schengen area, for the purpose of working on board, before leaving that port on that ship, an exit stamp must, where provided for by that code, be affixed to that seaman’s travel documents not at the time of his signing on, but when the master of that ship notifies the competent national authorities of the ship’s imminent departure.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
1.

Declares that, by prohibiting the exercise of accounting activities in conjunction with the activities of an insurance broker or agent, or of an estate agent, or with any banking or financial services activity, and by permitting the chambers of the Professional Institute of Approved Accountants and Tax Consultants to prohibit the exercise of accounting activities in conjunction with any artisanal, commercial or agricultural activity, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Article 49 TFEU;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Severna morska’ kam Agentsiya Mitnitsi, successor in law to Mitnitsa Varna v Schenker EOOD

(Case C-655/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Removal from customs supervision - Theft of goods placed under a customs warehousing procedure - Article 242 - Person responsible for the removal - Holder of the authorisation for customs warehousing - Penalty for failure to comply with the customs legislation - Article 42 - Obligation to pay a sum corresponding to the value of the missing goods - Combination with a pecuniary penalty - Proportionality)

(2020/C 161/11)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Severna morska’ kam Agentsiya Mitnitsi, successor in law to Mitnitsa Varna

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Schenker EOOD

Intervener: Okrazhna prokuratura — Varna

Operative part of the judgment

1. Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, in the event of theft of goods placed under a customs warehousing procedure, a pecuniary penalty is imposed on the holder of the customs warehousing authorisation for failure to comply with the customs legislation.

2. Article 42(1) of Regulation No 952/2013 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in the event of removal from customs supervision of goods placed under a customs warehousing procedure, the holder of the customs warehousing authorisation is required to pay, in addition to a pecuniary penalty, a sum corresponding to the value of those goods.

(1) OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma — Italy) — Stanleyparma Sas di Cantarelli Pietro & C., Stanleybet Malta Ltd, v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli UM Emilia Romagna — SOT Parma

(Case C-788/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Games of chance - Taxation - Principle of non-discrimination - Single tax on betting)

(2020/C 137/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stanleyparma Sas di Cantarelli Pietro & C., Stanleybet Malta Ltd

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli UM Emilia Romagna — SOT Parma

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State that makes data transmission centres (DTCs) established in that Member State liable to a tax on betting jointly and severally with betting operators, their clients, which are established in another Member State, irrespective of where those operators are established and the absence of a licence to organise betting.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo v BP, AB, PB, ‘Тrast B’ ООD, ‘Agro In 2001’ EOOD, ‘ACounT Service 2009’ EOOD, ‘Invest Management’ OOD, ‘Estate’ OOD, ‘Bromak’ OOD, ‘Bromak Finance’ EAD, ‘Viva Telekom Bulgaria’ EOOD, ‘Balgarska Telekomunikationna Kompania’ AD, ‘Hedge Investment Bulgaria’ AD, ‘Kemira’ OOD, ‘Dunarit’ AD, ‘Technologichen Zentar-Institut Po Mikroelektronika’ AD, ‘Еvrobild 2003’ EOOD, ‘Тechnotel Invest’ AD, ‘Ken Trade’ EAD, ‘Konsult Av’ EOOD, Louvrier Investments Company 33 SA, EFV International Financial Ventures Ltd, Interv Investment SARL, LIC Telecommunications SARL, V Telecom Investment SCA, V2 Investment SARL, Empreno Ventures Ltd

(Case C-234/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Proceedings for the confiscation of illegally obtained assets in the absence of a criminal conviction - Directive 2014/42/EU - Scope - Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA)

(2020/C 222/06)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo

Defendants: BP, AB, PB, ‘Тrast B’ ООD, ‘Agro In 2001’ EOOD, ‘ACounT Service 2009’ EOOD, ‘Invest Management’ OOD, ‘Estate’ OOD, ‘Bromak’ OOD, ‘Bromak Finance’ EAD, ‘Viva Telekom Bulgaria’ EOOD, ‘Balgarska Telekomunikationna Kompania’ AD, ‘Hedge Investment Bulgaria’ AD, ‘Kemira’ OOD, ‘Dunarit’ AD, ‘Technologichen Zentar-Institut Po Mikroelektronika’ AD, ‘Еvrobild 2003’ EOOD, ‘Тechnotel Invest’ AD, ‘Ken Trade’ EAD, ‘Konsult Av’ EOOD, Louvrier Investments Company 33 SA, EFV International Financial Ventures Ltd, Interv Investment SARL, LIC Telecommunications SARL, V Telecom Investment SCA, V2 Investment SARL, Empreno Ventures Ltd

Other party to the proceedings: Corporate Commercial Bank, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA, of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the confiscation of illegally obtained assets is ordered by a national court following proceedings which are not subject either to a finding of a criminal offence or, a fortiori, the conviction of the persons accused of committing such an offence.

(1) OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV v DB Vertrieb GmbH

(Case C-583/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Scope - Service contract - Article 2(6) - Contract for passenger transport services - Article 3(3)(k) - Cards conferring entitlement to price reductions when passenger transport contracts are subsequently concluded - Online selling of such cards without informing the consumer about the right of withdrawal)

(2020/C 215/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV

Respondent: DB Vertrieb GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(6) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘service contract’ covers contracts whose object is to entitle the consumer to a price reduction when passenger transport contracts are subsequently concluded;

2. Article 3(3)(k) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted as meaning that a contract whose object is to entitle the consumer to a price reduction when passenger transport contracts are subsequently concluded is not covered by the term ‘contract for passenger transport services’ and, consequently, falls within the scope of that directive, including of its provisions relating to the right of withdrawal.

(1) OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.
1.

Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 October 2018, Greece v Commission (T-272/16, not published, EU:T:2018:651), in so far as the General Court dismissed the action brought by the Hellenic Republic concerning the flat-rate corrections of 25 % and 10 % applied to area payments for pasture in respect of the claim years 2012 and 2013 and the one-off correction of EUR 37 163 161,78 in respect of the claim year 2013, imposed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) as a result of weaknesses in the definition and control of eligible permanent pasture;
1.

Article 20 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 person which carries out a single intra-Community transport of goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement, with the intention of purchasing those goods for the purposes of its economic activity once they have been released for free circulation in the Member State of destination, acquires the right to dispose of the goods as owner, within the meaning of that provision, provided that it has the right to take decisions which are capable of affecting the legal situation of the goods, including, inter alia, the decision to sell them; The fact that that taxable person had, at the outset, the intention to purchase those goods for the purposes of its economic activity once they have been released for free circulation in the Member State of destination is a circumstance which must be taken into account by the national court in its overall assessment of all of the particular circumstances of the case before it in order to determine to which of the successive acquisitions the intra-Community transport is to be ascribed.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federación Estatal de Servicios, Movilidad y Consumo de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FESMC-UGT), Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Grupo de Empresas DIA SA, Twins Alimentación SA

(Case C-588/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Articles 5 and 7 - Weekly rest - Annual leave - Paid special leave permitting time off from work to meet specific needs and obligations)

(2020/C 262/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federación Estatal de Servicios, Movilidad y Consumo de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FESMC-UGT), Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO)

Defendants: Grupo de Empresas DIA SA, Twins Alimentación SA

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5 and 7 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 must be interpreted as not being applicable to national rules providing for special leave on days when workers are required to work which do not allow those workers to claim that leave in so far as the needs and obligations met by that special leave arise during weekly rest periods or periods of paid annual leave that are the subject of those articles.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova — Italy) — LG and Others v Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale

(Case C-641/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 1(1) - Concepts of ‘civil and commercial matters’ and ‘administrative matters’ - Scope - Activities of ship classification and certification societies - Acta iure imperii and acta iure gestionis - Public powers - Immunity from jurisdiction)

(2020/C 240/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: LG and Others

Defendants: Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages, brought against private-law corporations engaged in the classification and certification of ships on behalf of and upon delegation from a third State, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of that provision, and, therefore, within the scope of that regulation, provided that that classification and certification activity is not exercised under public powers, within the meaning of EU law, which it is for the referring court to determine. The principle of customary international law concerning immunity from jurisdiction does not preclude the national court seised from exercising the jurisdiction provided for by that regulation in a dispute relating to such an action, where that court finds that such corporations have not had recourse to public powers within the meaning of international law.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 June 2020 — VTB Bank PAO, formerly VTB Bank OAO v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-729/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the Russian Federation’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Inclusion of the appellant’s name on the list of entities to which restrictive measures apply - Principle of proportionality - Right to property - Right to carry on an economic activity)

(2020/C 279/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: VTB Bank PAO, formerly VTB Bank OAO (represented by M. Lester QC, J. Dawid, Barrister, C. Claypoole, Solicitor, and J. Ruiz Calzado, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by M.-M. Joséphidès and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by J. Norris, A. Tizzano and L. Havas, and subsequently by J. Norris and L. Havas, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders VTB Bank PAO to bear its 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.
3.

EU law and, in particular, Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not necessary to find that transactions by which goods sold by a supplier are delivered to purchasers by a company recommended by that supplier constitute an infringement of the law when, on the one hand, there is a connection between the supplier and that company, in the sense that, irrespective of that delivery, the company takes charge of some of the supplier’s logistical needs, but, on the other hand, the purchasers remain free to make use of another company or personally collect the goods, since those circumstances are not liable to affect the finding that the supplier and the transport company recommended by it are independent companies which engage, on their own behalf, in genuine economic activities and, consequently, those transactions cannot be classified as abusive.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2020 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v European Commission and Others

(Case C-817/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid scheme relating to the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(h) - Concept of ‘serious difficulties’ - Service of general economic interest - Secondary activities - Related actions)

(2020/C 378/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland, Stichting Het Groninger Landschap, Vereniging It Fryske Gea, Stichting Het Drentse Landschap, Stichting Het Overijssels Landschap, Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap, Stichting Flevo-Landschap, Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap, Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland, Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap, Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap, Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap, Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap (represented by: P. H. L. M. Kuypers and M. de Wit, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and P.–J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents

Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters, Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV, Stichting Het Nationale Park De Hoge Veluwe, BV Landgoed Den Alerdinck II, Landgoed Ampsen BV, Pallandt van Keppel Stichting, Landgoed Kasteel Keppel BV, Baron van Lynden, Stichting het Lijndensche Fonds voor Kerk en Zending, Landgoed Welna BV, BV Landgoed ‘Huis te Maarn’, Vicariestichting De Vijf Capellarijen/Ambachtsheerlijkheid Kloetinge, Maatschappij tot Exploitatie van het Landgoed Tongeren onder Epe BV, Landgoed Anderstein NV, Landgoed Bekspring BV, Landgoed Nijenhuis en Westerflier BV, Landgoed Caprera BV, Landgoed Schapenduinen BV, Stichting Schapenduinen, Landgoed de Noetselenberg BV (represented by: D. Gillet, T. Ruys, P. Wytinck and A. A. Al Khatib, advocaten)

Party intervening in support of the applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. K. Bulterman and M. L. Noort, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland, Stichting Het Groninger Landschap, Vereniging It Fryske Gea, Stichting Het Drentse Landschap, Stichting Het Overijssels Landschap, Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap, Stichting Flevo-Landschap, Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap, Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland, Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap, Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap, Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap and Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap to pay the costs of the proceedings;

3. Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
1.

Declares that, by having failed to adopt, on the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion of 8 March 2018, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, and, therefore, by having failed to notify those provisions to the European Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67 of Directive 2015/849;