ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-306/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Törvényszék — Hungary) — Éva Nothartová v Sámson József Boldizsár (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Article 8(3) — Counterclaim arising or not arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based)

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Törvényszék — Hungary) — Éva Nothartová v Sámson József Boldizsár

(Case C-306/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Article 8(3) — Counterclaim arising or not arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based)’

Referring court

Tatabányai Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Éva Nothartová

Defendant: Sámson József Boldizsár

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as applying, not exclusively, in a situation in which the court with jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim alleging infringement of the applicant’s personality rights, on the ground that photographs were taken and videos recorded without his knowledge, is seised by the defendant bringing a counterclaim for compensation on the ground that the applicant is liable in tort, delict or quasi-delict for, inter alia, restrictions on his intellectual creations, which are the subject of the original application, where, when examining the counterclaim, that court is required to assess the lawfulness of the actions on which the applicant bases its own claims.

( 1 ) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 July 2018 — Mast-Jägermeister SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-217/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community design - Application for registration of designs representing beakers - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 36(1)(c) - Graphic representation - Articles 45 and 46 - Attribution of a date of filing - Conditions - Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - Article 4(1)(e) and Article 10(1) and (2)))

(2018/C 301/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Mast-Jägermeister SE (represented by: C. Drzymalla, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mast-Jägermeister SE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Joined Cases C-459/17 and C-460/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — SGI (C-459/17), Valériane SNC (C-460/17) v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics (References for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Right to deduct input tax — Material conditions governing the right to deduct — Actual delivery of the goods)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — SGI (C-459/17), Valériane SNC (C-460/17) v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Joined Cases C-459/17 and C-460/17) ( 1 )

‛(References for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Right to deduct input tax — Material conditions governing the right to deduct — Actual delivery of the goods)’

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: SGI (C-459/17), Valériane SNC (C-460/17)

Respondent: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to deny a taxable person in receipt of an invoice the right to deduct the VAT appearing on that invoice, it is sufficient that the authorities establish that the transactions covered by that invoice have not actually been carried out.

( 1 ) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
1.

Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 146/2008, and Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that reductions in direct payments due to non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules must be calculated on the basis of payments granted or to be granted in the year during which that non-compliance occurred; Article 66(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003 (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18) and Article 70(8)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, must be interpreted as meaning that reductions in direct payments thus calculated are to be applied to payments received or to be received in the calendar year during which the non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules is found;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — VAR Srl, Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA (ATM) v Iveco Orecchia SpA

(Case C-14/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/17/EC - Article 34 - Supply of spare parts for buses and trolley-buses - Technical specifications - Equivalent products - Whether proof of equivalence may be provided after the contract has been awarded))

(2018/C 319/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: VAR Srl, Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA (ATM)

Respondent: Iveco Orecchia SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(8) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors must be interpreted as meaning that, when the technical specifications in the contract documentation refer to a specific mark, origin or production, the contracting authority must require the tenderer to submit, already in its tender, proof that the products which it proposes are equivalent to those defined in the technical specifications.

(1) OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
1.

Articles 64 and 65(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC, and Article 395(1) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where the exposure limits set out in Article 395(1) of that regulation are exceeded, ‘absorption’ interest is to be levied automatically on a credit institution, even if that institution fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 395(5) of the regulation under which a credit institution may exceed those limits.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Microchip Technology, Inc.

(Case C-139/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Opposition proceedings - Application for the word mark medialbo - Earlier mark MediaLB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Notice of opposition filed by a person who is not the proprietor of the earlier mark - No formal application for registration of the transfer of the earlier mark within the opposition period - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 328/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and M. Fischer, acting as Agents), Microchip Technology, Inc. (represented by: C. Bergmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders QuaMa Quality Management GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — Birkenstock Sales GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-26/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Surface pattern))

(2018/C 408/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (represented by: C. Menebröcker and V. Töbelmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Birkenstock Sales GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Vincent Piessevaux v Council of the European Union

(Case C-454/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII - Pension rights acquired under a national scheme - Transfer of those rights to the EU pension scheme - Difference in treatment between officials who have had the capital representing their pension rights transferred to the EU scheme before and after the entry into force of new implementing provisions))

(2018/C 399/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Vincent Piessevaux (represented by: L. Ponteville, avocat)

Other party: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Vincent Piessevaux to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
1.

On a proper construction of Article 4(3) of the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/941/EC of 30 November 2009, the result of a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the maintenance to be paid was set by a decision, which has acquired the force of res judicata, in response to an application by the creditor and, pursuant to Article 4(3) of that protocol, on the basis of the law of the forum designated under that provision, is not that that law governs a subsequent application for a reduction in the amount of maintenance lodged by the debtor against the creditor with the courts of the State where that debtor is habitually resident.
3.

Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement for a contractual term to be drafted in plain intelligible language requires financial institutions to provide borrowers with adequate information to enable them to take well-informed and prudent decisions. In that regard, that requirement means that a term relating to the foreign exchange risk must be understood by the consumer both at the formal and grammatical level and also in terms of its actual effects, so that the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, would not only be aware of the possibility of a depreciation of the national currency in relation to the foreign currency in which the loan was denominated, but would also be able to assess the potentially significant economic consequences of such a term with regard to his financial obligations.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA v European Commission

(Case C-145/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China or consigned from Malaysia - Infringement of the Anti-Dumping Agreement concluded in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Repeal of definitive anti-dumping duties already collected - Non-retroactive effect - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Person individually concerned - Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures))

(2018/C 455/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA (represented by: C. Cañizares Pacheco, E. Tejedor de la Fuente and A. Monreal Lasheras, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
1.

Article 18(7) 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 conjunction with Commission Implementing Decision 2011/438/EU of 19 July 2011 on the recognition of the ISCC (International Sustainability and Carbon Certification) system for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which imposes requirements on economic operators which, for the certification of the sustainability of bioliquids, are specific, different and more extensive than those imposed by a voluntary sustainability certification system, such as the ISCC system, recognised by that implementing decision, adopted by the European Commission in accordance with Article 18(4) of that directive, in so far as that system was approved only in respect of biofuels and in so far as those conditions concern only bioliquids.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — ‘Walltopia’ AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite — Veliko Tarnovo

(Case C-451/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 12(1) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 14(1) - Posted workers - Legislation applicable - A1 certificate - Whether the employee is subject to the legislation of the Member State in which his employer is established - Conditions)

(2019/C 4/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Walltopia’ AD

Defendant: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite — Veliko Tarnovo

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, read together with Article 12(1) 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 (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that an employee recruited with a view to being posted to another Member State must be regarded as having been ‘just before the start of his employment … already subject to the legislation of the Member State in which his employer is established’, within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 987/2009, even if that employee was not an insured person under the legislation of that Member State immediately before the start of his employment, if, at that time, that employee had his residence in that Member State, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-100/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 - Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan - Continuing interest in bringing proceedings))

(2018/C 455/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg eV v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-330/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Article 2(18) - Article 23(1) - Transport - Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union - Information - Indication of the final price to be paid - Inclusion of the air fare in the final price to be paid - Obligation to indicate air fares in euros or local currency - Choice of the relevant local currency - Connecting factors))

(2019/C 16/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg eV

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) in conjunction with Article 2(18) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, when indicating air fares for intra-Community air services, air carriers who do not express those fares in euros are required to choose a local currency that is objectively linked to the service offered. That is the case in particular of the currency which is legal tender in the Member State in which the place of departure or arrival of the flight is located.

Thus, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which an air carrier established in a Member State in which the euro is legal tender offers on the internet an air service for which the place of departure of the flight is located in another Member State in which a currency other than the euro is legal tender, the air fares may, if they are not expressed in euros, be indicated in the currency which is legal tender in that other Member State.

(1) OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Hellenische Republik v Leo Kuhn

(Case C-308/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Scope - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Bonds issued by a Member State - Involvement of the private sector in the restructuring of public debt of that State - Unilateral and retroactive adjustment of the borrowing terms - Collective action clauses - Action brought against the State by private creditors who hold those bonds as natural persons - Liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority))

(2019/C 16/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Hellenische Republik

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Leo Kuhn

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that a dispute, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to an action brought by a natural person having acquired bonds issued by a Member State, against that State and seeking to contest the exchange of those bonds with bonds of a lower value, imposed on that natural person by the effect of a law adopted in exceptional circumstances by the national legislator, according to which those terms were unilaterally and retroactively amended by the introduction of a CAC allowing a majority of holders of the relevant bonds to impose that exchange on the minority, does not fall within ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that article.

(1) OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health

(Case C-151/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Directive 2014/40/EU - Article 1(c) and Article 17 - Prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use - Validity))

(2019/C 25/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Swedish Match AB

Defendant: Secretary of State for Health

Intervener: New Nicotine Alliance

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(c) and Article 17 of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC.

(1) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.