ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Villach — Austria) — Norbert Reitbauer and Others v Enrico Casamassima

(Case C-722/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Exclusive jurisdiction - Article 24(1) and (5) - Actions concerning rights in rem in immovable property and enforcement of judgments - Judicially ordered auction of a property - Opposition proceedings regarding the distribution of the proceeds from that auction)

(2019/C 305/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Villach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Norbert Reitbauer, Dolinschek GmbH, B.T.S. Trendfloor Raumausstattungs-GmbH, Elektrounternehmen K. Maschke GmbH, Klaus Egger, Architekt DI Klaus Egger Ziviltechniker GmbH

Defendant: Enrico Casamassima

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24(1) and (5) 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 an action brought by a pledgee challenging the distribution of the proceeds from a judicially ordered auction of a property and seeking, first, the finding that a competing debt has been extinguished by reason of a financial settlement and, second, that the pledge guaranteeing enforcement of that latter debt is unenforceable, does not come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where the property is situated or of the courts of the place of enforcement.

(1) OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Kyritz v Wolf-Henning Peters

(Case C-700/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(b) and (c) - Exemptions - Hospital and medical care - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - No confidential relationship between the person providing the care and the patient)

(2019/C 399/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt Kyritz

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Wolf-Henning Peters

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 132(1)(b) and (c) 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 provision of medical care such as that at issue in the main proceedings, supplied by a medical specialist in clinical chemistry and laboratory diagnostics, is capable of falling within the scope of the exemption from VAT under Article 132(1)(c) of that directive, where it fails to meet all the conditions for the application of the exemption under Article 132(1)(b) of the directive;

2. Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT that it provides for is not subject to the condition that the medical care in question is supplied within the framework of a confidential relationship between the patient and the person providing the care.

(1) OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
3.

Annex I, Section I, Chapter II, Part D, point 1, to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 739/2011 of 27 July 2011, must be interpreted as not precluding the competent authority, for the purposes of inspecting poultry carcasses, from removing them from the slaughter line and carrying out both an external and internal examination of those carcasses, if necessary by lifting their fat tissue, provided that that examination does not go beyond what is necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness of that control, which it is for the referring court to verify.
1.

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing an action brought by a consumer seeking to establish the unfair nature of certain terms in a contract that that consumer concluded with a professional, is not required to examine of its own motion and individually all the other contractual terms, which were not challenged by that consumer, in order to ascertain whether they can be considered unfair, but must examine only those terms which are connected to the subject matter of the dispute, as delimited by the parties, where that court has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task, as supplemented, where necessary, by measures of inquiry;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A Ltd

(Case C-74/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/138/EC - Taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance - Article 13(13) - Definition of ‘Member State in which the risk is situated’ - Company established in one Member State, providing insurance services relating to contractual risks connected with company conversions in another Member State - Article 157 - Member State levying tax on insurance premiums))

(2019/C 93/22)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

A Ltd

Intervener: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 157(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), as amended by Directive 2013/58/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013, read in conjunction with Article 13(13) of Directive 2009/138, must be interpreted as meaning that, when an insurance company established in a Member State offers insurance covering the contractual risks associated with the value of the shares and the fairness of the purchase price paid by the buyer in the acquisition of an undertaking, an insurance contract concluded in that context is subject exclusively to the indirect taxes and parafiscal charges on insurance premiums in the Member State where the policyholder is established.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — criminal proceedings against Еmil Milev

(Case C-310/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Presumption of innocence - Public references to guilt - Remedies - Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention))

(2018/C 408/41)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Еmil Milev

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 and Article 4(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding the adoption of preliminary decisions of a procedural nature, such as a decision taken by a judicial authority that pre-trial detention should continue, which are based on suspicion or on incriminating evidence, provided that such decisions do not refer to the person in custody as being guilty. However, that directive does not govern the circumstances in which decisions on pre-trial detention may be adopted.

(1) OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Tallinna Vesi AS v Keskkonnaamet

(Case C-60/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 2008/98/EC - Re-use and recovery of waste - Specific end-of-waste criteria for sewage sludge which has undergone recovery treatment - No defined criteria at European Union or national level)

(2019/C 187/27)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tallinna Vesi AS

Defendant: Keskkonnaamet

intervener: Keskkonnaministeerium

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives must be interpreted as meaning that:

— it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where criteria have not been set at European Union level for determining end-of-waste status as regards a specific type of waste, such end status depends on the existence of criteria laid down in a generally applicable national legal act concerning that type of waste, and

— it does not allow a waste holder, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to demand the recognition of end of waste status by the competent authority of the Member State or by a court of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2019 — Ilmārs Rimšēvičs (C-202/18), European Central Bank (ECB) (C-238/18) v Republic of Latvia

(Joined Cases C-202/18 and C-238/18) (1)

(European System of Central Banks - Action based on infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 14.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank - Decision of a national authority suspending the governor of the national central bank from office)

(2019/C 139/18)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicants: Ilmārs Rimšēvičs (represented by: S. Vārpiņš, M. Kvēps and I. Pazare, advokāti) (C-202/18), European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: C. Zilioli, K. Kaiser and C. Kroppenstedt, acting as Agents, and by D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, abogado, and by V. Čuske-Jurjeva, advokāte) (C–238/18)

Defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kucina and J. Davidoviča, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases C-202/18 and C-238/18 for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Annuls the decision of the Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs (Anti-Corruption Office, Latvia) of 19 February 2018 in so far as it prohibits Mr Ilmārs Rimšēvičs from performing his duties as Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia;

3. Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Madrid — Spain) — Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos SA v Asendia Spain SLU

(Case C-259/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 97/67/EC - Common rules for the development of the internal market in postal services - Provision of the universal postal service - Exclusive rights of the designated operator - Issue of means of payment for postage other than postage stamps)

(2019/C 220/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos SA

Defendant: Asendia Spain SLU

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) and Article 8 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which guarantees to the postal operator designated for the provision of the universal postal service an exclusive right to distribute means of payment for postage other than postage stamps.

(1) OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2019 — CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

(Case C-139/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) - Appraisal report - 2011 Appraisal exercise - Application for annulment of the decision closing the appraisal report)

(2019/C 206/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 December 2017, CJ v ECDC (T-602/16, not published, EU:T:2017:893);

2. Annuls the decision of the appeal assessor of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of 21 September 2015 closing CJ’s appraisal report for 2011;

3. Orders the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CJ relating both to the proceedings at first instance and the appeal.

(1) OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
1.

Note 2(a) to Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, read in conjunction with General Rules Nos 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘Parts and accessories which are goods included in any of the headings of this chapter or of Chapter 84, 85 or 91’ in that note refers only to the four-digit headings of those chapters.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — A-PACK CZ s. r. o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-127/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 90 and 273 - Total or partial non-payment, by the debtor, of a sum due to the taxable person in respect of a transaction subject to VAT - Taxable amount - Reduction - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)

(2019/C 230/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A-PACK CZ s. r. o.

Respondent: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that a taxable person cannot correct the value added tax (VAT) taxable amount, in the case of total or partial non-payment, by its debtor, of a sum due in respect of a transaction subject to that tax, if the debtor is no longer a taxable person for the purposes of VAT.

(1) OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Grup Servicii Petroliere SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-291/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 148(a) and (c) - Exemptions related to international transport - Supply of offshore jackup drilling rigs - Concept of ‘vessels used for navigation on the high seas’ - Scope)

(2019/C 270/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grup Servicii Petroliere SA

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Operative part of the judgment

Article 148(a) and (c) 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 expression ‘vessels used for navigation on the high seas’ contained in that provision does not apply to the supply of floating structures, such as the offshore jackup drilling rigs of the type at issue in the main proceedings, which are used predominantly in a stationary position to exploit hydrocarbon deposits at sea.

(1) OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — Compagnie d'entreprises CFE SA v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

(Case C-43/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Order - Designation of a special area of conservation in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC - Establishment of conservation objectives and certain preventive measures - Notion of ‘plans and programmes’ - Obligation to undertake an environmental assessment)

(2019/C 263/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Compagnie d'entreprises CFE SA

Defendant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) and (4) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, an order such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which a Member State designates a special area of conservation (SAC) and establishes conservation objectives as well as certain preventive measures, does not fall within ‘plans and programmes’ for which an assessment of the effects on the environment is obligatory.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2019 — European Commission v NEX International Limited, formerly Icap plc, Icap Management Services Ltd, Icap New Zealand Ltd

(Case C-39/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Japanese yen interest rate derivatives sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Liability of an undertaking for its role as facilitator of the cartel - Calculation of the fine - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 305/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, M. Farley, T. Christoforou and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: NEX International Limited, formerly Icap plc, Icap Management Services Ltd, Icap New Zealand Ltd (represented by: C. Riis-Madsen, advokat, and by S. Frank, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

(Case C-348/18) (1)

(Preliminary reference - Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector - Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 - Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) - Establishment of the producers' contribution to the payment of the additional levy due - Reallocation of unused reference quantities - National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria)

(2019/C 280/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice

Defendant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

In the presence of: Comitato Spontaneo Produttori Latte (COSPLAT), Società Agricola Galleana — Società semplice, VS and Others

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 of 17 May 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State decides to reallocate unused reference quantities, that reallocation must be made between producers who have exceeded their reference quantities, in proportion to the reference quantities at their disposal.

(1) OJ C 394, 20.8.2018.
1.

Declares that, by maintaining the requirements relating to the location of the seat for partnerships and companies of civil engineers and patent agents, the requirements relating to legal form and shareholding for partnerships and companies of civil engineers, patent agents and veterinary surgeons, and the restriction of multidisciplinary activities for partnerships and companies of civil engineers and patent agents, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1), Article 15(1), (2)(b) and (c), and (3), and 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;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfarma sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

(Case C-387/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Free movement of goods - Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction - Protection of health and life of humans - Parallel import of medicinal products - Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products - Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products)

(2019/C 305/28)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delfarma sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires, for the issue of a parallel import licence for a medicinal product, that that medicinal product and the medicinal product which has been granted a marketing authorisation in that Member State are both reference medicinal products or both generic medicinal products and which, therefore, prohibits the issue of any parallel import licence for a medicinal product where it is a generic medicinal product whereas the medicinal product previously authorised in that Member State is a reference medicinal product.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.