ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano — Italy) — Rotho Blaas Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-207/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common commercial policy - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain goods originating in the People’s Republic of China - Anti-dumping duty held to be incompatible with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)))

(2018/C 455/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rotho Blaas Srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the first question has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012, amending Regulation No 91/2009, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/519 of 26 March 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

(1) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-484/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/86/EC - Right to family reunification - Article 15 - Refusal to grant an autonomous residence permit - National legislation providing for a requirement to pass a civic integration examination))

(2019/C 16/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: K

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) and (4) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits an application for an autonomous residence permit, lodged by a third country national who has resided over five years in a Member State by virtue of family reunification, to be rejected on the ground that he has not shown that he has passed a civic integration test on the language and society of that Member State provided that the detailed rules for the requirement to pass that examination do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of facilitating the integration of those third country nationals, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto — Italy) — Memoria Srl, Antonia Dall’Antonia v Comune di Padova

(Case C-342/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Restrictions on freedom of establishment - Jurisdiction of the Court - Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling - Purely domestic situation - National legislation prohibiting any profit-making activity relating to the safekeeping of cinerary urns - Proportionality test - Coherence of national rules))

(2019/C 16/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Memoria Srl, Antonia Dall’Antonia

Defendant: Comune di Padova

Intervener: Alessandra Calore

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits, even despite the express wishes of the deceased, the recipient of a cinerary urn from entrusting its safekeeping to a third party, and requires him to store the urn in his home, unless it is entrusted to a municipal cemetery, and furthermore prohibits any activity carried out for profit relating, even non-exclusively, to the safekeeping of cinerary urns, on whatever basis and for whatever period.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda — Slovak Republic) — ZSE Energia a.s. v RG

(Case C-627/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 - European Small Claims Procedure - Articles 2(1) and 3(1) - Scope - Concept of ‘parties’ - Cross-border disputes))

(2019/C 25/14)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Dunajská Streda

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZSE Energia a.s.

Defendant: RG

intervener: ZSE Energia CZ, s.r.o.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘parties’ covers solely the applicant and the defendant in the main proceedings.

2. Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 861/2007, as amended by Regulation No 517/2013, must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, in which the applicant and the defendant have their domicile or their habitual residence in the same Member State as the court or tribunal seised, does not come within the scope of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
2.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that a recurring activity, such as the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface, authorised under national law before the entry into force of that directive, may be regarded as one and the same project for the purposes of that provision, exempted from a new authorisation procedure, in so far as it constitutes a single operation characterised by a common purpose, continuity and, inter alia, the location and the conditions in which it is carried out being the same. If a single project was authorised before the system of protection laid down by that provision became applicable to the site in question, the carrying out of that project may nevertheless fall within the scope of Article 6(2) of that directive.
1.

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of calculating remuneration for annual leave, allows collective agreements to provide for account to be taken of reductions in earnings resulting from the fact that during the reference period there were days when no work was actually performed owing to short-time working, with the consequence that the worker receives, for the duration of the minimum period of annual leave to which he is entitled under Article 7(1) of the directive, remuneration for annual leave that is lower than the normal remuneration which he receives during periods of work. It is for the referring court to interpret the national legislation, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of Directive 2003/88, in such a way that the remuneration for annual leave paid to workers in respect of the minimum annual leave provided for in Article 7(1) is not less than the average of the normal remuneration received by those workers during periods of actual work.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria — Italy) — Amt Azienda Trasporti e Mobilità SpA and Others v Atpl Liguria — Agenzia regionale per il trasporto pubblico locale SpA, Regione Liguria

(Case C-328/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Review procedures - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 1(3) - Directive 92/13/EEC - Article 1(3) - Right to bring proceedings subject to the condition that a tender was submitted in a procurement procedure))

(2019/C 35/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Amt Azienda Trasporti e Mobilità SpA, Atc Esercizio SpA, Atp Esercizio Srl, Riviera Trasporti SpA, Tpl Linea Srl

Defendants: Atpl Liguria — Agenzia regionale per il trasporto pubblico locale SpA, Regione Liguria

Operative part of the judgment

Both Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Diretive2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and Article 1(3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow economic operators to bring an action against the decisions of a contracting authority relating to a tendering procedure in which they have decided not to participate on the ground that the legislation applicable to that procedure made the award to them of the contract concerned very unlikely.

However, it is for the competent national court to make a detailed assessment, taking account of all the relevant information characterising the context of the case brought before it, as to whether the application of that legislation in practice is liable to affect the right of the economic operators concerned to the right to effective judicial protection.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, acting as insolvency administrator of AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’ v SIA ‘Ķipars AI’

(Case C-639/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems - Directive 98/26/EC - Scope - Concept of ‘transfer order’ - Payment order sent by the holder of an ordinary current account to a credit institution subsequently declared insolvent))

(2019/C 93/19)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, acting as insolvency administrator of AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’

Respondent: SIA ‘Ķipars AI’

Operative part of the judgment

A payment order, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, given by the holder of an ordinary current account to a credit institution for a transfer of funds to another credit institution is not covered by the concept of ‘transfer order’, within the meaning of Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, and does not, therefore, come within the scope of that directive.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust, Coopservice Soc. coop. arl v Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica — Sebino (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale del Garda (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Valcamonica (ASST)

(Case C-216/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(5) - Article 32(2) - Award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Framework agreements - Clause extending the framework agreement to other contracting authorities - Principles of transparency and equal treatment of economic operators - No determination of the quantity covered by subsequent public procurement contracts or determination by reference to the usual requirements of the contracting authorities that are not signatories to the framework agreement - Prohibition))

(2019/C 65/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust, Coopservice Soc. coop. arl

Defendants: Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Vallecamonica — Sebino (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale del Garda (ASST), Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale della Valcamonica (ASST)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Markas Srl, ATI — Zanetti Arturo & C. Srl e in proprio, Regione Lombardia

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(5) and the fourth subparagraph of Article 32(2) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that:

— a contracting authority may act on its own behalf and on behalf of other contracting authorities that are specifically indicated but are not direct parties to a framework agreement, provided that the requirements as to advertising and legal certainty and, consequently, those relating to transparency are complied with; and

— it cannot be accepted that contracting authorities that are not signatories to the framework agreement refrain from determining the quantity of services that may be required when they conclude contracts pursuant to the framework agreement or determine that quantity by reference to their usual requirements, because, if they do so, the principles of transparency and equal treatment of economic operators with an interest in the conclusion of that framework contract will be infringed.

(1) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Planta Tabak-Manufaktur Dr. Manfred Obermann GmbH & Co. KG v Land Berlin

(Case C-220/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Validity of Directive 2014/40/EU - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Regulation of ‘ingredients’ - Prohibition of flavoured tobacco products))

(2019/C 112/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Planta Tabak-Manufaktur Dr. Manfred Obermann GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Land Berlin

Operative part of the judgment

1. Examination of the first question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 7(1), (7) and (14) 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.

2. Article 7(14) of Directive 2014/40 must be interpreted as meaning, first, that the concept of ‘product category’ within the meaning of that provision covers cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco and, second, that the procedure to be followed for determining whether a particular tobacco product reaches the 3 % limit laid down in that provision must be established in accordance with the domestic law of the Member State concerned.

3. Articles 8 to 11 of Directive 2014/40 must be interpreted as not allowing the Member States to determine transposition periods additional to those provided for in Articles 29 and 30 of that directive.

4. Examination of the second question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the second subparagraph of Article 9(1), the second sentence of Article 9(4)(a), Article 9(6), Article 10(1)(b), (e) and (f), and the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Directive 2014/40.

5. Article 13(1)(c) and (3) of Directive 2014/40 must be interpreted as requiring the Member States to prohibit the use of information referring to taste, smell, flavourings or other additives even where that information is not promotional information and the use of the ingredients concerned is still permitted.

6. Examination of the third question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 13(1)(c) and (3) of Directive 2014/40.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2019 — Toni Klement v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-698/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) - Application for revocation of a mark - Three-dimensional mark representing the form of an oven - Genuine use of the mark - Statement of reasons))

(2019/C 93/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Toni Klement (represented by: J. Weiser, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Toni Klement to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
—

a requirement that the purchaser maintain that air carrier company’s headquarters and effective management in the Member State concerned, in so far as the transfer of that company’s principal place of business outside of that Member State would mean that company losing the air traffic rights conferred on it under bilateral agreements between that Member State and third countries with which that Member State has particular historical, cultural and social ties, which is for the referring court to ascertain. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding those tender specifications from including a requirement that the purchaser of those shares ensure that the existing national hub is maintained and developed.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Eugen Bogatu v Minister for Social Protection

(Case C-322/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 67 - Application for family benefits submitted by a person who has ceased to pursue an activity as an employed person in the competent Member State but continues to reside there - Entitlement to family benefits for family members resident in another Member State - Eligibility conditions)

(2019/C 131/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eugen Bogatu

Defendant: Minister for Social Protection

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems and, in particular, Article 67, read in conjunction with Article 11(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in order to be eligible to receive family benefits in the competent Member State, it is not necessary for a person either to pursue an activity as an employed person in that Member State or to be in receipt of cash benefits from that Member State because or as a consequence of such activity.

(1) OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
1.

Articles 2 and 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 the classification as a ‘colour mark’ or ‘figurative mark’ given to a sign by the applicant on registration is a relevant factor among others for the purpose of establishing whether that sign can constitute a trade mark within the meaning of Article 2 of the directive and, if so, whether it is distinctive within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of that directive, but does not release the competent trade mark authority from its obligation to carry out a global assessment of distinctive character by reference to the actual situation of the mark considered, which means that that authority cannot refuse registration of a sign as a mark on the sole ground that that sign has not acquired distinctive character through use in relation to the goods or services claimed.
1.

Article 16(2)(a) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that, where falsified documents were produced for the issuing of residence permits to family members of a third-country national, the fact that those family members did not know of the fraudulent nature of those documents does not preclude the Member State concerned, in application of that provision, from withdrawing those permits. In accordance with Article 17 of that directive, it is however for the competent national authorities to carry out, beforehand, a case-by-case assessment of the situation of those family members, by making a balanced and reasonable assessment of all the interests in play.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 July 2017, OZ v EIB (T-607/16, not published, EU:T:2017:495), in so far as it rejected, first, the heads of claim seeking damages set out by OZ in her application based on the liability of the European Investment Bank (EIB) for alleged unlawful acts committed during the investigation procedure, including the failure to respect the appellant’s right to a fair hearing, and, second, the head of claim seeking annulment set out in the application;