ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Járásbíróság — Hungary) — Ágnes Weil v Géza Gulácsi

(Case C-361/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 66 - Temporal scope - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Material scope - Civil and commercial matters - Article 1(1) and (2)(a) - Matters excluded - Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship - Article 54 - Application for the certificate certifying that the judgment given by the court of origin is enforceable - Judgment given concerning a debt stemming from the settlement of rights in property arising out of an unregistered non-marital partnership)

(2019/C 263/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szekszárdi Járásbíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ágnes Weil

Defendant: Géza Gulácsi

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 54 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s court hearing an application for a certificate certifying that a judgment given by the court of origin is enforceable must, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the court which gave the judgment to be enforced did not adjudicate, when giving that judgment, on whether that regulation was applicable, ascertain whether the dispute falls within the scope of that regulation.

2. Article 1(1) and (2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning an application for dissolution of the property relationships arising out a de facto (unregistered) partnership, comes within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of that regulation and falls, therefore, within the material scope of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
1.

Declares that by refusing to make available traditional own resources amounting to EUR 2 120 309,50, referred to in the write-off notice IT(07)08-917, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom of 31 October 1994, on the system of the European Communities’ own resources, Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000, on the system of the European Communities’ own resources, Article 8 of Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities' own resources and Article 8 of Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union, and Articles 10, 11 and Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, Articles 10, 11 and 17 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, and Articles 10, 12 and 13 Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 of 26 May 2014 on the methods and procedure for making available the traditional, VAT and GNI-based own resources and on the measures to meet cash requirements;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 — Italian Republic v European Commission

(Case C-247/18) (1)

(Appeal - European Social Fund (ESF) - Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily (2000-2006) - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Article 39 - Supervisory powers - Necessary verifications - Financial corrections - Calculation - Method by extrapolation)

(2019/C 280/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Other Party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree v Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas

(Case C-172/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 97(5) - Jurisdiction - Infringement proceedings - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which ‘the act of infringement has been committed’ - Advertising and offers for sale displayed on a website and on social media platforms)

(2019/C 383/23)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree

Defendants: Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 97(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a European Union trade mark who considers that his rights have been infringed by the use without his consent, by a third party, of a sign identical to that mark in advertising and offers for sale displayed electronically in relation to products that are identical or similar to the goods for which that mark is registered, may bring an infringement action against that third party before a European Union trade mark court of the Member State within which the consumers or traders to whom that advertising and those offers for sale are directed are located, notwithstanding that that third party took decisions and steps in another Member State to bring about that electronic display.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland — Netherlands) — HQ, IP, legally represented by HQ, JO v Aegean Airlines SA

(Case C-163/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Flight cancellation - Assistance - Right to reimbursement of the cost of the air ticket by the air carrier - Article 8(2) - Package tour - Directive 90/314/EEC - Insolvency of the tour organiser)

(2019/C 305/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HQ, IP, legally represented by HQ, JO

Defendant: Aegean Airlines SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who, under Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours, has the right to hold his tour organiser liable for reimbursement of the cost of his air ticket, can no longer claim reimbursement of the cost of that ticket from the air carrier, on the basis of that regulation, even where the tour organiser is financially incapable of reimbursing the cost of the ticket and has not taken any measures to guarantee such reimbursement.

(1) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
1.

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the state of health of a worker categorised as being particularly susceptible to occupational risks, within the meaning of national law, which prevents that worker from carrying out certain jobs on the ground that such jobs would entail a risk to his or her own health or to other persons, only falls within the concept of ‘disability’, within the meaning of that directive, where that state leads to a limitation of capacity arising from, inter alia, long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in their professional life on an equal basis with other workers. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — AS v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-541/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1)(b) - Distinctive character - Criteria for assessment - Sign comprising a hashtag)

(2019/C 383/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AS

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that in examining the distinctive character of a sign in respect of which registration as a trade mark is sought, all the relevant facts and circumstances must be taken into account, including all the likely types of use of the mark applied for. The latter correspond, in the absence of other indications, to the types of use which, in the light of the customs in the economic sector concerned, can be practically significant.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-358/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland - Producer group - Producer organisation)

(2019/C 399/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other party: European Commission (represented by: D. Tryantafyllou, M. Kaduczak and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the appeal;

2. orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — UTEP 2006. SRL v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Hatósági Főosztály, Hatósági, Építésügyi és Oktatási Osztály

(Case C-600/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Articles 91 and 92 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 - Article 32(3), Article 33(1) and Article 41(1) - Infringement of the rules on the use of tachographs - Duty of Member States to make provision for effective, dissuasive and non-discriminatory penalties - Resident and non-resident small and medium-sized enterprises - Differential treatment)

(2019/C 399/20)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UTEP 2006. SRL

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Hatósági Főosztály, Hatósági, Építésügyi és Oktatási Osztály

Operative part of the judgment

Article 41(1) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, must be interpreted as precluding an administrative practice of a Member State according to which, unlike non-resident small and medium-sized road transport enterprises, those that are established in the territory of that Member State are liable to receive a lesser penalty, in the form of a warning rather than an administrative fine, where such enterprises commit, for the first time, an infringement of Regulation No 165/2014 of the same degree of gravity.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — SD v Agrárminiszter

(Case C-490/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Apiculture sector - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1366 - Application for aid - Conditions - Minimum number of bee colonies - Fixing with retro-active effect - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 423/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SD

Defendant: Agrárminiszter

Operative part of the judgment

Subject to verifications which it is for the referring court to carry out, the principles of legal certainty and of protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in accordance with Article 55(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, establishes the programme in the apiculture sector for a new period of three years, firstly, fixes the conditions for the grant of aid in that sector different from those provided for in the previous programmes, and, secondly, allows beekeepers to benefit from that aid from a date prior to the entry into force of that regulation, if they fulfil the new conditions provided for by that regulation.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
1.

A situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a public contract has been awarded by a contracting authority to a legal person over which it exercises a control similar to the control it exercises over its own departments, as part of a procedure initiated when Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts was still in force and which led to the conclusion of a contract after the date of repeal of that directive, namely 18 April 2016, falls within the scope of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18, where the contracting authority definitively resolved the question of whether it was obliged to initiate a prior competition procedure for the award of a public contract after that date.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 October 2019– Repower AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), repowermap.org

(C-281/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Revocation of the Board of Appeal’s original decision partially refusing the application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU word mark REPOWER)

(2019/C 432/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Repower AG (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, H. P. Kunz-Hallstein, and V. Kling, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis and J.F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents) and repowermap.org (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the appeal;

2. orders Repower AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-189/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167 and 168 - Right to deduct VAT - Refusal - Fraud - Taking of evidence - Principle of respect for the rights of defence - Right to be heard - Access to the file - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial review - Principle of equality of arms - Adversarial principle - National legislation or a national practice whereby, during an assessment of the right to deduct VAT exercised by a taxable person, the tax authority is bound by the findings of fact and legal qualifications which were made by it in the context of related administrative procedures to which that taxable person was not party)

(2019/C 423/09)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, the principle of respect for the rights of defence and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, legislation or a practice of a Member State whereby, during an assessment of the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) exercised by a taxable person, the tax authority is bound by the findings of fact and legal qualifications already made by it in the context of related administrative procedures brought against that taxable person’s suppliers, on which are based decisions which have become final finding the existence of VAT fraud committed by those suppliers, on condition, firstly, that it does not absolve the tax authority of the need to make evidence known to the taxable person, including evidence resulting from those related administrative procedures, on the basis of which it intends to take a decision, and that that taxable person is not thereby deprived of the right to effectively call into question those findings of fact and legal qualifications during the proceedings concerning him, secondly, that that taxable person have access during those proceedings to all of the evidence collected during those related administrative procedures or any other procedure on which that authority intends to base its decision or which may be useful to the exercise of the rights of defence, unless objectives of public interest warrant restricting that access and, thirdly, that the court ruling on an action against that decision be able to assess the lawfulness of the collecting and use of that evidence and the findings made in the administration decisions taken in relation to those suppliers, which are decisive to the outcome of the action.

(1) OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X v Belgische Staat

(Case C-706/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 5(4) - Decision concerning the application for family reunification - Consequences of failure to comply with the time limit for taking a decision - Automatic issue of a residence permit)

(2020/C 27/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on family reunification must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in the absence of a decision being adopted within six months of the date on which the application for family reunification was lodged, the competent national authorities must automatically issue a residence permit to the applicant, without necessarily having to establish in advance that the latter actually meets the requirements for residence in the host Member State in accordance with EU law.

(1) OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 November 2019 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-261/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Directive 85/337/EEC - Consent for, and construction of, a wind farm - Project likely to have significant effects on the environment - Absence of a prior environmental impact assessment - Obligation to regularise - Article 260(2) TFEU - Application for an order to pay a penalty payment and a lump sum)

(2020/C 10/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and J. Tomkin, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: M. Browne, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, Agents, and by J. Connolly and G. Simons, Senior Counsel, and G. Gilmore, Barrister-at-Law)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take all measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 3 July 2008, Commission v Ireland (C-215/06, EU:C:2008:380), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the European Commission a lump sum in the amount of EUR 5 000 000;

3. Orders Ireland to pay the Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 15 000 per day from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the date of compliance with the judgment of 3 July 2008, Commission v Ireland (C-215/06, EU:C:2008:380);

4. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — H v Council of the European Union

(Case C-413/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) - Composition of the Chamber of the General Court of the European Union - Regularity - Decision 2009/906/CFSP - European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUPM) - National staff member on secondment - Redeployment to a regional office of that mission - Powers of the Head of Mission - Misuse of powers - Claim for damages - Principle of audi alteram partem)

(2020/C 36/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, avvocatessa)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and A. De Elera San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 April 2018, H v Council (T-271/10 RENV, EU:T:2018:180);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the third, fourth and fifth pleas of the action for annulment and on the claim for compensation;

3. Orders that the costs be reserved.

(1) OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.
1.

Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018, ABB v Commission (T-445/14, not published, EU:T:2018:449), in so far as the General Court dismissed ABB Ltd and ABB AB’s actions for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables), in so far as that decision finds those companies liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 in respect of a collective refusal to supply accessories for underground power cables with voltages from 110 kV and below 220 kV, as well as point 2 of the operative part of that judgment;