ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Zărnești — Romania) — Asociaţia ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’ v TM, UN, Asociaţia DMPA

(Case C-88/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 12(1) - System of strict protection of animal species - Annex IV - Canis lupus (wolf) - Article 16(1) - Natural range - Capture and relocation of a wild animal of the species canis lupus - Public safety)

(2020/C 271/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Zărnești

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociaţia ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’

Defendants: TM, UN, Asociaţia DMPA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that the capture and relocation of a specimen of an animal species protected under Annex IV to that directive, such as the wolf, on the outskirts of a human settlement area or within such an area, can fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down in that provision.

Article 16(1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that any form of deliberate capture of specimens of that animal species in the aforementioned circumstances is prohibited in the absence of a derogation granted by the competent national authority on the basis of that provision.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania — Italy) — Antonio Capaldo SpA v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno

(Case C-496/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Examination of goods - Application for revision of a customs declaration - Post-clearance examination)

(2020/C 297/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Antonio Capaldo SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as not precluding the initiation of the procedure for revision of the customs declaration provided for therein, even though the goods in question were, on a previous import, subject, without challenge, to a physical inspection confirming their tariff classification.

(1) OJ C 257, 21.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Donex Shipping and Forwarding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-104/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common commercial policy - Dumping - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China - Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(10) and (11) - Rights of the defence)

(2020/C 287/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Donex Shipping and Forwarding BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has not revealed any elements capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

(Case C-539/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Roaming on public mobile communications networks within the European Union - Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 - Article 6a - Article 6e(3) - Roaming provider required to automatically apply the regulated roaming tariff - Application to consumer having opted for a specific roaming tariff prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012)

(2020/C 378/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Defendant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6a and 6e(3) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that, as from 15 June 2017, roaming service providers were required to apply automatically to all their customers the regulated roaming tariff referred to, inter alia, in Article 6a of that regulation, irrespective of whether those customers had previously opted for a regulated roaming tariff or for an alternative tariff, unless they had, before the deadline of 15 June 2017, expressly indicated their choice to benefit from such an alternative tariff, in accordance with the procedure laid down in that regard in the first subparagraph of Article 6e(3) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA

(Case C-253/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (UE) 2015/848 - Article 3 - International jurisdiction - Centre of a debtor’s main interests - Individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity - Rebuttable presumption that the centre of that person’s main interests is his or her habitual residence - Rebuttal of the presumption - Situation in which the debtor’s sole immovable asset is located outside the Member State of habitual residence)

(2020/C 297/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MH, NI

Defendants: OJ, Novo Banco SA

Operative part of the judgment

The first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the presumption established in that provision for determining international jurisdiction for the purposes of opening insolvency proceedings, according to which the centre of the main interests of an individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity is his or her habitual residence, is not rebutted solely because the only immovable property of that person is located outside the Member State of habitual residence.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) v Council of the European Union

(Case C-159/19 P) (1)

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

(2020/C 399/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
1.

Article 5(1), Article 6(1) and (2), Article 10(1) and Article 28(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that, under the transitional arrangements provided for in the latter provision, the burden of proof and standard of proof in respect of the health claims referred to in Article 13(1)(a) of that regulation are governed by Regulation No 1924/2006, which requires the food business operator concerned to be able to justify, by means of generally accepted scientific evidence, the claims which it uses. Those claims must be based on objective evidence which has sufficient scientific agreement.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Exter BV

(Case C-330/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 121(1) - Inward processing procedure - Release for free circulation - Incurrence of a customs debt - Determination of the debt - Concept of ‘taxation elements’ - Taking account of a preferential tariff measure)

(2020/C 414/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Exter BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 121(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as precluding the application of a preferential tariff measure leading to a reduced rate of customs duty, which was in force at the time of acceptance of the declaration of placing of goods under the inward processing procedure, but which was suspended at the date of acceptance of the declaration of release of those goods for free circulation.

(1) OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council of the European Union

(Case C-349/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating 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 399/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Almashreq Investment Fund (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

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 Almashreq Investment Fund to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
1.

Article 2(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82 of 21 January 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of citric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and of partial interim reviews pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that imports of goods cannot be exempted from the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1 of that implementing regulation when the invoice necessary for obtaining such exemption refers, in the declaration set out in point 9 of the list in the annex to that implementing regulation, not to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/87 of 21 January 2015 accepting the undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China, but to Commission Decision 2008/899/EC of 2 December 2008 accepting the undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — Vodafone España SAU v Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa

(Case C-443/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 13 - Fee for rights of use for radio frequencies - Sectoral national legislation subjecting the allocation of public radio frequencies to a charge - National legislation subjecting the grant of administrative concessions on public assets to a tax on the transfer of assets)

(2020/C 414/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone España SAU

Defendant: Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, whose legislation provides that the right to use radio frequencies is subject to a charge for the allocation of public radio frequencies, from also subjecting the grant of administrative concessions in that field to a tax on the transfer of assets applicable generally to the grant of administrative concessions on public assets under legislation that is not specifically applicable to the electronic communications sector, where the chargeable event giving rise to that tax is linked to the granting of rights of use for radio frequencies, provided that that charge and that tax, taken together, satisfy the conditions set out in that article, in particular, the condition relating to the proportionate nature of the amount collected in return for the right to use radio frequencies, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 November 2020 — Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-676/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Effects of a judgment of the Court)

(2021/C 19/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bruno Gollnisch (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and M. Ecker, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — BY, CZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-321/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/62/EC - Directive 2006/38/EC - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Article 7(9) - Article 7a(1) and (2) - Tolls - Principle of the recovery of infrastructure costs - Infrastructure costs - Operating costs - Costs related to traffic police - Cost overrun - Direct effect - Ex post justification of an excessive toll rate - Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment)

(2020/C 433/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BY, CZ

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that costs related to traffic police do not fall within the concept of ‘costs of operating’ within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2006/38, must be interpreted as precluding the weighted average tolls from exceeding the infrastructure costs of the infrastructure network concerned by 3,8 % or by 6 % as a result of what are not insignificant calculation errors or because costs that do not fall within the concept of ‘infrastructure costs’ within the meaning of that provision have been taken into account.

3. An individual may directly rely, before national courts, on the obligation to take into account only the infrastructure costs referred to in Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2006/38, that is imposed by that provision and by Article 7a(1) and (2) thereof, against a Member State where that Member State has failed to comply with that obligation or has failed to transpose it correctly.

4. Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2006/38, read in the light of paragraph 138 of the judgment of 26 September 2000, Commission v Austria (C-205/98, EU:C:2000:493), must be interpreted as precluding an excessive toll rate from being justified ex post by a new calculation of the infrastructure costs that is produced in the context of judicial proceedings.

(1) OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale v WS

(Case C-302/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/98/EU - Rights for third country workers who hold single permits - Article 12 - Right to equal treatment - Social security - Legislation of a Member State excluding, for the purposes of determining entitlement to a family benefit, the family members of the holder of a single permit who do not reside in the territory of that Member State)

(2021/C 35/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale

Defendant: WS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State under which, for the purpose of determining entitlement to a social security benefit, the family members of the holder of a single permit, within the meaning of Article 2(c) thereof, who do not reside in the territory of that Member State but in a third country are not be taken into account, whereas account is taken of family members of nationals of that Member State residing in a third country.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2020 — European External Action Service v Chantal Hebberecht

(Case C-93/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - European External Action Service (EEAS) - Policy of rotating officials - Position of Head of the European Union Delegation to Ethiopia - Decision refusing to extend the assignment to that position - Interests of the service - Principle of equal treatment - Positive discrimination in favour of the under-represented sex - Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union)

(2021/C 28/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Chantal Hebberecht

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the EEAS to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2020 — Groupe Canal + v European Commission, French Republic, Union des producteurs de cinéma (UPC), C More Entertainment AB, European Film Agency Directors — EFAD’s, European Consumer Organisation (BEUC)

(Case C-132/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Television distribution - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 9 and Article 16(1) - Decision making commitments binding - Absolute territorial protection - Misuse of powers - Preliminary assessment - No obligation on the European Commission to take account of considerations relating to the application of Article 101(3) TFEU - Agreements intended to partition national markets - No obligation on the Commission to analyse the relevant national markets one by one - Proportionality - Adverse effect on the contractual rights of third parties)

(2021/C 44/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Groupe Canal + (represented by: P. Wilhelm, P. Gassenbach and O. de Juvigny, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, C. Urraca Caviedes and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier and M. P. Dodeller, acting as Agents), Union des producteurs de cinéma (UPC) (represented by: E. Lauvaux, avocat), C More Entertainment AB, European Film Agency Directors — EFAD’s (represented by: O. Sasserath, avocat), European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) (represented by: A. Fratini, avvocatessa)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 December 2018, Groupe Canal + v Commission (T-873/16, EU:T:2018:904);

2. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 26 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40023 — Cross-border access to pay-TV);

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Groupe Canal + SA, the European Film Agency Directors — EFADs, the Union des producteurs de cinéma (UPC) in the present appeal and the proceedings at first instance and those incurred by C More Entertainment AB in the proceedings at first instance;

4. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs;

5. Orders the European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.