ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Mariusz Pawlak v Prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego

(Case C-545/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market of postal services - Directives 97/67/EC and 2008/6/EC - Article 7(1) - Definition of ‘exclusive or special rights for the establishment and provision of postal services’ - Article 8 - Right of the Member States to organise the registered mail service used in the course of judicial proceedings - Time-limit for lodging a procedural document before a court - Interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law - Limits - Direct effect relied on by an emanation of a Member State in proceedings between it and an individual)

(2019/C 187/21)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mariusz Pawlak

Respondent: Prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first sentence of Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, read in conjunction with Article 8 of Directive 97/67/EC, must be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law which recognises only the posting of a procedural document in a post office of the sole operator designated to provide the universal postal service as being equivalent to lodging a procedural document before the relevant court, without there being an objective justification based on grounds of public policy or public security.

2. A public authority, regarded as an emanation of a Member State, cannot rely on Directive 97/67, as amended by Directive 2008/6, as such, against an individual.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 — Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank v European Central Bank, European Commission

(Case C-450/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary policy - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Article 6(4) - Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Article 70(1) - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Tasks conferred on the European Central Bank (ECB) - Single supervisory mechanism - Performance of those tasks by the national competent authorities - ‘Less significant’ credit institution - ‘Particular circumstances’ justifying a credit institution being considered ‘less significant’)

(2019/C 230/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank (represented by: A. Glos, T. Lübbig and M. Benzing, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou and R. Bax, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego v Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL, Juan Ramón Cuquerella Montagud

(Case C-614/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Article 13(1)(b) - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Manchego cheese (‘queso manchego’) - Use of signs capable of evoking the region with which a protected designation of origin (PDO) is associated - Concept of the ‘average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect’ - European consumers or consumers of the Member State in which the product covered by the PDO is made and mainly consumed)

(2019/C 220/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego

Defendants: Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL, Juan Ramón Cuquerella Montagud

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that a registered name may be evoked through the use of figurative signs.

2. Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 510/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the use of figurative signs evoking the geographical area with which a designation of origin, as referred to in Article 2(1)(a) of that regulation, is associated may constitute evocation of that designation, including where such figurative signs are used by a producer established in that region, but whose products, similar or comparable to those protected by the designation of origin, are not covered by it.

3. The concept of the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to whose perception the national court has to refer in order to assess whether there is ‘evocation’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 510/2006, must be understood as covering European consumers, including consumers of the Member State in which the product giving rise to evocation of the protected name is made or with which that name is geographically associated and in which the product is mainly consumed.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2019 — Republic of Austria v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-591/17) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 18, 34, 56 and 92 TFEU - Legislation of a Member State prescribing an infrastructure use charge for passenger vehicles - Situation in which owners of vehicles registered in that Member State qualify for relief from motor vehicle tax in an amount corresponding to that charge)

(2019/C 270/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: G. Hesse, J. Schmoll and C. Drexel, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents, and by C. Hillgruber, Rechtsanwalt)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: J. Langer, J.M. Hoogveld and M.K. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Nymann-Lindegren and M. Wolff, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany, by introducing the infrastructure use charge for passenger vehicles and by providing, simultaneously, a relief from motor vehicle tax in an amount at least equivalent to the amount of the charge paid, to the benefit of owners of vehicles registered in Germany, failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18, 34, 56 and 92 TFEU.

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Republic of Austria and to bear its own costs.

4. Orders the Republic of Austria to bear one quarter of its own costs.

5. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Denmark to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
1.

The second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that failure by a Member State to notify the Commission of the exercise of judicial functions by notaries, as required under that provision, is not decisive for their classification as a ‘court’. The first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a notary who draws up a deed of certificate of succession at the unanimous request of all the parties to the procedure conducted by the notary, such as the deed at issue in the main proceedings, does not constitute a ‘court’ within the meaning of that provision and, consequently, Article 3(1)(g) of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that such a deed does not constitute a ‘decision’ within the meaning of that provision.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v European Commission, Freistaat Sachsen

(Case C-654/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Regional investment aid - Aid for a large investment project - Aid partly incompatible with the internal market - Article 107(3) TFEU - Whether the aid is necessary - Article 108(3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 - Aid exceeding the individual notification threshold - Notification - Scope of the block exemption - Cross-appeal - Whether an intervention before the General Court of the European Union may proceed - Admissibility)

(2019/C 319/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (represented by: M. Rosenthal, G. Drauz and M. Schütte, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, A. Bouchagiar and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents), Freistaat Sachsen (represented by: T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders Bayerische Motoren Werke AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in respect of the main appeal;

3. Orders Freistaat Sachsen to bear its own costs in respect of the main appeal;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and of Freistaat Sachsen in respect of the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
2.

Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal is entitled, prior to bringing proceedings before the Court of Justice, to approach the EU institutions that have taken part in drawing up a piece of secondary EU legislation, the validity of which is being contested before that court or tribunal, in order to obtain specific information and evidence from those institutions which it considers essential in order to dispel all doubts which it may have as regards the validity of the EU act concerned and so that it may avoid referring a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling for the purpose of assessing the validity of that act.
2.

The provisions of Article 8(1) and (5) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a search engine is in principle required by those provisions, subject to the exceptions provided for by the directive, to accede to requests for de-referencing in relation to links to web pages containing personal data falling within the special categories referred to by those provisions. Article 8(2)(e) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that, pursuant to that article, such an operator may refuse to accede to a request for de-referencing if he establishes that the links at issue lead to content comprising personal data falling within the special categories referred to in Article 8(1) but whose processing is covered by the exception in Article 8(2)(e) of the directive, provided that the processing satisfies all the other conditions of lawfulness laid down by the directive, and unless the data subject has the right under Article 14(a) of the directive to object to that processing on compelling legitimate grounds relating to his particular situation. The provisions of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the operator of a search engine has received a request for de-referencing relating to a link to a web page on which personal data falling within the special categories referred to in Article 8(1) or (5) of Directive 95/46 are published, the operator must, on the basis of all the relevant factors of the particular case and taking into account the seriousness of the interference with the data subject’s fundamental rights to privacy and protection of personal data laid down in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ascertain, having regard to the reasons of substantial public interest referred to in Article 8(4) of the directive and in compliance with the conditions laid down in that provision, whether the inclusion of that link in the list of results displayed following a search on the basis of the data subject’s name is strictly necessary for protecting the freedom of information of internet users potentially interested in accessing that web page by means of such a search, protected by Article 11 of the Charter;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Bayer Pharma AG v Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt., Exeltis Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft.

(Case C-688/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Patents - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 9(7) - Placing on the market of products infringing a patent right - Provisional measures - Patent subsequently declared invalid - Consequences - Right to appropriate compensation for losses caused by the provisional measures)

(2019/C 383/12)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bayer Pharma AG

Defendants: Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt., Exeltis Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(7) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, in particular, the concept of ‘appropriate compensation’ referred to in that provision, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that a party shall not be compensated for losses which he has suffered due to his not having acted as may generally be expected in order to avoid or mitigate his loss and which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, results in the court not making an order for provisional measures against the applicant obliging him to provide compensation for losses caused by those measures even though the patent on the basis of which those had been requested and granted has subsequently been found to be invalid, to the extent that that legislation permits the court to take due account of all the objective circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the parties, in order, inter alia, to determine that the applicant has not abused those measures.

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

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 February 2020 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Research Executive Agency (REA) (C-515/17 P) and Republic of Poland v Uniwersytet Wrocławski and Research Executive Agency (REA) (C-561/17 P)

(Joined Cases C-515/17 P and C-561/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation of parties in direct actions before the Courts of the European Union - Lawyer representing the applicant as a third party - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2020/C 137/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

(Case C-515/17 P)

Appellant: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (represented by: A. Krawczyk-Giehsmann and K. Szarek, adwokaci, and by K. Słomka, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, avocat, and G. Materna, radca prawny)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and A. Kasalická, acting as Agents)

(Case C-561/17 P)

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, D. Lutostańska and A. Siwek-Slusarek, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (represented by: A. Krawczyk-Giehsmann and K. Szarek, adwokaci, and by K. Słomka, radca prawny) and Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, avocat, and G. Materna, radca prawny)

Interveners in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and A. Kasalická, acting as Agents) and Krajowa Izba Radców Prawnych (represented by: P.K. Rosiak and S. Patyra, radcowie prawni)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 13 June 2017, Uniwersytet Wrocławski v REA (T-137/16, not published, EU:T:2017:407);

2. Refers Case T-137/16 back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
1.

Declares that, by failing to compensate the loss of own resources resulting from the wrongful issue, in the light of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community and then of Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community, by the authorities of Curaçao and of Aruba, of movement certificates EUR. 1 in respect of, respectively, imports of milk powder and rice from Curaçao during the period 1997/2000 and imports of groats and meal from Aruba during the period 2002/2003, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against IK

(Case C-551/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence - Substance and form - Article 8(1)(f) - Failure to refer to an additional sentence - Validity - Consequences - Effect on detention))

(2019/C 93/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Party to the main proceedings

IK

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1)(f) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that failure to indicate, in the European arrest warrant pursuant to which the person concerned has been surrendered, an additional sentence of conditional release which was imposed on that person for the same offence in the same judicial decision as that relating to the main custodial sentence does not, on the facts of the case in the main proceedings, preclude the enforcement of that additional sentence, on the expiry of the main sentence after an express decision to that effect is taken by the national court with jurisdiction for the enforcement of sentences, from resulting in deprivation of liberty.

(1) OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued with respect to R O

(Case C-327/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Grounds for non-execution - Article 50 TEU - Warrant issued by the judicial authorities of a Member State that has initiated the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union - Uncertainty as to the law applicable to the relationship between that State and the Union following withdrawal))

(2018/C 408/43)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Party to the main proceedings

R O

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that mere notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with that article does not have the consequence that, in the event that that Member State issues a European arrest warrant with respect to an individual, the executing Member State must refuse to execute that European arrest warrant or postpone its execution pending clarification of the law that will be applicable in the issuing Member State after its withdrawal from the European Union. In the absence of substantial grounds to believe that the person who is the subject of that European arrest warrant is at risk of being deprived of rights recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, following the withdrawal from the European Union of the issuing Member State, the executing Member State cannot refuse to execute that European arrest warrant while the issuing Member State remains a member of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 349, 16.7.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 — Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux v European Commission

(Case C-312/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for car battery recycling - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing fines - Correcting decision adding the value of purchases of the addressees which were not included in the initial decision - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 187/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux (represented by: M. Brealey QC, I. Vandenborre, advocaat, and S. Dionnet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, I. Rogalski, J. Szczodrowski and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH and Société de traitements chimiques des métaux (STCM) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.