ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2019 — Republic of Poland v Stock Polska sp. z o.o., European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Lass & Steffen GmbH Wein- und Spirituosen-Import

(Case C-162/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1) - Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element LUBELSKA - Dominant and distinctive element))

(2019/C 93/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings: Stock Polska sp. z o.o. (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, radca prawny), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh and D. Botis, acting as Agents), Lass & Steffen GmbH Wein- und Spirituosen-Import (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Imran Syed

(Case C-572/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4(1) - Distribution right - Infringement - Goods bearing a copyrighted motif intended for sale - Storage for commercial purposes - Storage facility separate from place of sale))

(2019/C 65/20)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Party in the main proceedings

Imran Syed

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the storage by a retailer of goods bearing a motif protected by copyright on the territory of the Member State where the goods are stored may constitute an infringement of the exclusive distribution right, as defined by that provision, when that retailer offers for sale, without the authorisation of the copyright holder, goods identical to those which he is storing, provided that the stored goods are actually intended for sale on the territory of the Member State in which that motif is protected. The distance between the place of storage and the place of sale cannot, on its own, be a decisive element in determining whether the stored goods are intended for sale on the territory of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 30 January 2019 — Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission

(Case C-587/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Expenses excluded from financing by the European Union - Unduly paid export refunds - Recovery - Not all judicial remedies were exhausted - No appeal on a point of law following the negative opinion of a lawyer authorised to act before the Cour de cassation (Belgium) - Article 267 TFEU - No reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice - Negligence on the part of a Member State))

(2019/C 112/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by E. Grégoire and J. Mariani, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and B. Hofstötter, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 July 2017, Belgium v Commission (T-287/16, not published, EU:T:2017:531);

2. Refers Case T-287/16 back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Walbusch Walter Busch GmbH & Co. KG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV

(Case C-430/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Distance contracts - Article 6(1)(h) - Obligation to provide information on the right of withdrawal - Article 8(4) - Contract concluded through a means of distance communication which allows limited space or time to display the information - Meaning of ‘limited space or time to display the information’ - Brochure inserted in a periodical - Mail order coupon containing a hyperlink referring to information on the right of withdrawal))

(2019/C 93/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Walbusch Walter Busch GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV

Operative part of the judgment

The assessment of whether, in a specific case, the means of communication allows limited space or time to display the information, in accordance with Article 8(4) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be carried out having regard to all of the technical features of the trader’s marketing communication. In that regard, it falls to the national court to ascertain whether, having regard to the space and time occupied by the communication and the minimum size of the typeface which is appropriate for the average consumer targeted by that communication, all the information set out in Article 6(1) of that directive may objectively be displayed within that communication.

Article 6(1)(h) and Article 8(4) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted to the effect that, in a situation where the contract is concluded through a means of distance communication which allows limited space or time to display the information, and where a right of withdrawal exists, the trader is required to provide the consumer, on the means of communication in question and before the conclusion of the contract, with information regarding the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right. In such a situation, that trader must provide the consumer with the model withdrawal form, as provided for in Annex I(B) to that directive, by another source in plain and intelligible language.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Metirato Oy, in liquidation v Suomen valtio/Verohallinto, Eesti Vabariik/Maksu- ja Tolliamet

(Case C-695/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/24/EU - Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures - Article 13(1) - Article 14(2) - Enforced recovery, by the authorities of the requested Member State, of claims of the applicant Member State - Procedure relating to an application seeking the restitution of those claims to the insolvency estate of a company established in the requested Member State - Defendant in those proceedings - Determination)

(2019/C 155/13)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin käräjäoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Metirato Oy, in liquidation

Defendants: Suomen valtio/Verohallinto, Eesti Vabariik/Maksu- ja Tolliamet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) and Article 14(2) of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures must be interpreted as meaning that, first, they apply to proceedings seeking restitution, to the insolvency estate of a company established in the requested Member State, of claims which were recovered at the request of the applicant Member State, if those proceedings are based on disputes concerning the enforcement measures, within the meaning of Article 14(2) and, second, the requested Member State, within the meaning of those provisions, must be regarded as the defendant in those proceedings, the fact that the amount represented by those claims has been separated from the assets of that Member State or merged with them being irrelevant in that regard.

(1) OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Rebecka Jonsson v Société du Journal L’Est Républicain

(Case C-554/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - European small claims procedure - Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 - Article 16 - ‘Unsuccessful party’ - Costs of proceedings - Apportionment - Article 19 - Procedural law of the Member States)

(2019/C 131/11)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rebecka Jonsson

Defendant: Société du Journal L’Est Républicain

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, where a party succeeds only in part, the national court may order each of the parties to the proceedings to bear its own procedural costs or may apportion those costs between those parties. In such a situation, the national court remains, theoretically, free to apportion the amount of those costs, provided that the national procedural rules on the apportionment of procedural costs in small cross-border claims are not less favourable than the procedural rules governing similar situations subject to domestic law and that the procedural requirements relating to the apportionment of those procedural costs do not result in the persons concerned foregoing the use of that European small claims procedure by requiring an applicant, when he has been largely successful, nonetheless to bear his own procedural costs or a substantial portion of those costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales v Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier

(Case C-444/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Border control, asylum and immigration - Regulation (EU) 2016/399 - Article 32 - Temporary reintroduction of border control by a Member State at its internal borders - Illegal entry of a third-country national - Equation of internal borders with external borders - Directive 2008/115/EC - Scope - Article 2(2)(a))

(2019/C 187/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales

Defendants: Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), must be interpreted as not applying to the situation of an illegally staying third-country national who was apprehended in the immediate vicinity of an internal border of a Member State, even where that Member State has reintroduced border control at that border, pursuant to Article 25 of the regulation, on account of a serious threat to public policy or internal security in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.
2.

Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which an application for family reunification has been lodged by a sponsor benefiting from subsidiary protection in favour of a minor of whom she is the aunt and allegedly the guardian, and who resides as a refugee and without family ties in a third country, that application from being rejected solely on the ground that the sponsor has not provided official documentary evidence of the death of the minor’s biological parents and, consequently, that she has an actual family relationship with him, and that the explanation given by the sponsor to justify her inability to provide such evidence has been deemed implausible by the competent authorities solely on the basis of the general information available concerning the situation in the country of origin, without taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor and the particular difficulties they have encountered, according to their testimony, before and after fleeing their country of origin.
2.

Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 5(2) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that they entitle the proprietor of an individual trade mark with a reputation, consisting of a quality label, to oppose the affixing, by a third party, of a sign identical with, or similar to, that mark to products that are neither identical with, nor similar to, the goods or services for which that mark is registered, provided that it is established that, by that affixing, the third party takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the mark concerned or causes detriment to that distinctive character or reputation and provided that, in that case, the third party has not established the existence of a ‘due cause’, within the meaning of those provisions, in support of such affixing.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — slewo — schlafen leben wohnen GmbH v Sascha Ledowski

(Case C-681/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 6(1)(k) and Article 16(e) - Distance contract - Right of withdrawal - Exceptions - Concept of ‘sealed goods which are not suitable for return due to health protection or hygiene reasons and which have been unsealed by the consumer after delivery’ - Mattress whose protective seal has been removed by the consumer after delivery)

(2019/C 187/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: slewo — schlafen leben wohnen GmbH

Respondent: Sascha Ledowski

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(e) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that goods such as a mattress, from which the protective film has been removed by the consumer after delivery, do not come within the scope of the concept of ‘sealed goods which are not suitable for return due to health protection or hygiene reasons and which have been unsealed by the consumer after delivery’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
2.

In the event that national provisions cannot be interpreted in conformity with Directive 2000/78, the national court is required to provide, within the limits of its jurisdiction, the legal protection that individuals derive from that directive and to ensure the full effectiveness of that directive, disapplying, if need be, any incompatible provision of national legislation. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where discrimination, contrary to EU law, has been established, as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, the restoration of equal treatment, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, involves granting contractual public servants treated unfavourably by the old system of remuneration and advancement the same benefits as those enjoyed by the contractual public servants favoured by that system, both as regards the recognition of periods of service completed before the age of 18 and advancement in the salary scale and, consequently, granting compensation to contractual public servants discriminated against that is equal to the difference between the amount of remuneration the contractual public servant should have received if he had not been treated in a discriminatory manner and the amount of remuneration he actually received.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — Pillar Securitisation Sàrl v Hildur Arnadottir

(Case C-694/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Article 15 - Contract concluded by a consumer - Relationship with Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer credit agreements - Articles 2 and 3 - Concepts of ‘consumer’ and of ‘transactions covered by the directive’ - Maximum amount of credit - Irrelevant for the purposes of Article 15 of the Lugano II Convention)

(2019/C 220/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pillar Securitisation Sàrl

Defendant: Hildur Arnadottir

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15 of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, which was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of ascertaining whether a credit agreement is a credit agreement concluded by a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 15, it must not be determined whether the agreement falls within the scope of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, in the sense that the total cost of credit in question does not exceed the ceiling set out in Article 2(2)(c) of that directive, and that it is irrelevant, in that regard, that the national law transposing that directive does not provide for a higher ceiling.

(1) OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
1.

For the purposes of the assessment of the finality of the losses of a non-resident subsidiary, within the meaning of paragraph 55 of the judgment of 13 December 2005, Marks & Spencer (C-446/03, EU:C:2005:763), the fact that the subsidiary’s Member State of establishment does not allow the losses of one company to be transferred, in the event of a merger, to another company liable for corporation tax, whereas such a transfer is provided for by the Member State in which the parent company is established in the event of a merger between resident companies, is not decisive, unless the parent company demonstrates that it is impossible for it to deduct those losses by ensuring, in particular by means of a sale, that they are fiscally taken into account by a third party for future tax periods;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brindisi — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Gianluca Moro

(Case C-646/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Article 6(4) - Right of a person to be informed about the accusation against him - Being informed about any change in the information provided when that is necessary to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings - Change in the legal classification of the acts upon which the accusation is based - The accused person being unable to request, during the trial proceedings, the imposition of a negotiated penalty provided for under national law - Difference in the event of a change in the facts on which the accusation is based)

(2019/C 263/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Brindisi

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

Gianluca Moro

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(4) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the accused person may request, during the trial proceedings, the imposition of a negotiated penalty in the event of a change in the facts on which the accusation is based, and not in the event of a change in the legal classification of the acts on which the accusation is based.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Azienda Napoletana Mobilità SpA

(Case C-659/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Employment aid - Exemption from social security contributions in connection with training and work experience contracts - Decision 2000/128/EC - Aid granted by Italy to promote employment - Aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Applicability of Decision 2000/128/EC to an undertaking exclusively providing local public transport services which were directly awarded to it by a municipality - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘distortion of competition’ - Concept of ‘effect on trade’ between Member States)

(2019/C 319/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Respondent: Azienda Napoletana Mobilità SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Subject to verifications which are to be made by the referring court, Commission Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 May 1999 concerning aid granted by Italy to promote employment must be interpreted as applying to an undertaking, such as that in the main proceedings, which, on the basis of a direct and exclusive award by a municipality, provided local public transport services and benefited from reductions in social security contributions under national legislation which was declared by that decision to be incompatible, in part, with the prohibition laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.