ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2019 — Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Slovak Republic

(Case C-687/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid granted by the Netherlands authorities for the creation and introduction of the TenderNed electronic procurement platform - Decision that the measure does not constitute State aid, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU)

(2020/C 10/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV (represented by: C. Dekker and L. Fiorilli, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. J. Loewenthal and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Noort and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV and Huisinga Beheer BV to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
2.

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of judicial independence does not preclude the application to the applicant in the main proceedings of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which established, without regard to the nature of the duties performed, length of service or the importance of the tasks performed, in the context of general salary-reduction measures linked to the requirements of eliminating an excessive budget deficit, different percentage reductions for the basic salary and additional remuneration of members of the judiciary, which, according to the referring court has entailed greater percentage salary reductions for those members of the judiciary on two lower pay grades than those members of the judiciary on a higher pay grade, when the former are paid less than the latter, provided that the level of remuneration received by the applicant in the main proceedings after application of the salary reduction at issue is commensurate with the importance of the duties he performs and, accordingly, guarantees his independent judgment, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — UD v XB

(Case C-393/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 8(1) - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Concept of ‘habitual residence of the child’ - Requirement of physical presence - Detention of the mother and child in a third country against the will of the mother - Infringement of the fundamental rights of the mother and child))

(2018/C 455/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UD

Defendant: XB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted to the effect that a child must have been physically present in a Member State in order to be regarded as habitually resident in that Member State, for the purposes of that provision. Circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, assuming that they are proven, that is to say, first, the fact that the father’s coercion of the mother had the effect of her giving birth to their child in a third country where she has resided with that child ever since, and, secondly, the breach of the mother’s or the child’s rights, do not have any bearing in that regard.

(1) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 March 2019 — River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd v Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD), Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-144/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand - Interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)

(2019/C 187/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) (represented by: A. Willems and C. Zimmermann, avocats, and by S. De Knop, advocaat), Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) and by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen — Belgium) — Maria Vester v Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

(Case C-134/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security systems - Invalidity benefits - Articles 45 and 48 TFEU - Freedom of movement for workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Different benefit schemes in the Member States - ‘Primary period of incapacity to work’ - Duration - Benefits for incapacity for work - Disadvantages for migrant workers)

(2019/C 155/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Vester

Defendant: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 45 and 48 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a worker who is unfit to work for one year and who has been granted invalidity status by the competent institution of the Member State of his residence, without being entitled to receive invalidity benefits on the basis of the law of that Member State, is required by the competent institution of the Member State in which he completed all his insurance periods to complete an additional one-year period of incapacity to work in order to be granted invalidity status and receive pro-rata invalidity benefits, without receiving any benefits for incapacity to work during that period.

(1) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-133/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Refund of VAT - Directive 2008/9/EC - Article 20 - Request for additional information from the Member State of refund - Information to be provided within one month of the date on which the request reaches the person to whom it is addressed - Legal nature of time limit and consequences of failure to comply)

(2019/C 220/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/9 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State must be interpreted as meaning that the time limit of one month laid down in that provision for providing the Member State of refund with the additional information requested by that Member State is not a limitation period whereby, if that period is exceeded or in the event of a failure to reply, the taxable person loses the possibility of regularising his refund application by producing, directly before the national court, additional information intended to establish the existence of his right to the refund of VAT.

(1) OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares SA v José David Sánchez Iglesias (C-29/18), José Ramón Fiuza Asorey (C-30/18), Jesús Valiño Lopez (C-44/18), FOGASA (C-29/18 and C-44/18), Incatema SL,

(Joined Cases C-29/18, C-30/18 and C-44/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Comparability of the situations - Justification - Concept of ‘objective grounds’ - Compensation in the event of the termination of a permanent employment contract on an objective ground - Lower amount of compensation paid on expiry of a contract for ‘a specific task’)

(2019/C 206/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Cobra Servicios Auxiliares SA

Respondents: José David Sánchez Iglesias (C-29/18), José Ramón Fiuza Asorey (C-30/18), Jesús Valiño Lopez (C-44/18), FOGASA (C-29/18 and C-44/18), Incatema SL

Operative part

Clause 4(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, must be interpreted as not precluding a national law in accordance with which, in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the termination of a contract for services between the employer and one of his clients has resulted, first, in the termination of contracts for a specific task made between that employer and some workers and, second, in the collective redundancy, on an objective ground, of permanent workers employed by that employer, the compensation paid for termination of the employment contract to the first of those groups of workers is less than that given to the permanent workers.

(1) OJ C 142 of 23.4.2018
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Google LLC v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-193/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 2(c) - Concept of ‘electronic communications service’ - Conveyance of signals - Web-based email service - Gmail service)

(2019/C 263/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Google LLC

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a web-based email service which does not itself provide internet access, such as the Gmail service provided by Google LLC, does not consist wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks and therefore does not constitute an ‘electronic communications service’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-53/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Markets in financial instruments - Directive 2004/39/EC - Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 - Scope - Financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services - Staff member who has become a defendant in criminal proceedings - National legislation providing for the possibility of temporarily prohibiting the exercise of the activity - Fundamental freedoms - Purely internal situation - Not applicable)

(2019/C 230/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC, as amended by Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010, in particular Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 thereof, Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a temporary prohibition on exercising the activity of financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services falls neither within the scope of that directive, nor that of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU or that of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. In such circumstances, Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 of that directive, Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality do not preclude such a prohibition.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen — Belgium) –Tine Vandenbon, Jamina Hakelbracht, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen v WTG Retail BVBA

(Case C-404/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women - Access to employment and working conditions - Article 24 - Protection against retaliatory measures - Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy - Employee intervening in favour of that candidate - Dismissal of that employee)

(2019/C 270/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tine Vandenbon, Jamina Hakelbracht, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen

Defendant: WTG Retail BVBA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24 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 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in a situation where a person who believes to be discriminated against on grounds of sex has lodged a complaint, an employee who has supported that person in that context is protected from retaliatory measures taken by the employer solely if that employee has intervened as a witness in the context of the investigation of that complaint and that that employee’s witness statement satisfies formal requirements laid down by that legislation.

(1) OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — V v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Securex Integrity ASBL

(C-33/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Coordination of social security systems - Migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Transitional provisions - Article 87(8) - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14c(b) - Worker exercising an activity as an employed and an activity as a self-employed person in different Member States - Derogations from the principle of a single applicable national legislation - Double affiliation - Application to be subject to the legislation applicable under Regulation No 883/2004)

(2019/C 263/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: V

Defendant: Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants, Securex Integrity ASBL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 87(8) 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 a person who, at the date of application of Regulation No 883/2004, exercised as activity as an employed person in one Member State and an activity as a self-employed person in another Member State, thereby being simultaneously subject to legislations applicable to social security in those two Member States, should not, in order to be subject to the legislation applicable under Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, submit an express application to that effect.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 — VG, successor in title to Ms v European Commission

(Case C-19/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for damages against the European Commission - Decision of the Commission to put an end to a collaboration in connection with the Team Europe network - Compensation for the damage suffered - Plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission - Whether the dispute is contractual or tortious)

(2019/C 305/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: VG, successor in title to Ms (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, C. Ehrbar and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders VG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Agrenergy Srl (C-180/18 and C-286/18), Fusignano Due Srl (C-287/18) v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

(Joined Cases C-180/18, C-286/18 and C-287/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2009/28/EC - Article 3(3)(a) - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Production of electricity by solar photovoltaic plants - Alteration of a support scheme - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 305/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Agrenergy Srl (C-180/18 and C-286/18), Fusignano Due Srl (C-287/18)

Respondent: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Operative part of the judgment

Subject to verifications to be carried out by the referring court taking into account all the relevant factors, Article 3(3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a Member State to provide for the reduction, or even the removal, of incentive rates for energy produced by solar photovoltaic plants which were introduced previously.

(1) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
—

by failing to ensure, in the containment area, the immediate removal of at least all plants which have been found to be infected by Xylella fastidiosa if they are situated within a distance of 20 km from the border of the infected zone with the rest of the Union territory, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2)(c) of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.), as amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/764 of 12 May 2016, and
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 — Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd v European Commission, Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL

(Case C-436/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain products originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(7)(a) - Normal value - Determination on the basis of the price in a market economy third country - Selection of the appropriate third country - Market economy third country which is subject to the same investigation - Adjustments)

(2019/C 319/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents), Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister, and G. Forwood and C. Van Haute, avocates)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.