ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Article 9 of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that factual circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, that is to say, the video recording of police officers in a police station, while a statement is being made, and the publication of that recorded video on a video website, on which users can send, watch and share videos, may constitute a processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes, within the meaning of that provision, in so far as it is apparent from that video that the sole object of that recording and publication thereof is the disclosure of information, opinions or ideas to the public, this being a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deutsche Post AG v Hauptzollamt Köln

(Case C-496/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - The Union Customs Code - Article 39 - Status of authorised economic operator - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 - The second subparagraph of Article 24(1) - Applicant not a natural person - Questionnaire - Collection of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 6 and 7 - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Articles 5 and 6 - Processing of personal data))

(2019/C 93/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code, read in the light of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may require an applicant for AEO status to send to them the tax identification numbers, allocated for the purposes of collecting income tax, concerning solely the natural persons who are in charge of the applicant or who exercise control over its management and those who are in charge of the applicant’s customs matters, and the details of the tax offices responsible for the taxation of all those persons, to the extent that that data enables those authorities to obtain information on serious or repeated infringements of customs legislation or taxation rules or on serious criminal offences, committed by those natural persons and relating to their economic activity.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Vantaan kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy, NCC Industry Oy, Asfaltmix Oy

(Case C-724/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Compensation for the damage caused by a cartel prohibited by that article - Determination of the undertakings liable to provide compensation - Succession of legal entities - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Economic continuity test)

(2019/C 155/14)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vantaan kaupunki

Respondents: Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy, NCC Industry Oy, Asfaltmix Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which all the shares in the companies which participated in a cartel prohibited by that article were acquired by other companies which have dissolved the former companies and continued their commercial activities, the acquiring companies may be held liable for the damage caused by the cartel in question.

(1) OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien — Austria) — BUAK Bauarbeiter-Urlaubs- u. Abfertigungskasse v Gradbeništvo Korana d.o.o.

(Case C-579/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(1) - Scope - Civil and commercial matters - Article 1(2) - Matters excluded - Social security - Article 53 - Application for the issue of the certificate certifying that the judgment delivered by the court of origin is enforceable - Judgment relating to a claim for wage supplements regarding annual leave pay that a social security body has against an employer with respect to the posting of workers - Exercise of a judicial function by the court ruling in the case)

(2019/C 139/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BUAK Bauarbeiter-Urlaubs- u. Abfertigungskasse

Defendant: Gradbeništvo Korana d.o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 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 for payment of wage supplements in respect of annual leave pay brought by a body governed by public law against an employer, in connection with the posting of workers to a Member State where they do not have their habitual place of work, or in the context of the provision of labour in that Member State, or against an employer established outside of the territory of that Member State in connection with the employment of workers who have their habitual place of work in that Member State, falls within the scope of application of that regulation, in so far as the modalities for bringing such an action do not infringe the rules of general law and, in particular, do not exclude the possibility for the court ruling on the case to verify the merits of the information on which the establishment of that claim is based, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court.

(1) OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 de Barcelona — Spain) — Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Alberto García Salamanca Santos (C-70/17) and Bankia SA v Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez (C-179/17)

(Joined Cases C-70/17 and C-179/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 6 and 7 - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract - Declaration that the clause is unfair in part - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law)

(2019/C 187/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring courts

Tribunal Supremo and Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant/Applicant: Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA (C-70/17) and Bankia SA (C-179/17)

Respondent/Defendants: Alberto García Salamanca Santos (C-70/17) and Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez (C-179/17)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, first, as precluding an accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract that has been found to be unfair from being maintained in part, with the elements which make it unfair removed, where the removal of those elements would be tantamount to revising the content of that clause by altering its substance, and, second, as not precluding the national court from compensating for the invalidity of such an unfair term by replacing that term with the new wording of the legislative provision on which it was based, which is applicable where the parties to the contract so agree, provided that the mortgage loan contract in question cannot continue in existence if that unfair term is removed, and that the annulment of the contract in its entirety would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences.

(1) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Suez II Water Technologies & Solutions Portugal, Unipessoal Lda, formerly GE Power Controls Portugal Unipessoal, Lda v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-643/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 37 - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 313 - Customs status of goods - Presumption of the Community status of goods)

(2019/C 148/04)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Suez II Water Technologies & Solutions Portugal, Unipessoal Lda, formerly GE Power Controls Portugal Unipessoal, Lda

Respondent: Fazenda Pública

Operative part of the judgment

Article 313 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 75/98 of 12 January 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, supplied and invoiced by companies established in third countries to a company established in the customs territory of the European Union in order to be used there, must be regarded as having been brought into that territory within the meaning of Article 37 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and to be covered, in that regard, by the exception provided for in Article 313(2)(a) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 75/98, as only goods in respect of which it has been proven that a procedure for releasing them for free circulation in the customs territory of the European Union has been carried out are to be recognised as having Community status.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Peter Bosworth, Colin Hurley v Arcadia Petroleum Limited and Others

(Case C-603/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Lugano II Convention - Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Title II, Section 5 (Articles 18 to 21) - Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment)

(2019/C 206/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Bosworth, Colin Hurley

Defendants: Arcadia Petroleum Limited and Others

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Section 5 of Title II (Articles 18 to 21) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a contract between a company and a natural person performing the duties of director of that company does not create a relationship of subordination between them and cannot, therefore, be treated as an ‘individual contract of employment’, within the meaning of those provisions, where, even if the shareholder(s) of that company have the power to procure the termination of that contract, that person is able to determine or does determine the terms of that contract and has control and autonomy over the day-to-day operation of that company’s business and the performance of his own duties.

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Portugal) — Cogeco Communications Inc. v Sport TV Portugal SA, Controlinveste-SGPS SA, NOS-SGPS SA

(Case C-637/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 102 TFEU - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Directive 2014/104/EU - Article 9(1) - Article 10(2) to (4) - Articles 21 and 22 - Actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union - Effects of national decisions - Limitation periods - Transposition - Temporal application)

(2019/C 187/24)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cogeco Communications Inc.

Defendants: Sport TV Portugal SA, Controlinveste-SGPS SA, NOS-SGPS SA

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 22 of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.

2. Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, first, provides that the limitation period in respect of actions for damages is three years and starts to run from the date on which the injured party was aware of its right to compensation, even if unaware of the identity of the person liable and, secondly, does not include any possibility of suspending or interrupting that period during proceedings before the national competition authority.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
1.

Declares that, by adopting Paragraph 108(1) of mező- és erdőgazdasági földek forgalmáról szóló 2013. évi CXXII. törvénnyel összefüggő egyes rendelkezésekről és átmeneti szabályokról szóló 2013. évi CCXII. törvény (Law No CCXII of 2013 laying down various provisions and transitional measures concerning Law No CXXII of 2013 on transactions in agricultural and forestry land) and thereby cancelling, by operation of law, the rights of usufruct over agricultural and forestry land located in Hungary that are held, directly or indirectly, by nationals of other Member States, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU in conjunction with Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Trento — Italy) — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti

(Case C-494/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Fixed-term work - Contracts concluded with a public sector employer - Measures to penalise misuse of fixed-term employment contracts - Conversion of the employment relationship into a relationship of indefinite duration - Limitation on the retroactive effect of the conversion - No financial remedies)

(2019/C 230/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR

Defendants: Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation which, as applied by the national supreme courts, precludes any entitlement to financial compensation on account of the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts for public-sector teachers whose employment relationship has been converted from a fixed-term relationship into one of indefinite duration, with limited retroactive effect, if such conversion is neither uncertain nor unpredictable or fortuitous and the limited account taken of the period of service completed under those successive fixed-term employment contracts constitutes a measure that is proportionate for the purpose of punishing that misuse, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
3)

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a national court may not make use of a national provision empowering it to maintain certain effects of a measure which has been annulled in order to maintain temporarily the effect of national provisions which it has found incompatible with Directive 2006/112 until they are made to comply with that directive, with a view, on the one hand, to limiting the risks of legal uncertainty resulting from the retroactive effect of that annulment and, on the other hand, to avoiding the application of a national regime predating those provisions and which is incompatible with that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos — Greece) — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE v Panagiotis Anagnostopoulos and Others

(Case C-664/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Scope - Transfer of part of an undertaking - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Concept of ‘transfer’ - Concept of ‘economic entity’ - Transfer of part of the economic activity of a parent company to a newly created subsidiary - Identity - Autonomy - Pursuit of an economic activity - Criterion requiring stability of the pursuit of an economic activity - Recourse to factors of production of third parties - Intention to liquidate the entity transferred)

(2019/C 263/08)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Areios Pagos

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ellinika Nafpigeia AE

Respondents: Panagiotis Anagnostopoulos and Others

Interveners: Syllogos Ergazomenon Nafpigeion Skaramagka, I TRIAINA, Panellinia Omospondia Ergatoÿpallilon Metallou (POEM), Geniki Synomospondia Ergaton Ellados (GSEE)

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, in particular Article 1(1)(a) and (b) thereof, must be interpreted as applying to the transfer of a production unit where, first, the transferor, the transferee, or both those persons jointly, act with a view to the transferee pursuing the economic activity engaged in by the transferor, but also with a view to the transferee itself subsequently ceasing to exist, in the context of a liquidation, and second, the unit at issue, lacking the ability to attain its economic object without having recourse to factors of production from third parties, is not totally autonomous, provided that — matters which are for the referring court to establish — first, the general principle of EU law requiring the transferor and transferee not to seek to obtain fraudulently or wrongfully the advantages that they might derive from Directive 2001/23 is observed and, second, the production unit concerned has sufficient safeguards ensuring it access to the factors of production of a third party so as not to be dependent upon the economic choices unilaterally made by the latter.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Utrecht — Netherlands) — Sumanan Vethanayagam, Sobitha Sumanan and Kamalaranee Vethanayagam v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

(Case C-680/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Community code on visas - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Article 5 - Member State competent for examining and deciding on a visa application - Article 8 - Representation arrangement - Article 32(3) - Appeal against a decision refusing a visa - Member State competent to decide on the appeal if there is a representation arrangement - Persons entitled to bring an appeal)

(2019/C 319/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Utrecht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sumanan Vethanayagam, Sobitha Sumanan and Kamalaranee Vethanayagam

Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 32(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, must be interpreted as not allowing the sponsor to bring an appeal in his own name against a decision refusing a visa.

2. Article 8(4)(d) and Article 32(3) of Regulation No 810/2009, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, must be interpreted as meaning that, when there is a bilateral representation arrangement providing that the consular authorities of the representing Member State are entitled to take decisions refusing visas, it is for the competent authorities of that Member State to decide on appeals brought against a decision refusing a visa.

3. A combined interpretation of Article 8(4)(d) and Article 32(3) of Regulation No 810/2009, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, according to which an appeal against a decision refusing a visa must be conducted against the representing State, is compatible with the fundamental right to effective judicial protection.

(1) OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — proceedings brought by A

(Case C-716/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Restrictions - Initiation of debt relief proceedings - Condition of residence - Whether permissible - Article 45 TFEU - Direct effect)

(2019/C 305/11)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Party to the main proceedings

A

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a rule on jurisdiction laid down by the legislation of a Member State, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, that makes a grant of debt relief subject to the condition that the debtor must have his domicile or residence in that Member State.

2. Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as requiring the national court to disapply the residence condition laid down by a national rule on jurisdiction, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, irrespective of whether the debt relief proceedings, which are also laid down by that legislation, may potentially affect the debt claims of private creditors under that legislation.

(1) OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.