ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
21.

On 17 July 2015, the appellant received from INEA an email (‘the email of 17 July 2015’) worded as follows: ‘… the evaluation of the eligible proposals has taken place and the Commission has drawn up a list of proposals selected for receiving Union financial assistance. On 10 July 2015, the CEF Coordination Committee of Member States’ representatives gave a positive opinion on this draft list. We regret to inform you that your application has not been successful in the above procedure, as explained below: [a list of reasons follows] Procedural steps for the adoption by the European Commission of a decision on the selection and award of grants … [are] currently ongoing. In the unlikely case that the adoption of this decision results in changes in relation to your proposal, you will be informed separately by e-mail. … Any [request, answer or complaint] will have neither the purpose nor the effect of extending the time limit for lodging an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision notified by this message, which must be done within two months of notification of this message. [This is followed by a note to the effect that such actions fall within the jurisdiction of the General Court of the European Union, the address for which is provided]. …’
Provisional text

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

SZPUNAR

delivered on 13 September 2018 ( )

Case C‑92/16

Bankia SA

v

Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez,

Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada (Court of First Instance No 1, Fuenlabrada, Spain))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement — Article 6(1) — Article 7(1) — Declaration of partial unfairness — Powers of the national court)

and

Case C‑167/16

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

v

Fernando Quintano Ujeta,

María Isabel Sánchez García

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Court of First Instance No 2, Santander, Spain))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement — Article 6(1) — Article 7(1) — Declaration of partial unfairness — Powers of the national court)
4.

Annex V to the 2012 Act of Accession is entitled ‘List referred to in Article 18 of the Act of Accession: transitional measures’. Chapter 2 thereof deals with transitional measures relating to free movement of persons. It states: ‘1. Article 45 and the first paragraph of Article 56 of the TFEU shall fully apply only, in relation to the freedom of movement of workers and the freedom to provide services involving temporary movement of workers as defined in Article 1 of Directive 96/71/EC, between Croatia on the one hand, and each of the [existing] Member States on the other hand, subject to the transitional provisions laid down in paragraphs 2 to 13. 2. By way of derogation from Articles 1 to 6 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 and until the end of the two year period following the date of accession, the [existing] Member States will apply national measures, or those resulting from bilateral agreements, regulating access to their labour markets by Croatian nationals. The [existing] Member States may continue to apply such measures until the end of the five year period following the date of accession. Croatian nationals legally working in [an existing] Member State at the date of accession and admitted to the labour market of that Member State for an uninterrupted period of 12 months or longer will enjoy access to the labour market of that Member State but not to the labour market of other Member States applying national measures. Croatian nationals admitted to the labour market of [an existing] Member State following accession for an uninterrupted period of 12 months or longer shall also enjoy the same rights. The Croatian nationals referred to in the second and third subparagraphs shall cease to enjoy the rights referred to in those subparagraphs if they voluntarily leave the labour market of the present Member State in question. Croatian nationals legally working in [an existing] Member State at the date of accession, or during a period when national measures are applied, and who were admitted to the labour market of that Member State for a period of less than 12 months shall not enjoy the rights referred to in the second and third subparagraphs. ... 12. In order to address serious disturbances or the threat thereof in specific sensitive service sectors in the labour markets of Germany and Austria, which could arise in certain regions from the transnational provision of services, as defined in Article 1 of Directive 96/71/EC, and as long as they apply by virtue of the transitional provisions laid down above, national measures or those resulting from bilateral agreements on the free movement of Croatian workers, Germany and Austria may, after notifying the Commission, derogate from the first paragraph of Article 56 of the TFEU with a view to limiting in the context of the provision of services by companies established in Croatia, the temporary movement of workers whose right to take up work in Germany and Austria is subject to national measures.’
30.

According to settled case-law, the procedure provided for by Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the Court provides the national courts with the points of interpretation of EU law which they need in order to decide the disputes before them. In the context of that cooperation, it is solely for the national court, before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of EU law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling. It follows that questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought is unrelated to the actual facts of the main action or its object, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted. ( 8 )
6.

Article 6 of that regulation, entitled ‘Delay’, is worded as follows: ‘1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departure: (a) for two hours or more in the case of flights of 1500 kilometres or less; or (b) for three hours or more in the case of all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres and of all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres; or (c) for four hours or more in the case of all flights not falling under (a) or (b), passengers shall be offered by the operating air carrier: (i) the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2); and (ii) when the reasonably expected time of departure is at least the day after the time of departure previously announced, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and (iii) when the delay is at least five hours, the assistance specified in Article 8(1)(a). 2. In any event, the assistance shall be offered within the time limits set out above with respect to each distance bracket.’
10.

Article 12 of Decreto Legge No 132 – Misure urgenti di degiurisdizionalizzazione ed altri interventi per la definizione dell’arretrato in materia di processo civile, of 12 September 2014 (Decree Law No 132 on urgent measures for out of court resolution and other interventions to reduce the backlog in civil proceedings; ‘Decree Law No 132/2014’), ( 6 ) converted into law with amendments by Legge No 162 (Law No 162) of 10 November 2014, provides: ‘1. The spouses may conclude, before the mayor as the civil registry official, in accordance with Article 1 of Decree No 396 of the President of the Republic of 3 November 2000, for the municipality of residence of one of them or for the municipality where the marriage is registered, with the optional assistance of a lawyer, a legal separation agreement or, in the cases referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3(2)(b) of Law No 898 of 1 December 1970, an agreement concerning the dissolution of the marriage or the termination of the civil effects of the marriage, or an agreement amending the conditions of separation or divorce. 2. The provisions of this Article shall not apply where the spouses have minor children or adult children who do not have legal capacity, have a severe disability within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Law No 104 of 5 February 1992 or are not financially independent. 3. The civil registry official shall receive from each of the parties personally, with the optional assistance of a lawyer, a declaration that he or she wishes to separate or terminate the civil effects of the marriage or to have the marriage dissolved in accordance with the conditions agreed between them. The same shall apply to any amendment to the conditions of separation or divorce. The agreement may not contain terms concerning transfers of assets. The document containing the agreement shall be drawn up and signed immediately upon receipt of the declarations referred to in this paragraph. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the agreement shall replace court orders concluding the proceedings for legal separation, termination of the civil effects of marriage, dissolution of marriage and amendment of the conditions of separation or divorce. In the case of legal separation or termination of the civil effects of marriage or dissolution of marriage by agreement, the civil registrar shall, on receipt of declarations from the spouses, invite them to appear before him or her at the earliest 30 days after the receipt of the declarations to confirm the agreement, as well as for the purposes of providing the agreements referred to in paragraph 5. Failure to appear shall mean that the agreement is not confirmed. …’
Case C-1/02 SA





Antippas

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on the Commission of the European Communities)»

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 27 March 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order
4

With regard to the claim for compensation for the harm suffered by the official before his death, the General Court held that the Civil Service Tribunal, although having jurisdiction to hear that claim, had wrongly rejected it as inadmissible in the light of the rule that there must be correspondence between the application and the administrative claim. Since, having regard to that application, the state of the proceedings did not permit a decision, the General Court held that that aspect of the action should be referred to the Civil Service Tribunal. However, the Tribunal would be required to find that it and the General Court were seised of cases in which the same relief is sought and, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, would be required to decline jurisdiction so that the General Court may act on those cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/10

Action brought on 20 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-507/07)

(2008/C 8/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Kraemer, Agent)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to communicate the Community design courts to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1);

— order French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The French Republic has not fulfilled the obligation laid down in Article 80(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, under which each Member State is to communicate to the Commission not later than 6 March 2005 a list of Community design courts, indicating their names and their territorial jurisdiction.

(1) OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien, Austria, lodged on 31 October 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Vladimir Turansky

(Case C-491/07)

(2008/C 22/49)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien

Party to the main proceedings

Vladimir Turansky

Question referred

‘Is the bar on a second prosecution for the same acts (ne bis in idem principle) contained in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990 (1) to be interpreted as precluding the prosecution of a suspect in the Republic of Austria for the same acts in respect of which criminal proceedings in the Slovak Republic were discontinued after its accession to the European Union by means of a binding order of a police authority suspending the proceedings without further sanction taken after examination of the merits of the case?’

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 19.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/7

Appeal brought on 5 November 2007 by Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 August 2007 in Case T-46/06 Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-483/07 P)

(2008/C 8/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG (represented by: K. Bott, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

1. Set aside the order of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 28 August 2007 and

2. Annul the respondent's decision to reserve the Domain galileo.eu;

3. Order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance;

4. Only in the alternative to the orders sought under points 2 and 3 above, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance and order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant contends in this appeal that there has been an infringement of Community law (second sentence of Article 58(1) of the Court Statute), namely the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. According to the appellant, the Court of First Instance committed such a legal infringement by dismissing its action as inadmissible on the basis that the appellant was not ‘individually concerned’ by the contested decision of the respondent to reserve the domain galileo.eu for itself. The appellant regards itself as individually concerned within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice by the decision of the Commission to reserve the Domain galileo.eu for itself, on the ground of its rights in respect of the German word mark Galileo, on the ground of its legal standing in the registration procedure conferred on it by Commission Regulation 874/2004 and on the basis that the Domain galileo.eu is a marketable economic asset and can only be allocated once.
1.

Is the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) to be understood as meaning only review as to whether healthcare expenditure is manageable, or must it also extend to macro-economic conditions in the pharmaceutical industry sector whose products are liable to be made subject to a price freeze?
—

declare that, by failing to ensure the proper incorporation into national law 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) (1) and in particular Article 2(k) with reference to the definition of a subscriber, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Part 1: by manifestly incorrectly regarding as undisputed — and thus proven — a matter of crucial importance for the Court's reasoning (erroneously proceeding on the basis that the Commission did not dispute that the applicant had taken accounting measures and financial and economic decisions which could not have been amended within a period of fifteen months) (judgment under appeal, paragraph 137);

Part 2: by concluding that an undertaking which has merely lodged a request to be able to benefit from the aid scheme can have legitimate expectations (judgment under appeal, in particular, paragraphs 125 to 140);
If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative and Question 1(b) is answered in the negative:

In legal proceedings between private individuals, must a national court disapply a statutory provision which is clearly incompatible with Community law, or is the legitimate expectation of persons subject to the law — that national laws which are in force will be applied — to be taken into account so that a national law is disapplied only after the Court of Justice has ruled on the provision at issue or on a substantially similar provision?
5.b.

For the answer to Question 5.a to be in the affirmative, is it necessary for the undertakings concerned to keep separate accounts from which it is absolutely clear what costs and receipts are associated with their social activities, on the one hand, and with their commercial activities on the other, and for that obligation to be laid down in national legislation? Should it then be ensured that a Member State's financial resources benefit only the social activities and their continuity?
1.

Does Article 8(4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (1) preclude the application of a provision of national law which, in the event of a previous withdrawal of a driving licence in the Member State in question, makes possible recognition of a driving licence issued by another Member State on condition that it is established that the facts which originally led to the withdrawal of the driving licence no longer exist, even if — recognition of that driving licence is not required in the interest of giving effect to the fundamental freedom of free movement on the part of citizens of the Union, — the driving licence was issued in the other Member State in clear breach of the provisions of the Directive (residence requirement), — the issuing Member State itself, when issuing the driving licence, must have been aware of this clear breach of the provisions of the Directive, — according to the Member State of residence, the issuing Member State generally refuses to annul driving licences issued in breach of Community law, — the driving licence was obtained by the person concerned in the other Member State through an abusive exercise of rights in order to circumvent the provisions of the Member State of residence, which, according to the Directive, are the provisions which determine reissue, and the issuing Member State must have been aware of that abusive exercise of rights, — and the medical examination to determine the fitness of the person concerned to drive, carried out before issue of the driving licence in knowledge of the reasons for the original withdrawal of the driving licence in the issuing Member State, clearly did not meet the requirements imposed on it in view of the grounds for the earlier withdrawal of the driving licence, with the result that the continued presence on the roads of the person involved represents a significant danger to the life and physical safety of other road users? In the event that the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/37

Action brought on 10 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

(Case C-11/08)

(2008/C 51/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson, Agent)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by providing in its national law that inspectors who do not fulfil the criteria in Annex VII of Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 on port State control of shipping (1) are accepted if they are employed by the competent authority for port State control on 1 May 2004, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1) and Annex VII of the Directive;

— order Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 12(1) of the directive provides, as a main rule, that inspections shall be carried out only by inspectors who fulfil the qualification criteria set out in Annex VII thereof. Paragraph 5 of Annex VII provides, as an exception to this main rule, that inspectors who do not fulfil the criteria in paragraphs 1-4 thereof are accepted if they are employed by the competent authority of a Member State for port State control at the date of adoption of the directive, in other words, on 19 June 1995.

The Act of Accession does not provide for any transitional measures relating to the application of the directive in respect of Malta. In accordance with article 2 of the Act of Accession the provisions of the directive are binding upon Malta from the date of accession.

It is the Commission's view that the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations, 2004 (the ‘Regulations’), adopted by Malta to implement the directive, are incompatible with the directive, read in conjunction with the Act of Accession, in so far as they provide that inspectors who do not fulfil the criteria in paragraphs 1-4 of Annex VII of the directive are accepted if they have been employed by the competent authority for port State control between 19 June 1995 and the date of entry into force of the Regulations — in other words, 1 May 2004.

(1) OJ L 157, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 4, Bilbao (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2008 — Asturcom Telecomunicaciones S.L. v Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira

(Case C-40/08)

(2008/C 92/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 4, Bilbao

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asturcom Telecomunicaciones S.L.

Defendant: Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira

Question referred

May the protection of consumers under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts require the court hearing an action for enforcement of a final arbitration award, made in the absence of the consumer, to determine of its own motion whether the arbitration agreement is void and accordingly to annul the award if it finds that that arbitration agreement contains an unfair term to the detriment of the consumer?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.