ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — E.G. v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-662/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46(2) - Appeal against a decision refusing to grant refugee status but granting subsidiary protection status - Admissibility - Lack of a sufficient interest where the subsidiary protection status granted by a Member State offers the same rights and benefits as those offered by the refugee status under Union and national law - Relevance of the applicant’s particular circumstances for the purposes of examining whether the rights and benefits are identical))

(2018/C 455/25)

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.G.

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Operative part of the judgment

The second paragraph of Article 46(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as meaning that subsidiary protection status, granted under legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not offer the ‘same rights and benefits as those offered by the refugee status under Union and national law’, within the meaning of that provision, so that a court of that Member State may not dismiss an appeal brought against a decision considering an application unfounded in relation to refugee status but granting subsidiary protection status as inadmissible on the grounds of insufficient interest on the part of the applicant in maintaining the proceedings where it is found that, under the applicable national legislation, those rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are not genuinely identical.

Such an appeal may not be dismissed as inadmissible, even if it is found that, having regard to the applicant’s particular circumstances, granting refugee status could not confer on him more rights and benefits than granting subsidiary protection status, in so far as the applicant does not, or has not yet, relied on rights which are granted by virtue of refugee status, but which are not granted, or are granted only to a limited extent, by virtue of subsidiary protection status.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 — Republic of Estonia v European Commission, Republic of Latvia

(Case C-334/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common organisation of the markets - Amount to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated - Decision 2006/776/EC - Request for modification of a final decision of the European Commission - Letter of refusal - Appeal against that letter - Admissibility))

(2019/C 16/20)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, acting as Agents, and by S. Mody, vandeadvokaat), Republic of Latvia

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the appeal;

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

(1) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Renerga’ v AB ‘Energijos skirstymo operatorius’, AB ‘Lietuvos energijos gamyba’

(Case C-238/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 3(2), (6) and (15) and Article 36(f) - Internal market in electricity - Hypothetical nature of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling))

(2019/C 16/12)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘Renerga’

Defendants: AB ‘Energijos skirstymo operatorius’, AB ‘Lietuvos energijos gamyba’

Third parties: UAB ‘BALTPOOL’, Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė, Achema AB, Achemos Grupė UAB

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (District Court, City of Vilnius, Lithuania), made by decision of 11 April 2017, is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
3.

Articles 3, 25 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1027/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure such as that taken pursuant to Article 1(4)bis of decreto-legge 21 ottobre 1996, n. 536, recante ‘Misure per il contenimento della spesa farmaceutica e la rideterminazione del tetto di spesa per l'anno 1996’, convertito dalla legge del 23 dicembre 1996, n. 648 (Decree-Law No 536 of 21 October 1996 on ‘Measures for containing pharmaceutical expenditure and for adjusting the maximum level of expenditure for 1996’, converted into statute by Law No 648 of 23 December 1996), as amended by decreto-legge del 20 marzo 2014, n. 36, convertito dalla legge del 16 maggio 2014, n. 79 (Decree-Law No 36 of 20 March 2014, converted into statute by Law No 79 of 16 May 2014) which authorises the Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) (Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA)) to monitor medicinal products such as Avastin the off-label use of which is reimbursed by the Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (National Health Service, Italy) and, where relevant, to introduce measures necessary to safeguard patient safety.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Sofina SA, Rebelco SA, Sidro SA v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-575/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Withholding tax on the gross amount of nationally sourced dividends paid to non-resident companies - Deferral of taxation of dividends paid to a resident company in the event of a loss-making year - Difference in treatment - Justification - Comparability - Balanced distribution of the powers of taxation between the Member States - Effective collection of tax - Proportionality - Discrimination))

(2019/C 25/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sofina SA, Rebelco SA, Sidro SA

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the dividends paid by a resident company are subject to a withholding tax when they are received by a non-resident company, whereas, when such dividends are received by a resident company, under the general corporation tax rules they are subject to taxation at the end of the financial year in which they were received only if the latter company was profitable in that financial year, and such taxation may, where applicable, never be levied if that company ceases trading without becoming profitable after receiving those dividends.

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 — Mykola Yanovych Azarov v Council of the European Union

(Case C-530/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds and economic resources - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Decision by an authority of a third State - Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection))

(2019/C 65/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 July 2017, Azarov v Council (T-215/15, EU:T:2017:479);

2. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present appeal.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero della Salute v Hannes Preindl

(Case C-675/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of the evidence of formal qualifications obtained following periods of partially overlapping training - Host Member State’s powers of investigation))

(2019/C 44/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministero della Salute

Defendant: Hannes Preindl

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 21, 22 and 24 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications must be interpreted as obliging a Member State, whose legislation creates a requirement to pursue full-time training and a prohibition on being enrolled on two courses at the same time, automatically to recognise the evidence of formal qualifications issued by another Member State on the completion of partially concurrent training.

2. Article 21 and Article 22(a) of Directive 2005/36 must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State from verifying compliance with the condition that the overall duration, level and quality of part-time training are not lower than those of continuous full-time training.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
1.

Articles 1 and 2(2) of 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 national legislation under which, first, Good Friday is a public holiday only for employees who are members of certain Christian churches and, second, only those employees are entitled, if required to work on that public holiday, to a payment in addition to their regular salary for work done on that day, constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of religion. The measures provided for by that national legislation cannot be regarded either as measures necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, within the meaning of Article 2(5) of that directive, or as specific measures intended to compensate for disadvantages linked to religion, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the directive.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH v Finanzamt München Abteilung Körperschaften

(Case C-552/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Special scheme for travel agents - Supply of a holiday residence rented from other taxable persons - Additional services - Ancillary or principal services - Reduced rate of tax - Accommodation supplied by a travel agent in his own name))

(2019/C 65/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt München Abteilung Körperschaften

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the mere supply by a travel agent of holiday accommodation rented from other taxable persons or such a supply of a holiday residence combined with the supply of additional ancillary services, regardless of the importance of those ancillary services, each amount to a single service covered by the special scheme for travel agents.

2. Article 98(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of travel agent services consisting of the supply of holiday accommodation, covered by Article 307 of that directive, cannot be subject to a reduced tax rate or one of the reduced rates set out in Article 98(2).

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — NK, liquidator in the bankruptcies of PI Gerechtsdeurwaarderskantoor BV and PI v BNP Paribas Fortis NV

(Case C-535/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Scope of those regulations - Bankruptcy of a bailiff - Action brought by the liquidator in charge of administering and liquidating the bankruptcy)

(2019/C 131/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NK, liquidator in the bankruptcies of PI Gerechtsdeurwaarderskantoor BV and PI

Defendant: BNP Paribas Fortis NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and (2)(b) 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 an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning a claim for damages arising from liability for a wrongful act, brought by the liquidator in insolvency proceedings and the proceeds of which, if the claim succeeds, accrue to the general body of creditors, is covered by the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(1), and therefore falls within the material scope of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
1.

Article 17(2), (3) and (5) and Article 19(1) of 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, and Articles 168, 169 and 173 to 175 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the expenditure borne by a branch registered in a Member State, which is used, exclusively, both for transactions subject to value added tax and for transactions exempt from that tax, carried out by the principal establishment of that branch established in another Member State, it is necessary to apply a deductible proportion resulting from a fraction the denominator of which is formed by the turnover, exclusive of value added tax, made up of those transactions alone and the numerator of which is formed by the taxed transactions in respect of which value added tax which would also be deductible if they had been carried out in the Member State in which that branch is registered, including where that right to deduct stems from the exercise of an option, effected by that branch, consisting in making the transactions carried out in that State subject to value added tax.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2019 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-128/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Directive (EU) 2016/2284 - Reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants - Adoption of EU legal acts - Functioning of the legislative procedure - Article 4(3) TEU - Principle of cooperation in good faith - Actual exercise of the EU legislature’s powers of discretion - Impact assessment - Sufficient assessment of the effects of the contested act - Article 5(4) TEU - Principle of proportionality - Article 4(2) TEU - Equality of Member States before the Treaties - Article 191(2) TFEU - EU policy on the environment - Account taken of the diversity of the EU regions - Judicial review)

(2019/C 155/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Tamás and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm, A.-Z. Varfi, K. Adamczyk Delamarre and A. Sikora-Kalėda, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and E. Tóth, Agents), Romania (represented by: C. Canțăr, R.H. Radu, A. Wellman and M. Chicu, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen, K. Herrmann and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders Hungary, Romania and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Hellenic Republic both in the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Henri Pouvin, Marie Dijoux, the spouse of Henri Pouvin v Électricité de France (EDF)

(Case C-590/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Scope - Article 2(b) and (c) - Concepts of ‘consumer’ and of ‘seller or supplier’ - Finance for the purchase of a home - Mortgage loan granted by an employer to its employee and to his spouse, the jointly and severally liable co-borrower)

(2019/C 187/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Henri Pouvin, Marie Dijoux, the spouse of Henri Pouvin

Defendant: Électricité de France (EDF)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the employee of an undertaking and his spouse, who conclude a loan contract with that undertaking, reserved, principally, to members of staff of that undertaking, with a view to financing the purchase of real estate for private purposes, must be regarded as ‘consumers’, within the meaning of that provision;

Article 2(c) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that that undertaking must be regarded as a ‘seller or supplier’, within the meaning of that provision, where it concludes such a loan contract in the context of its professional activity, even if granting loans does not constitute its main activity.

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2019 — AlzChem AG v European Commission

(Case C-666/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - General presumption of confidentiality of documents relating to an investigation procedure in the field of State aid - Scope)

(2019/C 155/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: AlzChem AG (represented by: A. Borsos, avocat, and J.A. Guerrero Pérez, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and A. Buchet, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders AlzChem AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — proceedings brought by Allianz Vorsorgekasse AG

(Case C-699/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public Procurement - Conclusion of accession agreements with an occupational provident fund responsible for managing contributions of occupational solidarity - Conclusion requiring the agreement of employees or their representatives - Directive 2014/24/EU - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination - Obligation of transparency)

(2019/C 206/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Allianz Vorsorgekasse AG

Other parties: Bundestheater-Holding GmbH, Burgtheater GmbH, Wiener Staatsoper GmbH, Volksoper Wien GmbH, ART for ART Theaterservice GmbH, fair-finance Vorsorgekasse AG

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as meaning that they are applicable to the conclusion of an accession agreement between an employer, a body governed by public law, and a company provident fund, with regard to the management and investment of contributions intended to finance severance payments paid to the employees of that employer, even though the conclusion of such an agreement is not the sole province of the employer, but requires the consent of either the staff or the works council.

(1) OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
3.

Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from exercising the option granted by that provision to reject an application for the grant of refugee status as being inadmissible on the ground that the applicant has been previously granted subsidiary protection by another Member State, where the living conditions that that applicant could be expected to encounter as the beneficiary of subsidiary protection in that other Member State would not expose him to a substantial risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The fact that the beneficiaries of such subsidiary protection do not receive, in that Member State, any subsistence allowance, or that such allowance as they receive is markedly inferior to that in other Member States, though they are not treated differently from nationals of that Member State, can lead to the finding that that applicant would be exposed in that Member State to such a risk only if the consequence is that that applicant would, because of his or her particular vulnerability, irrespective of his or her wishes and personal choices, be in a situation of extreme material poverty. Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from exercising that option, where the asylum procedure in the other Member State that has granted subsidiary protection to the applicant leads to a systematic refusal, without real examination, to grant refugee status to applicants for international protection who satisfy the conditions laid down in Chapters II and III of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.