ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives and Article 3, point 1, of Regulation No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that a material which cannot be classified as a ‘by-product’ within the meaning of the former provision may nevertheless be regarded as an ‘animal by-product’ within the meaning of the latter provision.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Belgische Staat, represented by the Minister van Werk, Economie en Consumenten, belast met de Buitenlandse handel, and by the Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie, Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie v Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV

(Case C-73/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(1) - Scope - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Action for the cessation of unfair commercial practices brought by a public authority to protect the interests of consumers)

(2020/C 297/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Belgische Staat, represented by the Minister van Werk, Economie en Consumenten, belast met de Buitenlandse handel, and by the Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie, Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie

Defendants: Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) 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 where the opposing parties are the authorities of a Member State and businesses established in another Member State, in which those authorities seek, primarily, findings of infringements constituting allegedly unlawful unfair commercial practices and an order for the cessation of such infringements and, as ancillary measures, an order for publicity measures and the imposition of a penalty payment, falls within the scope of the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in that provision.

(1) OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — A v B, C

(Case C-738/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Annex, point 1(e) - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Social housing - Obligation of residence and prohibition on subletting the property - Article 3(1) and (3) - Article 4(1) - Assessment of whether penalty clauses are unfair - Criteria)

(2020/C 390/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendants: B, C

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) and (3) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court examines whether a term in a consumer contract is unfair, within the meaning of those provisions, it must take account, among the terms which fall within the scope of that directive, of the degree of interaction between the term at issue and other terms, having regard, inter alia, to their respective scope. In order to assess whether the amount of the penalty imposed on the consumer is disproportionately high, within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, significant weight must be attached to those terms which relate to the same breach.

(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2020 — European Commission v Francisco Carreras Sequeros and Others, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-119/19 P and C-126/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Reform of 1 January 2014 - Article 6 of Annex X - Officials and members of the contract staff serving in a third country - New provisions on the granting of days of paid annual leave - Objection of illegality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31(2) - Directive 2003/88/EC - Fundamental right to paid annual leave)

(2020/C 378/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

(Case C-119/19 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr, G. Gattinara and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Mariola de las Heras Ojeda, Olivier Maes, Gabrio Marinozzi, Giacomo Miserocchi, Marc Thieme Groen (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats), European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau, J. Steele and E. Taneva, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

(Case C-126/19 P)

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Mariola de las Heras Ojeda, Olivier Maes, Gabrio Marinozzi, Giacomo Miserocchi, Marc Thieme Groen (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats), European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr, G. Gattinara and L. Vernier, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau, J. Steele and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 December 2018, Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission (T-518/16, EU:T:2018:873);

2. Dismisses the action brought by Mr Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Ms Mariola de las Heras Ojeda, Mr Olivier Maes, Mr Gabrio Marinozzi, Mr Giacomo Miserocchi and Mr Marc Thieme Groen in Case T-518/16;

3. Orders Mr Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Ms Mariola de las Heras Ojeda, Mr Olivier Maes, Mr Gabrio Marinozzi, Mr Giacomo Miserocchi and Mr Marc Thieme Groen to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in the context of the present appeals and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union, as well as those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the latter proceedings;

4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals;

5. Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Cham Holding Co. SA v Council of the European Union

(Case C-261/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against certain persons and entities engaged in activities in Syria - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Action for annulment)

(2020/C 399/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Cham Holding Co. SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Cham Holding Co. SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
2.

Article 325 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law, as interpreted in national case-law, under which, in criminal proceedings, the State may not claim compensation for damage caused to it by fraudulent conduct on the part of the accused person resulting in the misappropriation of funds from the budget of the European Union, and under which the State does not have, in those proceedings, any other type of action available to it by which it may assert its right as against the accused, provided that, which it is for the referring court to verify, the national legislation provides for effective proceedings for the recovery of assistance wrongly received from the budget of the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 October 2020 — Close SA, Cegelec SA v European Parliament

(Case C-447/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Public works contracts of the European Union - Tender procedure - Extension and refurbishment work on the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Scope of the contracting authority’s obligation to inform the tenderer who has not been awarded the contract - Statement of reasons)

(2020/C 423/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Close SA, Cegelec SA (represented by J.-L. Teheux and J.-M. Rikkers, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by E. Paladini and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Close SA and Cegelec SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
1.

Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, and Article 71(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the communication, under Article 5 of that directive, of a national measure prohibiting the use of certain active substances falling within the scope of that regulation must be regarded as the official provision of information on the need to take emergency measures within the meaning of Article 71(1) of that regulation, where: — that communication contains a clear presentation of the evidence showing, first, that those active substances are likely to constitute a serious risk to human or animal health or to the environment and, second, that that risk cannot be satisfactorily controlled without the adoption, as a matter of urgency, of the measures taken by the Member State concerned, and where — the European Commission failed to ask that Member State whether that communication must be treated as the official provision of information under Article 71(1) of that regulation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 — Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) v European Commission

(Case C-274/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 - Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 - Actibio grant agreement - Actibio project - Seventh framework programme - Eligible costs - Conflict of interests - Burden of proof - Time sheets - Audit report - Probative value - Principle of proportionality)

(2020/C 433/10)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (represented by: V. Christianos, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: O. Verheecke and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Potsdam — Germany) — Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG v ML

(Case C-529/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 16(c) - Right of withdrawal - Exceptions - Goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised - Goods which the trader has begun to produce)

(2020/C 423/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Potsdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: ML

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(c) 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 exception to the right of withdrawal laid down in that provision may be relied on against a consumer who has concluded an off-premises contract for the sale of goods which are to be made to his or her specifications, irrespective of whether the trader has begun to produce those goods.

(1) OJ C 348, 14.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — 5th AVENUE Products Trading GmbH v Hauptzollamt Singen

(Case C-775/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 29(1) and (3)(a) - Article 32(1)(c) and (5)(b) - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 157(2) - Customs valuation - Transaction value of imported goods - Concept of ‘condition of sale’ - Payment in return for the granting of an exclusive distribution right)

(2021/C 28/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: 5th AVENUE Products Trading GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Singen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 29(1) and (3)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that a payment made for a limited period of time by the buyer of imported goods to the seller of those goods, in return for the granting by the seller of an exclusive right to distribute those goods in a given territory, calculated on the basis of the turnover achieved in that territory, must be included in the customs value of those goods.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
1.

Point 1 of Article 24 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 by which a co-owner of immovable property seeks to prohibit another co-owner of that property from carrying out changes, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, to the designated use of his or her property subject to co-ownership, as provided for in a co-ownership agreement, must be regarded as constituting an action ‘which has as its object rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that that designated use may be relied on not only against the co-owners of that property, but also erga omnes, which it is for the referring court to verify.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-49/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications - Universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Networks and services - Article 13 - Financing of universal service obligations - Sharing mechanism - Principles of transparency, least market distortion, non-discrimination and proportionality)

(2021/C 35/07)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented: initially by L. Nicolae, P. Costa de Oliveira and G. Braga da Cruz, and subsequently by L. Nicolae and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, P. Barros da Costa and J. Marques, acting as Agents, and D. Silva Morais, advogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — R.N.N.S. (C-225/19), K.A. (C-226/19) v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

(Joined Cases C-225/19 and C-226/19) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Community Code on Visas - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Article 32(1) to (3) - Decision to refuse a visa - Annex VI - Standard form - Statement of reasons - Threat to public policy, internal security or public health, or to the international relations of any of the Member States - Article 22 - Procedure of prior consultation of central authorities of other Member States - Objection to the issuing of a visa - Appeal against a decision to refuse a visa - Scope of judicial review - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy)

(2021/C 35/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: R.N.N.S. (C-225/19), K.A. (C-226/19)

Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

Operative part of the judgment

Article 32(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning, first, that a Member State which has adopted a final decision refusing to issue a visa on the basis of Article 32(1)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 810/2009, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, because another Member State objected to the issuing of that visa is required to indicate, in that decision, the identity of the Member State which raised that objection, the specific ground for refusal based on that objection, accompanied, where appropriate, by the essence of the reasons for that objection, and the authority which the visa applicant may contact in order to ascertain the remedies available in that other Member State and, secondly, that, where an appeal is lodged against that decision on the basis of Article 32(3) of Regulation No 810/2009, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, the courts of the Member State which adopted that decision cannot examine the substantive legality of the objection raised by another Member State to the issuing of the visa.

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 March 2019, France v Commission (T-26/18, not published, EU:T:2019:153), first, in so far as the General Court dismissed the action of the French Republic concerning Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 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) in so far as, under the ground entitled ‘Control system gravely deficient, Corsica’, it imposed on that Member State flat-rate corrections at a rate of 100 % on area-related direct aid granted in Upper Corsica for the 2013 and 2014 claim years on the basis of deficiencies in the system for the control of area-related aid in Upper Corsica, and, secondly, in so far as the General Court made a ruling as to the costs;
1.

Declares that, by unilaterally seizing at the premises of the Banka Slovenije (Central Bank of Slovenia) documents connected to the performance of the tasks of the European System of Central Banks and of the Eurosystem and, as regards the period after that seizure, by failing to cooperate sincerely with the European Central Bank on that matter, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 343 TFEU, Article 39 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Articles 2, 18 and 22 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union and Article 4(3) TEU;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Maksu- ja Tolliamet v Heavyinstall OÜ

(Case C-420/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/24/EU - Article 16 - Recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures - Mutual assistance - Request for precautionary measures - Judicial decision of the applicant Member State for the purpose of implementing precautionary measures - Jurisdiction of the court of the requested Member State to assess and reassess the justification of those measures - Principles of mutual trust and of mutual recognition)

(2021/C 79/10)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maksu- ja Tolliamet

Defendant: Heavyinstall OÜ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16 of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the requested Member State, ruling on a request for precautionary measures, are bound by the assessment of the factual and legal compliance with the conditions laid down for the application of those measures made by the authorities of the applicant Member State, in particular where that assessment is contained in the document referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 16(1) of that directive, attached to that request.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.