ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-62/18 P: Appeal brought on 30 January 2018 by Merck KGaA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 17 November 2017 in Case T-802/16: Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck

Appeal brought on 30 January 2018 by Merck KGaA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 17 November 2017 in Case T-802/16: Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck

(Case C-62/18 P)

Parties

Appellant: Merck KGaA (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar, S. Schäffner, Rechtsanwälte, M. Giannakoulis, advocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Endoceutics, Inc.

By order of 31 May 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
3.

If the last question is answered in the affirmative, is it sufficient that a commitment of cost bearing is entered into by a third-country national whereby that third-country national undertakes to ensure that the applicant for long-term resident status ‘has, for himself/herself and for his/her dependent family members, stable, regular and sufficient resources to maintain himself/herself and the members of his/her family to avoid becoming a burden for the State’ in order to prove that the applicant has resources within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2003/109/EC?
Case C-264/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 13 April 2018 — P. M., N. G.d.M., P. V.d.S. v Ministerraad

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 13 April 2018 — P. M., N. G.d.M., P. V.d.S. v Ministerraad

(Case C-264/18)

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: P. M., N. G.d.M., P. V.d.S.

Defendant: Ministerraad

Question referred

Is Article 10(c) and (d)(i), (ii) and (v) of Directive 2014/24/EU ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014‘on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC’ compatible with the principle of equal treatment, whether or not read in conjunction with the principle of subsidiarity and with Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, since the services mentioned therein are excluded from the application of the procurement rules in the aforementioned Directive which nevertheless guarantee full competition and free movement in the procurement of services by public authorities?

( 1 ) OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.
Case C-324/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 May 2018 — Sicilville Srl v Comune di Brescia

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 May 2018 — Sicilville Srl v Comune di Brescia

(Case C-324/18)

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sicilville Srl

Respondent: Comune di Brescia

Question referred

Does EU law, more specifically Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU ( 1 ) on public procurement, in conjunction with recital 101 of the directive and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, preclude national legislation, such as that at issue, which categorises ‘grave professional misconduct’ as a mandatory ground of exclusion of an economic operator and provides that, where the professional misconduct has led to the early termination of a public contract, the operator may be excluded only if the termination is not contested or is confirmed at the conclusion of judicial proceedings?

( 1 ) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
4.

In so far as national law is applicable or the court is required to take a discretionary decision: is the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation intended to redress only the inconvenience and the loss of time suffered by passengers as a result of the cancellation, or is it also intended to address material damage?
1.

A. The Slovak legislature, in response to the judgment in Case C-42/15 ( 1 ) has deleted with effect as of 1 May 2018 the words ‘capital, interest and other charges’ from Paragraph 9, on credit repayments and contractual terms, of Zákon č. 129/2010 Z.z. o spotrebiteľských úveroch a o iných úveroch a pôžičkách pre spotrebiteľov a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (Law No 129/2010 on consumer credit and other credits and loans for consumers and amending and supplementing certain laws), thereby ending the legal right of consumers to any explanation in a consumer credit agreement (not just by means of an amortisation table) of the breakdown of payment of the credit in terms of the capital, interest and other charges, as well as the penalties for infringement of that law. B. Although, from 1 May 2018, the amendment of the law has enabled a better execution of the judgment of the Court of Justice, the fact remains that in disputes concerning consumer contracts concluded prior to 1 May 2018, the [Slovak] courts have also reacted in practice by, inter alia, seeking, by means of an interpretation ‘in conformity with EU law’ to achieve in essence the same result as that pursued by the legislature. C. In this connection, the question referred to the Court of Justice concerns the interpretation of EU law by application of the doctrine of the indirect effect of directives. Taking into account the huge amount of decisions in which the courts in the past have conceded that consumers were granted, under Law No 129/2010, the right to a breakdown of repayments in terms of the capital, interest and other charges, the following question is referred: In applying the doctrine of the indirect effect of a directive with regard to horizontal relationships between individuals with the aim of rendering the directive fully effective using all interpretative methods and the national legal order in its entirety, does the principle of legal certainty enable the court to adopt, in a dispute concerning a consumer credit contract concluded prior to 1 May 2018, a decision which is equivalent as to its effects to the amendments, effective as of 1 May 2018, made to the Law by the legislature for the purposes of executing the judgment in Case C-42/15?
2.

If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, does the protection offered by the doctrine of unfair terms also extend to a passenger who makes use of public transport without having acquired a ticket and who, by that action, under the general terms and conditions of the transport company, which are considered to be generally binding on the basis of their regulatory nature or, alternatively, by virtue of their publication in an official State publication, is obliged to pay a surcharge in addition to the fare?
Case C-355/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 31 May 2018 — Barbara Rust-Hackner v Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 31 May 2018 — Barbara Rust-Hackner v Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

(Case C-355/18)

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Barbara Rust-Hackner

Defendant: Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

Questions referred

1. Must Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619/EEC (Second Life Assurance Directive), ( 1 ) as amended by Directive 92/96/EEC (Third Life Assurance Directive), ( 2 ) in conjunction with Article 31 of Directive 92/96/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that information regarding the right of cancellation must also contain the notice that the cancellation does not have to be communicated in any specific form?

2. In the event that the information issued to the policy-holder regarding the right of cancellation was incorrect, is it still possible for the life assurance contract to be cancelled after it has been terminated by the policy-holder by giving notice of termination (and repurchase)?

( 1 ) Second Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).

( 2 ) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).
4.

Is a practice of the bodies of a Member State with responsibility for applying the law, whereby, during tax inspections commenced ex officio or subsequent court proceedings it is not possible — despite the principle of effectiveness and the obligation to disapply an incompatible provision of national law — to submit an application for a refund of tax set under a national tax provision which is contrary to EU law, on the ground that the tax authority or the court examines the issue of incompatibility with EU law only in special proceedings commenced on application by a party which may be brought prior to the ex officio procedure, whereas, as far as tax which has been set in breach of national law is concerned, there is nothing to prevent an application for a refund from being submitted in proceedings before the tax authority or a court, compatible with the principle of procedural equivalence and the principles of effectiveness and the primacy of EU law?
—

itself deliver a final decision in the proceedings and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (2) in so far as they concern the appellant, and order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice;
Action brought on 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-487/18)

(2018/C 328/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of its national programme for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste; (1)

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Up to the present, the defendant has merely notified the Commission of a draft national programme. In its replies to the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion it explained that the national programme had still to be adopted by the Federal Government, something which had not yet occurred. Only after that adoption would notification of the national programme be possible. However, the defendant has not yet followed up on those announcements. The defendant has thus still not notified a national programme and has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of the directive.

(1) OJ 2011 L 199, p. 48.
—

In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the second plea in law, the appellant requests that the contested decision be set aside and the General Court be instructed to restrict its consideration to the factual and legal questions addressed in the Board of Appeal Decision. If the General Court concludes that it cannot uphold the Board of Appeal Decision when the Website Disclosures are considered in isolation, then the appellant requests that it refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal for further consideration as to whether, in light of the evidence provided, the Fort Lauderdale Disclosures and Sales Disclosures fall within the Article 7 (1) exception.
4.

If the answers to the first question and/or second question are such that a Member State has to ensure that location information is established under Article 26(5) of Directive 2002/22/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, and/or the answer to the third question is such that the national legislation is incompatible with Article 26(5) of Directive 2002/22/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, which provides that competent regulatory authorities are to lay down criteria for the accuracy and reliability of the caller location information provided, is a national court required, when deciding on the issue of compensation for damage, to establish a direct causal link between the breach of EU law and the damage sustained by the individuals, or is it sufficient to establish an indirect causal link between the breach of EU law and the damage sustained by the individuals, where, under provisions of national law and/or national case-law, the establishment of an indirect causal link between the unlawful actions and the damage sustained by the individuals is sufficient to give rise to liability?
2.

In the event that the national measures are justified on grounds of the protection of consumers in the light of Article 39(1), should the two criteria laid down in Article 39(2) concerning, first, the proven link between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance and, second, the evidence that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of that information be read in combination, and, in particular, can the examination of the proven link be based solely on subjective elements relating to the value that the majority of consumers attach to the link between certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance?
2.

Is it compatible with Article 7(2)(d) of Regulation 1896/2006, establishing a European payment order procedure, (2) to require the applicant, in a claim against a consumer, to specify the itemisation of the debt he is claiming in section 11 of standard form A? Is it also compatible with that provision to require that the content of the contractual terms on the basis of which the applicant is making a claim against a consumer, beyond the principal subject matter of the contract, be reproduced in section 11 in order to assess whether they are unfair?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 2 July 2018 — OH v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

(Case C-439/18)

(2018/C 373/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: OH

Respondent: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

Question referred

Are a provision in a collective agreement and an employer’s practice, pursuant to which, for the purposes of remuneration and promotion, the length of service of a part-time female employee whose working hours are ‘distributed vertically’ over the whole year is to be calculated solely on the basis of time actually worked, contrary to Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work [annexed to] Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997, (1) and to Articles 2(1)(b) and 14(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)? (2)

(1) Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

(2) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 9 April 2018 by Massimo Campailla against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 23 January 2018 in Case T-759/16, Campailla v European Union

(Case C-256/18 P)

(2018/C 381/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Massimo Campailla (represented by: F. Rollinger, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union

By order of 7 August 2018, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly unfounded and, in part, manifestly ineffective.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 July 2018 — SATI — Società Autocooperative Trasporti Italiani SpA v Azienda di Trasporti Molisana — A.T.M. SpA

(Case C-475/18)

(2018/C 399/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SATI — Società Autocooperative Trasporti Italiani SpA

Respondent: Azienda di Trasporti Molisana — A.T.M. SpA

Question referred

Must Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) of 23 October 2007 be interpreted as meaning that national legislation contains a prohibition on directly awarding local public transport services, precluding such direct award even in circumstances in which it would be permitted by EU legislation, where it establishes a general rule that the abovementioned services must be awarded by means of a public call for tenders, or is that the case only if there is a specific prohibition on directly awarding such contracts that also refers to the circumstances in which it is permitted by EU law?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).
2.

Are the provisions of Directive [2000/31/EC] of 8 June 2000 (2), read in the light of Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as allowing a State to introduce national legislation requiring the persons whose activity consists in offering access to online public communications services and the natural or legal persons who, even free of charge, and for provision to the public via online public communications services, store signals, writing, images, sounds or messages of any kind provided by recipients of those services to retain the data capable of enabling the identification of anyone who has contributed to the creation of the content or some of the content of the services which they provide, so that the judicial authority may, where appropriate, require the communication of those data with a view to ensuring compliance with the rules on civil and criminal liability?
2.

Should Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as imposing on the court hearing the case in proceedings referred to in the first question an obligation to examine of its own motion whether the provisions of the contract that creates the basic legal relationship underlying the promissory note obligation do not contain unfair contractual terms, even where the seller or supplier who is the applicant bases his claim exclusively on the legal relationship created by the promissory note?
Appeal brought on 13 September 2018 by the Czech Republic against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 28 June 2018 in Case T-147/15 Czech Republic v Commission

(Case C-575/18 P)

(2018/C 408/56)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and O. Serdula, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— set aside the order under appeal;

— reject the plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission;

— refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the form of order sought by the Czech Republic in the application; and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

In the order under appeal the General Court incorrectly concluded that the contested act, having regard in particular to the Commission’s lack of power to adopt a decision in the field of traditional own resources, was not an act against which an action could be brought under Article 263 TFEU, which according to the General Court did not conflict with the Czech Republic’s right to effective judicial protection within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, in so far as it was possible for the Czech Republic to pay the disputed amount conditionally, express objections to the soundness of the Commission’s legal view, and wait for the Commission to make an application under Article 258 TFEU.

The General Court’s conclusions are contrary to Article 263 TFU in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, as conditional payment does not ensure that the dispute will in future be judged on the merits by the Court of Justice. That follows from the settled case-law of the Court of Justice on the Commission’s discretion in connection with proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, from the absence of any provision on the concept of conditional payment, and in particular from the previous practice of the Commission in this field.
3.

If the first question should be answered in the affirmative: Under what conditions can indirect discrimination be justified in cases of third-party effect? In particular: Can territorial restriction of insurance cover to cases of damage occurring within a certain EU Member State be justified with the argument of restriction of the liability obligation of the insurance company and the premium level if the relevant insurance policies at the same time provide that, in the event of serial damages, the cover per case of damage and the cover per insurance year are limited in terms of amount?
Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-693/16 P, HG v Commission

(Case C-543/18 RX)

(2018/C 427/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties to the proceedings before the General Court

Applicant: HG (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Questions to be reviewed

The review shall concern the question whether, having regard, in particular, to the general principle of legal certainty, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2018, HG v Commission (T 693/16 P, not published, EU:T:2018:492), affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that the composition of the panel of judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal which had delivered the judgment of 19 July 2016, HG v Commission (F 149/15, EU:F:2016:155), had been irregular, on the basis of an irregularity affecting the procedure for the appointment of one of the members of that panel of judges, leading to infringement of the principle of the lawful judge, laid down in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The review shall involve, in particular, the question whether, like the acts covered by Article 277 TFEU, the appointment of a judge may form the subject matter of a review of indirect legality or whether such a review of indirect legality is — by principle or after the passage of a certain period of time — excluded or limited to certain types of irregularity in order to ensure legal certainty and the force of res judicata.