ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘earlier right’ within the meaning of that provision may be granted to a third party in a situation in which the proprietor of the later trade mark has an even earlier right recognised by the laws of the Member State in question over the sign registered as a trade mark to the extent that, under those laws, the proprietor of the trade mark and of the even earlier right may no longer, on the basis of its even earlier right, prohibit the use by the third party of its more recent right.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores — Portugal) — KU, OP, GC v SATA International — Azores Airlines SA

(Case C-308/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 5(3) - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Extraordinary circumstances - Generalised failure of the aircraft refuelling system at the airport)

(2022/C 318/23)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KU, OP, GC

Defendant: SATA International — Azores Airlines SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that where the airport of origin of the flights or aircraft concerned is responsible for the aircraft refuelling system, a generalised breakdown in the supply of fuel can be regarded as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘HA.EN.’ v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-227/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input VAT - Sale of an item of immovable property between taxable persons - Vendor subject to insolvency proceedings - National practice under which the purchaser is denied the right of deduction on the ground that he or she knew or should have known of the vendor’s difficulties in paying the output tax - Fraud and abuse of rights - Conditions)

(2022/C 418/11)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘HA.EN.’

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principle of fiscal neutrality,

must be interpreted as precluding a national practice under which, in the context of the sale of an item of immovable property between taxable persons, the purchaser is denied the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) merely because he or she knew or should have known that the vendor was in financial difficulty, or even insolvent, and that that circumstance could result in the vendor not paying or not being able to pay VAT into the public purse.

(1) OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — R.T. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg

(Case C-368/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Union Customs Code - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Place where the customs debt is incurred - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 30 - Article 60 - Article 71(1) - Chargeable event and place where the import VAT becomes chargeable - Place where the tax liability is incurred - Finding of a failure to comply with an obligation imposed by EU customs legislation - Determination of the place of importation of goods - Means of transport registered in a third country and imported into the European Union in infringement of customs legislation)

(2022/C 408/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: R.T.

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 30 and 60 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2018/2057 of 20 December 2018

must be interpreted as meaning that:

for value added tax purposes, the place of importation of a vehicle registered in a third country and imported into the European Union in breach of customs legislation is situated in the Member State in which the person who failed to comply with customs obligations resides and actually uses the vehicle.

(1) OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate v Contship Italia SpA

(Joined Cases C-433/21 and C-434/21) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Corporate income tax - Measures to prevent tax avoidance by shell companies - Determination of taxable income on the basis of presumed minimum income - Exclusion from the scope of those measures of companies and entities listed on national regulated markets)

(2022/C 451/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant: Contship Italia SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which restricts the ground for exclusion from the scope of the measures to prevent tax avoidance by shell companies to companies whose securities are traded on national regulated markets, excluding from the scope of that ground for exclusion other companies, whether national or foreign, whose securities are not traded on national regulated markets but which are controlled by companies and entities listed on foreign regulated markets.

(1) OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria — Spain) — Zulima v Servicios prescriptor y medios de pagos EFC SAU

(Case C-215/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Revolving credit agreement - Unfairness of the term relating to the rate of remunerative interest - Action brought by a consumer for a declaration that that agreement is void - Satisfaction of that consumer’s claims out of court - Costs incurred having to be borne by the consumer - Principle of effectiveness - National legislation capable of dissuading the consumer from exercising the rights conferred by Directive 93/13/EEC)

(2022/C 424/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ms Zulima

Defendant: Servicios prescriptor y medios de pagos EFC SAU

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness,

must be interpreted as:

not precluding national legislation, under which, in the context of court proceedings relating to a finding that a term in a contract between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, the consumer concerned must, in the event that his or her claims are satisfied out of court, bear his or her own costs, provided that the court hearing the case necessarily takes account of any bad faith on the part of the seller or supplier concerned and, where appropriate, orders the latter to pay the costs relating to the court proceedings which that consumer was required to institute in order to assert the rights conferred on him or her by Directive 93/13.

(1) OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

(Case C-256/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade marks - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 124(a) and (d) - Article 128 - Jurisdiction of EU trade mark courts - Action for infringement - Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the action for infringement - Outcome of the counterclaim - Autonomous nature of the counterclaim)

(2022/C 463/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KP

Defendants: TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 124(a) and (d) and Article 128 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark,

must be interpreted as meaning that an EU trade mark court hearing an action for infringement based on an EU trade mark the validity of which is challenged by means of a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity still has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of that mark, in spite of the withdrawal of the main action.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
1.

Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1827 of 30 October 2019, must be interpreted as meaning that an operation whereby a contracting authority intends to entrust the establishment and operation of a service consisting of the hire and sharing of electric vehicles to an economic operator whose financial contribution is mostly allocated for the purchase of those vehicles, and in which the revenue of that economic operator will derive essentially from the fees paid by the users of that service constitutes a ‘services concession’, since such characteristics are such as to establish that the risk linked to the operation of the services under concession has been transferred to that economic operator.
1.

Article 12(2) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in conjunction with point (f) of the second paragraph of Article 2 of that directive and with Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that ‘consent’ within the meaning of Article 4(11) of that regulation is required from the subscriber of a telephone service operator in order for the personal data of that subscriber to be included in publicly available telephone directories and directory enquiry services published by providers other than that operator, and that that consent may be provided to that operator or to one of those providers.
1.

Part III of Annex I to Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, as amended by Directive 2008/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008, and Article 3 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2403 of 15 December 2015 establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques for ensuring that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable must be interpreted as not precluding a legal person governed by private law, such as a commercial company, from coming within the concept of ‘verifying entity’, referred to in paragraph 1 of the latter provision, where that person appears on the list published by the European Commission pursuant to Article 3(3) of that implementing regulation.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Harman International Industries Inc. v AB SA

(Case C-175/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Free movement of goods - Intellectual property - EU trade mark - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 15 - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark - Placing on the market within the European Economic Area (EEA) - Consent of the proprietor of the trade mark - Place of first marketing of products by the proprietor of the trade mark or with its consent - Proof - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial protection - Operative part of judicial decisions not identifying the products covered - Difficulties in implementation - Restricted scope of action before the competent court for enforcement - Fair trial - Rights of the defence - Principle of the equality of arms)

(2023/C 15/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Harman International Industries Inc.

Defendant: AB SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, read in combination with the second sentence of Article 36 TFEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. and Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights,

must be interpreted as

not precluding a judicial practice by which the operative part of the decision upholding an action for infringement of an EU trade mark is drafted in terms which, owing to their general nature, leaves it to the authority with competence to enforce that decision to determine the products to which that decision applies, provided that, in the context of the enforcement procedure, the defendant is permitted to contest the determination of the products covered by that procedure and that a court may examine and decide, in compliance with the provisions of Directive 2004/48, which products have in fact been placed on the market in the European Economic Area by the proprietor or with its consent.

(1) OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Luxury Trust Automobil GmbH v Finanzamt Österreich

(Case C-247/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 42(a) - Article 197(1)(c) - Article 226(11a) - Article 141 - Exemption - Triangular transaction - Designation of the final recipient of a supply as being liable for VAT - Invoicing - Reference to ‘Reverse charge’ - Mandatory - Omission of that reference on an invoice - Retroactive correction of the invoice)

(2023/C 35/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Luxury Trust Automobil GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 42(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, read in conjunction with Article 197(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a triangular transaction, the final customer has not been validly designated as liable for the value added tax (VAT) where the invoice issued by the intermediary acquiring the goods does not contain the words ‘Reverse charge’, referred to in Article 226(11a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended.

2. Article 226(11a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, must be interpreted as meaning that the omission, on an invoice, of the words ‘Reverse charge’, required under that provision, may not subsequently be corrected by adding a statement that that invoice relates to an intra-Community triangular transaction and that the tax liability is transferred to the person to whom the supply is made.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.7.2022.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against HYA, IP, DD, ZI, SS

(Case C-348/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Article 8(1) - Right of an accused person to be present at the trial - Second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to a fair trial and rights of the defence - Examination of witnesses for the prosecution in the absence of the accused person and his or her lawyer at the pre-trial stage of the criminal proceedings - Impossibility of examining witnesses for the prosecution during the judicial stage of those proceedings - National legislation allowing a criminal court to base its decision on the prior testimony of those witnesses)

(2023/C 35/09)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties in the main proceedings

HYA, IP, DD, ZI, SS

Intervener: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that:

it precludes the application of national legislation which allows a national court, where it is not possible to examine a witness for the prosecution during the judicial stage of criminal proceedings, to base its decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused person on the testimony of that witness obtained during a hearing before a judge during the preliminary stage of those proceedings, but without the participation of the accused person or his lawyer, unless there is a serious ground justifying the failure to hear the witness at the judicial stage of the criminal proceedings, the testimony of that witness does not constitute the sole or determining basis for the conviction of the accused person, and there are sufficient compensatory elements to offset the difficulty caused to that person and his or her lawyer as a result of the taking into account of that testimony.

(1) OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against HF

(Case C-435/22 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - Principle ne bis in idem - Extradition agreement between the European Union and the United States of America - Extradition of a third-country national to the United States under a bilateral treaty concluded by a Member State - National who has been convicted by final judgment for the same acts and has served his sentence in full in another Member State)

(2022/C 472/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Party in the main proceedings

HF

Intervening party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München

Operative part of the judgment

Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen on 19 June 1990 and entered into force on 26 March 1995, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, read in the light of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as precluding the extradition, by the authorities of a Member State, of a third-country national to another third country, where, first, that national has been convicted by final judgment in another Member State for the same acts as those referred to in the extradition request, and has been subject to the sentence imposed in that State, and, second, the extradition request is based on a bilateral extradition treaty limiting the scope of the principle ne bis in idem to judgments handed down in the requested Member State.

(1) OJ C 326, 29.8.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/23

Order of the President of the Court of the Court of 21 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-307/06) (1)

(2008/C 79/40)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/18

Order of the Court of 4 October 2007 — Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-457/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility - Measure not having binding legal effects - European Communities' own resources - Infringement procedure - Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 - Interest for late payment - Negotiations for an agreement on a conditional payment - Refusal letter)

(2008/C 22/34)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and P. Aalto, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2006 in Case T-350/05 Finland v Commission dismissing as inadmissible an application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 8 July 2005 refusing to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Finland on the possibility of paying provisionally the customs duties on defence equipment claimed by the Commission in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations — Acts against which an action may be brought

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

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

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/13

Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 3 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-365/06) (1)

(2008/C 236/21)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/26

Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 11 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Italy) — Consel Gi. Emme Srl v Sistema Logistico dell'Arco Ligure e Alessandrino Srl (SLALA)

(Case C-467/06) (1)

(2008/C 128/49)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.