ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — GT v HS

(Case C-38/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 3(1) - Article 4(2) - Article 6(1) - Loan agreement denominated in foreign currency - The exchange rate applicable to the sum made available in domestic currency communicated to the consumer after the agreement has been concluded)

(2019/C 263/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GT

Defendant: HS

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 6(1) of Council Directive 91/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts are to be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of that Member State, under which a loan agreement is not invalid if it is denominated in foreign currency and, although it specifies the sum corresponding to that set out in the consumer’s application for finance in domestic currency, does not indicate the exchange rate applicable to that sum for the purpose of determining the definitive amount of the loan in foreign currency, but at the same time stipulates, in one of its terms, that that rate will be set by the lender in a separate document after the agreement has been concluded,

— where that term is in plain intelligible language, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, in that the mechanism for calculating the total amount lent and the exchange rate applicable are indicated transparently, so that a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer may evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him of entering into the agreement, including, in particular, the total cost of the loan, or, if it is apparent that the term is not in plain intelligible language,

— where that term is not unfair, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the directive, or, if it is unfair, the agreement concerned is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term, in accordance with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/31.

(1) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.
2.

EU law, in particular 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 Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and 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, as well as the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which does not allow review of a judgment, which has acquired the force of res judicata, of a court or tribunal of that Member State which has ruled on an action for annulment against an act of a contracting authority without addressing a question the examination of which was envisaged in an earlier judgment of the Court in response to a request for a preliminary ruling made in the course of the proceedings relating to that action for annulment. However, if the applicable domestic rules of procedure include the possibility for national courts to reverse a judgment which has acquired the force of res judicata, for the purposes of rendering the situation arising from that judgment compatible with an earlier national judicial decision which has become final – where both the court which delivered that judgment and the parties to the case leading to that judgment were already aware of that earlier decision – that possibility must, in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, in the same circumstances, prevail in order to render the situation compatible with EU law, as interpreted by an earlier judgment of the Court of Justice.
2.

Article 1(5) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for criminal penalties to be imposed on persons who, without prior authorisation from the competent authority, confer a ‘master’s’ degree, provided that the conditions to which the granting of an authorisation to confer that degree is subject are compatible with Article 10(2) of that directive, which it is for the national court to verify.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

(Case C-507/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Personal data - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data - Directive 95/46/EC - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Internet search engines - Processing of data on web pages - Territorial scope of the right to de-referencing)

(2019/C 399/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc.

Defendant: Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

In the presence of: Wikimedia Foundation Inc., Fondation pour la liberté de la presse, Microsoft Corp., Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Others, Article 19 and Others, Internet Freedom Foundation and Others, and Défenseur des droits

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46 (General Data Protection Regulation), where a search engine operator grants a request for de-referencing pursuant to those provisions, that operator is not required to carry out that de-referencing on all versions of its search engine, but on the versions of that search engine corresponding to all the Member States, using, where necessary, measures which, while meeting the legal requirements, effectively prevent or, at the very least, seriously discourage an internet user conducting a search from one of the Member States on the basis of a data subject’s name from gaining access, via the list of results displayed following that search, to the links which are the subject of that request.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Ploiești — Romania) — Oana Mădălina Călin v Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Dâmbovița, Statul Român — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-676/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - Procedural autonomy - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Principle of legal certainty - Res judicata - Recovery of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law - Final decision of a court or tribunal imposing payment of a tax which is incompatible with EU law - Application for revision of such a decision - Time limit within which that application must be submitted)

(2019/C 383/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Ploiești

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Oana Mădălina Călin

Respondents: Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Dâmbovița, Statul Român — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Operative part of the judgment

1. EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, a national provision, as interpreted by a judgment of a national court, providing for a one-month limitation period for the submission of a request for revision of a final judicial decision handed down in breach of EU law, running from the date of communication of the decision of which revision is sought.

2. However, the principle of effectiveness, in conjunction with the principle of legal certainty, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those as issue in the main proceedings, application by a national court of a one-month limitation period for the submission of a request for revision of a final judicial decision when, at the time that request for revision is made, the judgment introducing that limitation period has not yet been published in the Monitorul Oficial al României.

(1) OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
1.

Article 11(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a court or tribunal of a Member State, seised of an action in legal proceedings brought against an employer with respect to facts that might indicate that E 101 certificates, issued under Article 14(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, were fraudulently obtained and relied on with respect to workers employed in that Member State, can make a finding of fraud and consequently disregard those certificates only if it has satisfied itself that: — first, the procedure laid down in Article 84a(3) of that regulation was promptly initiated and the competent institution of the issuing Member State was thus put in a position to review the grounds for the issue of those certificates in the light of the concrete evidence submitted by the competent institution of the host Member State that indicates that those certificates were fraudulently obtained or relied on, and — second, the competent institution of the issuing Member State has failed to undertake such a review and has failed to make a decision, within a reasonable time, on that evidence, cancelling or withdrawing the certificates at issue, where appropriate;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov

(Case C-324/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2014/41/EU - European Investigation Order (EIO) in criminal matters - Article 5(1) - Form set out in Annex A - Section J - Absence of legal remedies in the issuing Member State)

(2019/C 432/02)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main proceedings

Ivan Gavanozov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, read in conjunction with Section J of the form set out in Annex A to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authority of a Member State does not, when issuing a European Investigation Order, have to include in that section a description of the legal remedies, if any, which are provided for in its Member State against the issuing of such an order.

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

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-6/18 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Financing of the common agricultural policy - Excluded expenditure - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic))

(2019/C 112/07)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, I. Pachi and A. Vasilopoulou, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Sauka, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
2.

Article 33(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, enforcement of a decision of a court of a Member State which directs that children be made wards of court and that they be returned and which is declared enforceable in the requested Member State, prior to service of the declaration of enforceability of that decision on the parents concerned. Article 33(5) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the period for lodging an appeal laid down in that provision may not be extended by the court seised.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Udine — Italy) — Tecnoservice Int. Srl, in liquidation v Poste Italiane SpA

(Case C-245/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Payment services in the internal market - Directive 2007/64/EC - Article 74(2) - Payment order by credit transfer - Incorrect unique identifier provided by the payer - Execution of the payment transaction on the basis of the unique identifier - Liability of the payee’s payment service provider)

(2019/C 187/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Udine

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tecnoservice Int. Srl, in liquidation

Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 74(2) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC must be interpreted as meaning that, when a payment order is executed in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the payment service user, which does not correspond to the payee name indicated by that user, the limitation of payment service provider liability, provided for by that article, applies to both the payer’s and the payee’s payment service provider.

(1) OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Detlef Meyn

(Case C-9/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Refusal to recognise a driving licence issued in another Member State - Right to drive established on the basis of a driving licence)

(2019/C 139/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe

Party in the main proceedings

Detlef Meyn

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise a driving licence — the holder of which has his normal residence in its territory — which has been issued by another Member State, without a test of fitness to drive, on the basis of a driving licence issued by another Member State, for its part based on the exchange of a driving licence issued by a third country.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — SC Onlineshop SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor

(Case C-268/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined nomenclature - Subheadings 85269120 and 85285900 - GPS navigation system with multiple functions)

(2019/C 220/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Onlineshop SRL

Respondents: Agenția Natională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor

Operative part of the judgment

The combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that multifunctional devices of the kind used in motor vehicles which, like that at issue in the main proceedings, combine, in the same housing, as its primary function, a radio navigation monitor which uses pre-installed GPS navigation applications and, subsidiarily, a radio broadcasting transmitter, an audio/video reproduction apparatus and a screen with a diagonal measurement of approximately 5 inches (12.7 cm), must be classified under subheading 85269120 in that nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
2.

Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding procedural rules, to which a contractual term refers, which allow the seller or supplier to choose, in the event of an action for alleged non-performance of a contract by the consumer, between the court which has jurisdiction in the place where the defendant is domiciled and that which has jurisdiction in the place of performance of the contract, unless the choice of place of performance of the contract gives rise, for the consumer, to procedural conditions which are such as to restrict excessively the right to an effective remedy conferred on him by the European Union legal order, which is a matter for the national court to determine.
2.

Article 212a of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, when it applies to the incurrence of a customs debt pursuant to Article 204(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended, for exceeding the time limit under Article 49(1) of that regulation, the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation No 1238/2013 and in Article 2(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation No 1239/2013 are not fulfilled when the company which is affiliated with the company listed in the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU of 4 December 2013 confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures, and which manufactured, consigned and invoiced the goods concerned, did not act as the importer of those goods and did not ensure the release of the goods into free circulation, even if it had the intention to do so and was the company to which the goods were actually delivered.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Stadt Euskirchen v Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-253/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 5(1) and (2) - Direct award - Contracts for public passenger transport services by bus and by tram - Conditions - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 12 - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 28)

(2019/C 230/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stadt Euskirchen

Defendant: Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG

Joined parties: SVE Stadtverkehr Euskirchen GmbH, RVK Regionalverkehr Köln GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to the direct award of contracts relating to public passenger transport services by bus which do not take the form of service concessions contracts within the meaning of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts.

(1) OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Línea Directa Aseguradora, SA v Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros

(Case C-100/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3, first paragraph - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - Damage to property as a result of a fire in a vehicle parked in the private garage of the property - Compulsory insurance cover)

(2019/C 270/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Línea Directa Aseguradora, SA

Defendant: Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a vehicle parked in a private garage of a building, used in accordance with its function as a means of transport, has caught fire, giving rise to a fire which originated in the electrical circuit of that vehicle and caused damage to that building, even though that vehicle has not been moved for more than 24 hours before the fire occurred, falls within the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ referred to in that provision.

(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.