ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 6(1)(m) 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, as regards the manufacturer’s commercial guarantee, the information requirement imposed on the trader by that provision does not arise from the mere fact that that guarantee exists, but only where the consumer has a legitimate interest in obtaining information concerning that guarantee in order to decide whether to enter into a contractual relationship with the trader. Such a legitimate interest is established, inter alia, where the trader makes the manufacturer’s commercial guarantee a central or decisive element of its offer. In order to determine whether the guarantee constitutes a central or decisive element of the offer, account must be taken of the content and general layout of the offer with regard to the goods concerned, the importance of referring to the manufacturer’s commercial guarantee for sales or advertising purposes, the space occupied by that reference in the offer, the likelihood of mistake or confusion which that reference might trigger in the mind of the average consumer — who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect with respect to the different rights which he or she may exercise under a guarantee or to the real identity of the guarantor — whether or not there might be explanations relating to other guarantees covering the goods, and any other element capable of establishing an objective need to protect the consumer;
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia v Koninklijke Philips NV

(Case C-264/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘producer’ - Any person who, by putting his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, or having authorised those particulars to be put on the product, presents himself as its producer)

(2022/C 318/22)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

Respondent: Koninklijke Philips NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘producer’, referred to in that provision, does not require that the person who has put his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, or who has authorised those particulars to be put on the product, also present himself as the producer of that product in some other way.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus — Estonia) — Aktsiaselts M.V.WOOL v Põllumajandus- ja Toiduamet

(Case C-51/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food law - Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 - Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs - Article 3(1) - Obligations of food business operators - Annex I - Point 1.2 of Chapter 1 - Limit values for the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in fish products before and after being placed on the market - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 14(8) - Official controls of the product at the stage at which it is placed on the market - Scope)

(2022/C 318/09)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aktsiaselts M.V.WOOL

Defendant: Põllumajandus- ja Toiduamet

Operative part of the judgment

The combined provisions of Article 3(1) and point 1.2 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/229 of 7 February 2019, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the manufacturer is unable to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the competent authority, that, throughout their shelf-life, foodstuffs will not exceed the limit of 100 colony-forming units/grams (g), as regards the presence of Listeria monocytogenes, the limit requiring the absence of detection of Listeria monocytogenes in 25 g of the food product concerned laid down in that point 1.2 of that Annex I, does not apply to foodstuffs which have been placed on the market throughout their shelf-life.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — État luxembourgeois, Administration de l’enregistrement, des domaines et de la TVA v Navitours Sàrl

(Case C-294/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 2(1) - Scope - Taxable transactions - Article 9(2)(b) - Place where transport services are supplied - Tourist trips on the Moselle - River subject to condominium status)

(2022/C 408/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: État luxembourgeois, Administration de l’enregistrement, des domaines et de la TVA

Respondent: Navitours Sàrl

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 9(2)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991,

must be interpreted as meaning:

a Member State must tax passenger transport performed, by a service transport provider established in that Member State, within a territory which, pursuant to an international treaty concluded between that Member State and another Member State, constitutes a joint territory under joint sovereignty of those two Member states and which is not subject to any exception provided for by EU law, provided that those services have not already been taxed by that other Member State. The taxation, by one of the Member States, of those services prevents the other Member State from taxing them in turn, without prejudice to the possibility for those two Member States to regulate in another way the taxation of services performed within that territory, inter alia by means of an agreement, provided that non-taxation and double taxation is avoided.

(1) OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2022 — Romania v European Commission

(Case C-401/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - Co-financing rate applicable - Amendment of the rate between the submission of the final application for an interim payment and the acceptance of the accounts - Principle that accounts relate to a specific year and principle of non-retroactivity)

(2022/C 359/10)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: Romania (represented by: L.-E. Baţagoi and E. Gane, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Armenia and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Romania to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 — Health Information Management (HIM) v European Commission

(Case C-500/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded under the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy Support Programme - Audit report - Debit notes issued by the European Commission for the recovery of certain sums - Action for annulment - Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Counterclaim - Full repayment of the grants concerned - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Impartiality - Principle of proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 432/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Health Information Management (HIM) (represented by: P. Zeegers, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Health Information Management (HIM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 391, 27.9.2021
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM)

(Case C-4/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 - Article 27 - Safeguard clause - Article 27(1) - Scope - Provisional national safeguard measures - General measure - Application to a category of cosmetic products containing the same substance - Individual measure - Application to an identified cosmetic product - Provisional national measure imposing certain labelling requirements on a category of leave-on products containing phenoxyethanol)

(2022/C 418/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération des entreprises de la beauté

Defendant: Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as not allowing the competent authority of a Member State to adopt general provisional measures applying to a category of products containing the same substance.

(1) OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Slovenia) — FV v NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.

(Case C-405/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 3(1) and Article 8 - Criteria for assessing the unfairness of a contractual term - Significant imbalance between the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract - Requirement of good faith on the part of the seller or supplier - Possibility of ensuring a higher level of protection than that provided for in the directive)

(2022/C 463/13)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FV

Defendant: NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) and Article 8 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which permits a finding that a contractual term is unfair where it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer, without, however, carrying out an examination, in such a case, of the requirement of ‘good faith’ within the meaning of Article 3(1).

(1) OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty reprezentowany przez O S.A.

(Case C-250/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Supply of services for consideration - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(b) - Granting of credit - Sub-participation agreement)

(2022/C 451/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Defendant: O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty reprezentowany przez O S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(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 the services provided by a sub-participant under a sub-participation agreement, consisting of making available to the originator a financial contribution in exchange for payment of the proceeds from the receivables specified in that agreement, those receivables remaining in the assets of the originator, fall within the concept of ‘granting of credit’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Orthomol pharmazeutische Vertriebs GmbH v Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

(Case C-418/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food safety - Food - Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 - Article 2(2)(g) - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128 - Food for special medical purposes - Other particular nutritional requirements - Food providing a general benefit for the patient - Distinction in relation to medicinal products)

(2022/C 472/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Orthomol pharmazeutische Vertriebs GmbH

Respondent: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on food intended for infants and young children, food for special medical purposes, and total diet replacement for weight control and repealing Council Directive 92/52/EEC, Commission Directives 96/8/EC, 1999/21/EC, 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC, Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 41/2009 and (EC) No 953/2009 and, in particular, the concept of ‘other medically determined nutrient requirements’,

must be interpreted as meaning that a product constitutes a food for special medical purposes if the disease results in increased or specific nutritional requirements which the food is intended to cover, such that it is not sufficient, for the purposes of such a qualification, that the patient derives a general benefit from the intake of that food because the substances that it contains counteract the disorder or alleviate its symptoms.

(1) OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Allianz Benelux SA v État belge, SPF Finances

(Case C-295/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 4(1) - Exemption in favour of a parent company of the dividends paid by its subsidiary - Carrying over definitively taxed income surpluses to subsequent tax years - Absorption of a company with definitively taxed income surpluses by another company - National legislation limiting the transfer of those surpluses to the absorbing company)

(2022/C 472/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Allianz Benelux SA

Defendant: État belge, SPF Finances

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States

must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that dividends received by a company are to be included in its basis of assessment before up to 95 % of the total amount is deducted from it and which makes it possible, where appropriate, to carry that deduction forward to subsequent tax years, but which, nonetheless, where that company is absorbed in the context of a merger, limits the transfer of the carry-forward of that deduction to the absorbing company in proportion to the share represented by the net tax assets of the absorbed company in the total of the net tax assets of the absorbing company and the absorbed company.

(1) OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X, acting in her own name and as legal representative of her minor children, Y and Z v Belgische Staat

(Case C-230/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 2(f) - Article 10(3)(a) - Concept of ‘unaccompanied minor’ - Right to family reunification - Refugee minor who is married at the time of her entry into the territory of a Member State - Child marriage not recognised in that Member State - Cohabitation with the spouse lawfully residing in that Member State)

(2023/C 15/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X, acting in her own name and as legal representative of her minor children, Y and Z

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(3)(a) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, read in conjunction with Article 2(f) of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that an unaccompanied refugee minor residing in a Member State does not have to be unmarried in order to acquire the status of sponsor for the purposes of family reunification with his or her first-degree relatives in the direct ascending line.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Eircom Limited v Commission for Communications Regulation

(Case C-494/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Universal service and users’ rights - Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) - Article 12 - Costing and financing of universal service obligations - Single universal service provider and multiple telecommunications services providers operating in the market - Determination as to whether an unfair burden exists)

(2023/C 7/13)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Plaintiff: Eircom Limited

Defendant: Commission for Communications Regulation

Notice parties: Vodafone Ireland Limited, Three Ireland (Hutchison) Limited, Three Ireland Services (Hutchison) Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive),

must be interpreted as requiring the competent national regulatory authority, in order to determine whether the net cost of universal service obligations represents an unfair burden on an operator entrusted with such obligations, to examine the characteristics particular to that operator, taking account of its situation relative to that of its competitors in the relevant market.

(1) OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — VB v GUPFINGER Einrichtungsstudio GmbH

(Case C-625/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Unjustified withdrawal from a contract by the consumer - Term determining the trader’s right to compensation declared unfair - Application of supplementary national law)

(2023/C 35/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VB

Defendant: GUPFINGER Einrichtungsstudio GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that, where an indemnification clause of a sales contract has been declared unfair and, consequently, void and that contract is capable of continuing in existence without that clause, the seller or supplier which has imposed that term is precluded from being able to claim, in an action for damages based exclusively on a supplementary provision of national contract law, compensation for the loss or harm caused as provided for in that provision, which would have been applicable in the absence of that clause.

(1) OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
1.

Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as Article 19(2) thereof must be interpreted as precluding a return decision from being taken or a removal order from being made in respect of a third-country national who is staying illegally on the territory of a Member State and suffering from a serious illness, where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned would be exposed, in the third-country to which he or she would be removed, to a real risk of a significant, permanent and rapid increase in his or her pain, if he or she were returned, on account of the only effective analgesic treatment being prohibited in that country. A Member State may not lay down a strict period within which such an increase must be liable to materialise in order to preclude that return decision or that removal order.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/31

Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v I. Günes

(Case C-296/05) (1)

(2008/C 64/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/38

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 20 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-482/06) (1)

(2008/C 51/64)

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.