ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Silvio Berlusconi, Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) v Banca d’Italia, Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

(Case C-219/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Acquisition of a qualifying holding in a credit institution - Procedure governed by Directive 2013/36/EU and by Regulations (EU) No 1024/2013 and No 468/2014 - Composite administrative procedure - Exclusive decision-making power of the European Central Bank (ECB) - Action brought against preparatory acts adopted by the national competent authority - Claim that the force of res judicata attaching to a national decision has been disregarded))

(2019/C 65/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Silvio Berlusconi, Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest)

Defendants: Banca d’Italia, Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

Third parties: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Banca Mediolanum SpA, Holding Italiana Quarta SpA, Fin. Prog. Italia di E. Doris & C. s.a.p.a., Sirefid SpA, Ennio Doris

Operative part of the judgment

Article 263 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national courts from reviewing the legality of decisions to initiate procedures, preparatory acts or non-binding proposals adopted by competent national authorities in the procedure provided for in Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC, in Articles 4(1)(c) and 15 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and in Articles 85 to 87 of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation). It is immaterial in that regard that a specific action for a declaration of invalidity on the ground of alleged disregard of the force of res judicata attaching to a national judicial decision has been brought before a national court.

(1) OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.
3.

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, contained in a model concession contract relating to a call for tenders and which provides for the withdrawal of the concession for management of the computerised Lotto and other fixed-odds numerical games: — for any type of offence in relation to which indictment is provided for and which, because of its nature, seriousness, method of commission and connection with the activity for which the concession was awarded, the contracting authority takes the view that it is such as to preclude the concessionaire possessing the requisite reliability, professionalism and moral quality, — or if the concessionaire infringes the rules on the prevention of irregular, unlawful and covert gaming and, in particular, where the concessionaire itself, or a company controlled by or linked to it, wherever located, markets other games comparable to the computerised Lotto and other fixed-odds numerical games, without possessing the requisite licence, provided that those clauses are justified and are proved to be proportionate to the objective pursued and comply with the principle of transparency, which is for the national court to determine in the light of the guidance set out in the present judgment.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — K.M. Zyla v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-272/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of workers - Equal treatment - Income tax - Social security contributions - Worker who left the Member State of her employment during the course of the calendar year - Application of the pro rata temporis rule to social security credit))

(2019/C 93/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: K.M. Zyla

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which, with a view to establishing the amount of social security contributions payable by a worker, provides that the social security component of the tax credit to which a worker is entitled for a calendar year is to be proportionate to the period during which that worker was insured under the social security system of that Member State, thus excluding from that annual credit a fraction proportionate to the period during which that worker was not insured under that social security system and lived in another Member State where he did not engage in professional activity.

(1) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Stefano Liberato v Luminita Luisa Grigorescu

(Case C-386/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments on maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(2) - Article 27 - Article 35(3) - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 19 - Lis pendens - Article 22(a) - Article 23(a) - Non-recognition where the decisions are manifestly contrary to public policy - Article 24 - Prohibition of review of jurisdiction of the court of origin - Ground for the non-recognition based on a breach of the rules of lis pendens - Absence))

(2019/C 93/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Stefano Liberato

Respondent: Luminita Luisa Grigorescu

Operative part of the judgment

The rules of lis pendens in Article 27 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 and Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that where, in a dispute in matrimonial matters, parental responsibility or maintenance obligations, the court second seised, in breach of those rules, delivers a judgment which becomes final, those articles preclude the courts of the Member State in which the court first seised is situated from refusing to recognise that judgment solely for that reason. In particular, that breach cannot, in itself, justify non-recognition of a judgment on the ground that it is manifestly contrary to public policy in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Nestrade SA v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT), Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

(Case C-562/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC - Arrangements for the refund of value added tax (VAT) - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Company not established in the European Union - Preliminary and final decision refusing the refund of VAT - Incorrect VAT identification number)

(2019/C 131/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nestrade SA

Defendants: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT), Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986, on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing a time limit on the possibility of rectifying incorrect invoices, for example by the rectification of the VAT identification number originally shown on the invoice, for the purposes of the exercise of the right to a VAT refund, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected, which it is for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — Georgios Pandalis v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH

(Case C-194/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) and Article 75 - EU trade mark Cystus - Food supplements not for medical purposes - Partial revocation - Lack of genuine use of the trade mark - Perception of the word ‘cystus’ as a descriptive indication of the main ingredient of the goods concerned - Obligation to state reasons))

(2019/C 112/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Georgios Pandalis (represented by: A. Franke, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents), LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Georgios Pandalis to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2019 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-399/17) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Shipment of waste - Refusal of the Czech Republic to ensure the take-back of the mixture TPS-NOLO (Geobal) shipped from that Member State to Poland - Existence of waste - Burden of proof - Proof)

(2019/C 155/05)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, E. Sanfrutos Cano and L. Haasbeek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, T. Müller and L. Dvořáková, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
3.

Article 63(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which income obtained by a company established in a third country that does not come from an activity of that company pursued on its own account, such as income classified as ‘controlled-company income from invested capital’ within the meaning of that legislation, is incorporated, pro rata to the amount of the shareholding, into the tax base of a taxable person residing in that Member State where that taxable person holds at least 1 % of the shares in that company and that income is taxed, in that third country, at a lower rate than the rate prevailing in the Member State concerned, unless there is a legal framework providing, in particular, treaty obligations that empower the national tax authorities of that Member State to verify, if necessary, the accuracy of information provided in respect of that company with a view to demonstrating that that taxable person’s shareholding in that company is not the result of an artificial scheme.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Unareti SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

(Case C-702/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in natural gas - Public service distribution concessions - Early cessation of concessions at the end of a transitional period - Reimbursement by the incoming concessionaire to the outgoing concessionaire - Principle of legal certainty)

(2019/C 187/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Unareti SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento per gli Affari Regionali, Autorità Garante per l’Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idrico — Sede di Milano, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Conferenza Stato Regioni ed Unificata — Ministero per gli affari regionali — Dipartimento per gli affari regionali e le autonomie, Conferenza Unificata Stato Regioni e Enti Locali

Operative part of the judgment

EU law on public service concessions, read in the light of the principle of legal certainty, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which amends the basic criteria for the calculation of the reimbursement to which holders of natural gas distribution concessions award without be put out for tender on account of the early termination of those concessions in order to award them again after being put out for tender.

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

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Canadian Solar Emea GmbH and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-236/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 3(7) - Article 9(4) - Temporal scope of Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012)

(2019/C 187/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd, formerly Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. (represented by: J. Bourgeois and A. Willems, avocats, and by S. De Knop, M. Meulenbelt and B. Natens, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, avocată), European Commission (represented by: N. Kuplewatzky, J.-F. Brakeland and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal;

4. Orders the Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal;

5. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Neculai Tarola v Minister for Social Protection

(Case C-483/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Freedom of movement for persons - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of free movement and residence within the territory of the Member States - Article 7(1)(a) - Employees and self-employed persons - Article 7(3)(c) - Right of residence for more than three months - National of a Member State who has worked in an employed capacity in another Member State for a period of two weeks - Involuntary unemployment - Retention of the status of worker for no less than six months - Entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance)

(2019/C 206/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Neculai Tarola

Defendant: Minister for Social Protection

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1)(a) and (3)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a Member State who, having exercised his right to free movement, acquired, in another Member State, the status of worker within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of that directive, on account of the activity he pursued there for a period of two weeks, otherwise than under a fixed-term employment contract, before becoming involuntarily unemployed, retains the status of worker for a further period of no less than six months under those provisions, provided that he has registered as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office.

It is for the referring court to determine whether, in accordance with the principle of equal treatment guaranteed in Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38, that national is, as a result, entitled to receive social assistance payments or, as the case may be, social security benefits on the same basis as if he were a national of the host Member State.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — proceedings brought by Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-638/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco - Directive 2011/64/EU - Article 4(1)(a) - Concept of ‘cigars or cigarillos’ - Rolls of tobacco with an outer wrapper of natural tobacco which is partially covered by an additional paper layer)

(2019/C 206/09)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Other party:‘Skonis ir kvapas’ UAB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as meaning that tobacco products, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, part of whose outer wrapper of natural tobacco is covered, at the filter, by an additional paper layer, liable to make those products visually similar to cigarettes, fall within the category of cigars or cigarillos, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — AB ‘Achema’, AB ‘Orlen Lietuva’, AB ‘Lifosa’ v Valstybinė kainų ir energetikos kontrolės komisija (VKEKK)

(Case C-706/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ - Measures intended to compensate providers of public interest services in the electricity sector - Concept of aid ‘affecting trade between Member States’ and ‘distorting or threatening to distort competition’ - Concept of‘selective advantage’ - Service of general economic interest - Offsetting of costs involved in the discharging of public service obligations)

(2019/C 255/09)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: AB ‘Achema’, AB ‘Orlen Lietuva’, AB ‘Lifosa’

Respondent: Valstybinė kainų ir energetikos kontrolės komisija (VKEKK)

Joined parties: Lietuvos Respublikos energetikos ministerija, UAB ‘Baltpool’

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the funds earmarked for financing a public interest service scheme, such as the public interest services in the electricity sector, constitute State resources within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, when distribution and transport system operators receive monies intended to finance public interest services in the electricity sector in order to offset the losses sustained by reason of the obligation to purchase electricity at a fixed rate from certain electricity producers and to balance it out, that compensation constitutes an advantage, within the meaning of that provision, granted to the electricity producers.

3. Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, funds, such as the monies intended for certain providers of public interest services in the electricity sector, must be regarded as conferring a selective advantage, within the meaning of that provision, on those providers and must be regarded as liable to affect trade between Member States.

4. Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a State measure, such as the regime of public interest services in the electricity sector, must not be regarded as compensation for services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, within the meaning of the judgment of 24 July 2003, Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg (C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415), unless the referring court establishes that any one of the public interest services in the electricity sector does in fact meet the four conditions set out in paragraphs 88 to 93 of that judgment.

5. Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a State measure, such as the regime relating to the provision of public interest services in the electricity sector, must be regarded as distorting or liable to distort competition.

(1) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
2.

A lease by the beneficiary of funding, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was paid as part of an investment operation co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) under the Leader axis referred to in Regulation No 1698/2005, of an asset acquired by means of that funding to another who uses it in connection with the same activity as that which the beneficiary of the funding was to exercise may amount to a substantial modification to the co-financed investment operation within the meaning of Article 72(1) of that regulation, which is for the referring court to ascertain in the light of all the elements of fact and of law at issue against the alternative conditions referred to in Article 72(1)(a) and (b) thereof. For the purposes of finding that there has been undue advantage given to a firm or public body within the meaning of Article 72(1)(a) of that regulation, it is for the competent national authority, to determine, subject to review by the relevant national courts, what the undue advantage specifically is. Whilst relevant, whether or not, in the light of the factual and legal situation, the actual user of the funding would have obtained the funding if it had itself submitted a funding application is not conclusive for the purposes of applying Article 72(1)(a) thereof.