ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

The freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of deductions applied to the gross amount of a tax on deposits made by customers of credit institutions which have their head office or branches in the territory of a region of a Member State, — it precludes a deduction of EUR 200 000 from the gross amount of that tax in favour of credit institutions which have their head office in the territory of that region; — it does not preclude deductions from the gross amount of that tax of EUR 5 000 per branch established in the territory of that region, the latter amount being increased to EUR 7 500 for any branch situated in a municipality with fewer than 2 000 inhabitants, unless those deductions de facto entail an unjustified discrimination based on the location of the registered office of the credit institutions concerned, which it is for the national court to determine. Article 63(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a tax on deposits made by customers of credit institutions which have their head office or branches in the territory of a region of a Member State, it precludes deductions from the gross amount of that tax equal to credits, loans and investments intended for projects carried out in that region, provided that those deductions pursue an objective of a purely economic nature.
1.

Orders that, by adopting Paragraph 3(2)(u) of the mezőgazdasági és élelmiszeripari termékek vonatkozásában a beszállítókkal szemben alkalmazott tisztességtelen forgalmazói magatartás tilalmáról szóló 2009. évi XCV. törvény (Law No XCV of 2009 prohibiting unfair trading practices applied against suppliers of agricultural and food products) and by thus restricting the way in which the selling prices of agricultural and food products are formed, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — VG Bild-Kunst v Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz

(Case C-392/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘communication to the public’ - Embedding, in a third party’s website, of a copyright-protected work by means of the process of framing - Work freely accessible with the authorisation of the copyright holder on the licensee’s website - Clause in the exploitation agreement requiring the licensee to introduce effective technological measures against framing - Lawfulness - Fundamental rights - Article 11 and Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2021/C 182/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VG Bild-Kunst

Respondent: Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the embedding, by means of the technique of framing, in a third party website page, of works that are protected by copyright and that are freely accessible to the public with the authorisation of the copyright holder on another website, where that embedding circumvents measures adopted or imposed by that copyright holder to provide protection from framing, constitutes a communication to the public within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — Italmobiliare SpA, Sirap-Gema SpA, Sirap France SAS, Petruzalek GmbH, Petruzalek s.r.o., Petruzalek s.r.o. and Petruzalek kft v European Commission

(Case C-694/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Conditions for the granting of immunity - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Sales value - Upper limit of the fine - Duration of the administrative procedure - Reasonable time - Ability to pay)

(2021/C 217/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Italmobiliare SpA, Sirap-Gema SpA, Sirap France SAS, Petruzalek GmbH, Petruzalek s.r.o., Petruzalek s.r.o. and Petruzalek kft (represented by: F. Moretti, avvocatessa)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: initially by P. Rossi and T. Vecchi, and subsequently by P. Rossi, G. Conte and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Italmobiliare SpA, Sirap-Gema SpA, Sirap France SAS, Petruzalek GmbH, Petruzalek s.r.o., Petruzalek s.r.o. and Petruzalek kft to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 372, 04.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Q-GmbH v Finanzamt Z

(Case C-907/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(a) - Insurance transactions and related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents - Service supplied for an insurer, comprising different services - Categorisation as a single supply)

(2021/C 206/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Q-GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Z

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(a) 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 value added tax (VAT) exemption which it lays down does not apply to services provided by a taxable person, which include the supply of an insurance product to an insurance company and, accessorily, the placement of that product on behalf of that company and the management of insurance contracts concluded, in the event that the referring court categorises those services as a single supply for VAT purposes.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim — Poland) — Powiat Ostrowski v Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny

(Case C-383/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3, first paragraph - Obligation to take out a contract of insurance - Scope - Local government authority which has acquired a vehicle by judicial means - Registered vehicle which is on private land and intended to be destroyed)

(2021/C 263/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Powiat Ostrowski

Defendant: Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, is to be interpreted as meaning that the conclusion of contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of a motor vehicle is compulsory where the vehicle concerned is registered in a Member State, as long as that vehicle has not been officially withdrawn from use in accordance with the applicable national rules.

(1) OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council of the European Union, European Parliament

(Case C-733/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 - Conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources - Protection of marine ecosystems - Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 - Technical measures - Annex V, Part D - Ban on fishing by vessels using electric pulse trawls - Principle of proportionality - Precautionary principle)

(2021/C 217/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, M. Noort and P. Huurnink, acting as Agents)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and A. Maceroni, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: R. van de Westelaken, I. Liukkonen and K. Zejdová, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères and M. J.-L. Carré, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA, Harz-Metall GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-563/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for car battery recycling - 2006 Leniency Notice - Point 26 - Partial immunity - Additional facts increasing the gravity or the duration of the infringement - Elements known to the European Commission - Reduction of the amount of the fine - Ranking for the purposes of the reduction - Chronological order)

(2021/C 289/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA, Harz-Metall GmbH (represented by: M. Wellinger, avocat, and by S. Reinart and K. Bongs, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, I. Rogalski, and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux SA and Harz-Metall GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — CS, Finanzamt Österreich, Dienststelle Graz-Stadt, formerly Finanzamt Graz-Stadt v Finanzamt Österreich, Dienststelle Judenburg Liezen, formerly Finanzamt Judenburg Liezen, technoRent International GmbH

(Case C-844/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90 - Reduction of the taxable amount - Article 183 - Refund of excess VAT - Default interest - No national rule - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Direct effect of provisions of EU law - Principle that national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law)

(2021/C 278/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CS, Finanzamt Österreich, Dienststelle Graz-Stadt, formerly Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

Defendants: Finanzamt Österreich, Dienststelle Judenburg Liezen, formerly Finanzamt Judenburg Liezen, technoRent International GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90(1) and Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as meaning that a refund resulting from an adjustment of the taxable amount under Article 90(1) of that directive must, like a refund of excess value added tax under Article 183 of that directive, give rise to the payment of interest where it is not made within a reasonable period of time. It is for the referring court to do whatever lies within its jurisdiction to give full effect to those provisions by interpreting national law in conformity with EU law.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG v SM

(Case C-800/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Article 7(2) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur - Person claiming infringement of his personality rights resulting from the publication of an article online - Place in which the damage occurred - Centre of the interests of that person)

(2021/C 310/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG

Defendant: SM

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) 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 the courts of the place in which the centre of interests of a person claiming that his or her personality rights have been infringed by content published online on a website is situated have jurisdiction to hear, in respect of the entirety of the alleged damage, an action for damages brought by that person only if that content contains objective and verifiable elements which make it possible to identify, directly or indirectly, that person as an individual.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
3.

Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, the requirement of transparency of terms of that agreement, which provide that the foreign currency is the account currency and the euro the settlement currency and which have the effect that the foreign exchange risk is borne by the borrower, is satisfied where the seller or supplier has provided the consumer with sufficient and accurate information to enable the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to understand the specific functioning of the financial mechanism in question and thus to evaluate the risk of potentially significant adverse economic consequences of such terms on his or her financial obligations throughout the term of the agreement.
1.

Declares that: — by failing to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), which is responsible for reviewing decisions issued in disciplinary proceedings against judges (Article 3(5), Article 27 and Article 73 § 1 of the ustawa o Sądzie Najwyższym (Law on the Supreme Court) of 8 December 2017, in the consolidated version published in the Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej of 2019 (item 825), read in conjunction with Article 9a of the ustawa o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa (Law on the National Council of the Judiciary) of 12 May 2011, as amended by the ustawa o zmianie ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Law amending the Law on the National Council of the Judiciary and certain other laws) of 8 December 2017); — by allowing the content of judicial decisions to be classified as a disciplinary offence involving judges of the ordinary courts (Article 107 § 1 of the ustawa — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts) of 27 July 2001, in the version resulting from the successive amendments published in the Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej of 2019 (items 52, 55, 60, 125, 1469 and 1495), and Article 97 § § 1 and 3 of the Law on the Supreme Court, in the consolidated version published in the Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej of 2019 (item 825)); — by conferring on the President of the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) the discretionary power to designate the disciplinary tribunal with jurisdiction at first instance in cases concerning judges of the ordinary courts (Article 110 § 3 and Article 114 § 7 of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts, in the version resulting from the successive amendments published in the Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej of 2019 (items 52, 55, 60, 125, 1469 and 1495)) and, therefore, by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases are examined by a tribunal ‘established by law’; and — by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases against judges of the ordinary courts are examined within a reasonable time (second sentence of Article 112b § 5 of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts), and by providing that actions relating to the appointment of defence counsel and the taking up of the defence by that counsel do not have a suspensory effect on the course of the disciplinary proceedings (Article 113a of that law) and that the disciplinary tribunal is to conduct the proceedings despite the justified absence of the notified accused judge or his or her defence counsel (Article 115a § 3 of the same law) and, therefore, by failing to guarantee respect for the rights of defence of accused judges of the ordinary courts, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU;
4.

Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, a road haulage undertaking from granting drivers a bonus calculated on the basis of the savings made in the form of reduced fuel consumption in relation to the journey made. Nevertheless, such a bonus would infringe the prohibition laid down in that provision if, instead of being linked solely to saving fuel, it rewarded such saving on the basis of the distances travelled and/or the amount of goods carried, in such a way as to encourage the driver to act in a manner that endangers road safety or infringes Regulation No 561/2006.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — Belén Bernaldo de Quirós v European Commission

(Case C-583/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Disciplinary proceedings - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 3 of Annex IX - Commission Decision C(2004) 1588 on general implementing provisions on the conduct of administrative enquiries and disciplinary proceedings - Article 4(4) - Administrative enquiry - Hearing of the official concerned - Mandate given to the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) to carry out that hearing - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard)

(2021/C 502/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Belén Bernaldo de Quirós to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Banco Santander SA v European Commission

(Case C-52/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification for the difference in treatment)

(2021/C 481/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Banco Santander SA (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Banco Santander SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Fereydoun Mahmoudian v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-681/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of his name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on a claim seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2022/C 24/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Fereydoun Mahmoudian (represented by: A. Bahrami, avocat, and N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Fereydoun Mahmoudian to bear his owns costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Y v CAK

(Case C-636/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Cross-border healthcare - Concept of ‘insured person’ - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 1(c) - Article 2 - Article 24 - Right to the benefits in kind provided by the Member State of residence at the expense of the Member State responsible for paying the pension - Directive 2011/24/EU - Article 3(b)(i) - Article 7 - Reimbursement of the costs of healthcare received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence and the Member State responsible for paying the pension - Conditions)

(2022/C 2/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Y

Defendant: CAK

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(b)(i) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, read in combination with Article 1(c) and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the person in receipt of a pension under the legislation of a Member State, who has a right, under Article 24 of that regulation, as amended, to the benefits in kind provided by the Member State of his or her residence at the expense of the Member State responsible for paying his or her pension, must be regarded as an ‘insured person’, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of that directive, who is able to obtain reimbursement of the costs of the cross-border healthcare that he or she has received in a third Member State, without being affiliated to the compulsory sickness insurance scheme of the Member State responsible for paying his or her pension.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019