ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Gennaro Cafaro v DQ

(Case C-396/18) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 - Annex I, Point FCL.065 - Scope ratione temporis - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Discrimination on grounds of age - Article 2(5) - Article 4(1) - National legislation providing for the automatic termination of the employment relationship at the age of 60 - Aircraft pilots - Protection of national security)

(2019/C 432/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gennaro Cafaro

Defendant: DQ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(5) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the employment relationship of pilots employed by a company operating aircraft used for activities associated with protecting the national security of a Member State terminates automatically once they reach the age of 60, provided that such legislation is necessary for public security within the meaning of that provision, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the employment relationship of pilots employed by a company operating aircraft used for activities associated with protecting the national security of a Member State terminates automatically once they reach the age of 60, provided that such legislation is proportionate within the meaning of that provision, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — BGL BNP Paribas SA v TeamBank AG Nürnberg

(Case C-548/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Law applicable to contractual obligations - Article 14 - Assignment of claims - Third-party effects)

(2019/C 423/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BGL BNP Paribas SA

Defendant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (‘Rome I’) must be interpreted as not designating, directly or by analogy, the applicable law concerning the third-party effects of the assignment of a claim in the event of multiple assignments of the claim by the same creditor to successive assignees.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 November 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel — Belgium) — Zubair Haqbin v Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers

(Case C-233/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Applicants for international protection - Directive 2013/33/EU - Article 20(4) and (5) - Serious breach of the rules of the accommodation centres as well as seriously violent behaviour - Scope of the Member States’ right to determine the sanctions applicable - Unaccompanied minor - Reduction or withdrawal of material reception conditions)

(2020/C 10/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zubair Haqbin

Defendant: Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(4) and (5) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection, read in the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot, among the sanctions that may be imposed on an applicant for serious breaches of the rules of the accommodation centres as well as seriously violent behaviour, provide for a sanction consisting in the withdrawal, even temporary, of material reception conditions, within the meaning of Article 2(f) and (g) of the directive, relating to housing, food or clothing, in so far as it would have the effect of depriving the applicant of the possibility of meeting his or her most basic needs. The imposition of other sanctions under Article 20(4) of the directive must, under all circumstances, comply with the conditions laid down in Article 20(5) thereof, including those concerning the principle of proportionality and respect for human dignity. In the case of an unaccompanied minor, those sanctions must, in the light, inter alia, of Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be determined by taking particular account of the best interests of the child.

(1) OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Société de perception et de distribution des droits des artistes-interprètes de la musique et de la danse (Spedidam), PG, GF v Institut national de l’audiovisuel

(Case C-484/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Exclusive rights of performers - Article 2(b) - Reproduction right - Article 3(2)(a) - Making available to the public - Authorisation - Presumption - National scheme exempting a public institution responsible for the conservation and promotion of the national audiovisual heritage from the requirement to obtain the performer’s written consent for the exploitation of archives containing fixations of that performer’s performances)

(2020/C 10/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Société de perception et de distribution des droits des artistes-interprètes de la musique et de la danse (Spedidam), PG, GF

Defendant: Institut national de l’audiovisuel

Interveners: Syndicat indépendant des artistes-interprètes (SIA-UNSA), Syndicat français des artistes-interprètes (CGT)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(b) and Article 3(2)(a) 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 not precluding national legislation which establishes, as regards the exploitation of audiovisual archives by a body set up for that purpose, a rebuttable presumption that the performer has authorised the fixation and exploitation of his performances, where that performer is involved in the recording of an audiovisual work so that it may be broadcast.

(1) OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-342/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Article 32 - Third-party access - Article 41(6), (8) and (10) - Rules on tariffs - Article 36 - Application for an exemption - Rules governing the operation of the OPAL pipeline - National regulatory authority - Exemption decision - Request for modification - European Commission Decision - Action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Decision of no direct concern to the appellant)

(2020/C 36/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (represented initially by M. Jeżewski, adwokat, and subsequently E. Buczkowska, radca prawny and W. Sadowski, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and O. Beynet, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. to pay its own costs and bear those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 December 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-642/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2008/98/EC - Articles 30 and 33 - Waste management plans - Autonomous Communities of the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands (Spain) - Obligation to revise - Obligation to notify the Commission - No proper formal notice - Letter of formal notice sent prematurely - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 36/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and E. Sanfrutos Cano and F. Thiran, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Michael Dobersberger v Magistrat der Stadt Wien

(Case C-16/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 56 and 57 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Directive 96/71/EC - Applicability - Article 1(3)(a) - Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services - Provision of services on board international trains - National rules imposing administrative obligations in relation to the posting of workers)

(2020/C 61/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michael Dobersberger

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover the provision, under a contract concluded by an undertaking established in a Member State and an undertaking established in another Member State, which is contractually linked to a railway undertaking established in that same Member State, of on-board services, cleaning or food and drink services for passengers carried out by salaried employees of the first undertaking, or by workers hired out to it by an undertaking also established in the first Member State, on international trains crossing the second Member State, where those workers carry out a significant part of the work inherent in those services in the territory of the first Member State and where they begin or end their shifts there.

(1) OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul București — Romania) — TK v Asociația de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA

(Case C-708/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7 and 8 - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 6(1)(c) and Article 7(f) - Making the processing of personal data legitimate - National legislation allowing video surveillance for the purposes of ensuring the safety and protection of individuals, property and valuables and for the pursuit of legitimate interests, without the data subject’s consent - Installation of a video surveillance system in the common parts of a residential building)

(2020/C 54/10)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TK

Defendant: Asociația de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(c) and Article 7(f) 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, read in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which authorise the installation of a video surveillance system, such as the system at issue in the main proceedings, installed in the common parts of a residential building, for the purposes of pursuing legitimate interests of ensuring the safety and protection of individuals and property, without the consent of the data subjects, if the processing of personal data carried out by means of the video surveillance system at issue fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 7(f), which it is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
2.

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where measures such as the allocation of a sum of money to a public undertaking in serious financial difficulties or the transfer of the entire shareholding of a Member State in the capital of that undertaking to another public undertaking, for no consideration but in exchange for an obligation on the part of the latter to remedy the asset imbalance of the former, are classified as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, it is for the referring court to draw all the necessary inferences from the fact that the Commission was not notified of that aid, contrary to Article 108(3) TFEU, and that aid must therefore be regarded as being unlawful.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS

(Case C-666/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Legal protection of computer programs - Directive 2009/24/EC - Software licence agreement - Unauthorised modification of the source code of a computer program by a licensee in breach of the licence agreement - Action for infringement brought by the author of the program against the licensee - Nature of the applicable liability regime)

(2020/C 61/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IT Development SAS

Defendant: Free Mobile SAS

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights and Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the breach of a clause in a licence agreement for a computer program relating to the intellectual property rights of the owner of the copyright of that program falls within the concept of ‘infringement of intellectual property rights’, within the meaning of Directive 2004/48, and that, therefore, that owner must be able to benefit from the guarantees provided for by that directive, regardless of the liability regime applicable under national law.

(1) OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2020 — Republic of Slovenia v Republic of Croatia

(Case C-457/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 259 TFEU - Jurisdiction of the Court - Determination of the common border between two Member States - Border dispute between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia - Arbitration agreement - Arbitration proceedings - Notification by the Republic of Croatia of its decision to terminate the agreement because of an irregularity alleged by it to have been committed by a member of the arbitral tribunal - Arbitration award made by the arbitral tribunal - Alleged failure by the Republic of Croatia to observe the arbitration agreement and the border established by the arbitration award - Principle of sincere cooperation - Request that a document be removed from the case file - Protection of legal advice)

(2020/C 137/16)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: M. Menard, acting as Agent, and J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

Defendant: Republic of Croatia (represented by: G. Vidović Mesarek, acting as Agent, and J. Stratford QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders that the internal working document of the European Commission relating to the opinion of its Legal Service, which appears at pages 38 to 45 of Annex C.2 to the Republic of Slovenia’s response to the objection of inadmissibility, be removed from the file for Case C-457/18;

2. Declares that the Court of Justice of the European Union lacks jurisdiction to rule on the Republic of Slovenia’s action, brought on the basis of Article 259 TFEU, in Case C-457/18;

3. Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
1.

Sets aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 1 February 2018, Greece v Commission (T 506/15, not published, EU:T:2018:53), in that, first, the General Court dismissed the action brought by the Hellenic Republic against the flat-rate correction of 25 % imposed by Commission Implementing Decision 2015/1119/EU of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), for the claim years 2009 to 2011, on the ground of deficiencies in the definition and control of permanent pasture; and, second, the General Court ruled on costs;
3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Constantin Film Produktion GmbH in relation both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-69/17 and on appeal.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Tesco-Global Áruházak Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-323/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Turnover tax in the store retail trade sector - Progressive tax having a greater impact on undertakings owned by natural or legal persons of other Member States than on national undertakings - Progressive tax bands applicable to all taxable persons - Neutrality of the amount of turnover as a criterion of differentiation - Ability to pay of taxable persons - State aid)

(2020/C 137/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tesco-Global Áruházak Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State that establishes a steeply progressive tax on turnover, the actual burden of which is mainly borne by undertakings controlled directly or indirectly by nationals of other Member States or by companies that have their registered office in another Member State, due to the fact that those undertakings achieve the highest turnover in the market concerned

(1) OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
1.

Recitals 25 and 27 of Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, Article 1(1) and (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 Directive 2007/66, Article 1(1) and (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, Article 83(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, and Article 99(1) and (2) of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC must be interpreted as neither requiring Member States to adopt, nor precluding them from adopting, legislation under which a monitoring authority may initiate of its own motion, on grounds of protection of the European Union’s financial interests, a review procedure in order to monitor infringements of public procurement rules. However, where provision is made for such a procedure, it falls within the scope of EU law since the public contracts which are the subject of such a review fall within the material scope of the public procurement directives and it must therefore comply with EU law, including its general principles, of which the general principle of legal certainty forms part;
1.

Declares that, by failing to take, on the date on which the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice issued on 11 July 2014 by the European Commission, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 29 March 2012, Commission v Italy (C-243/10, not published, EU:C:2012:182), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFUE.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Germany) — Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße v PF and Others

(Case C-830/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Children of frontier workers - Social advantages - System for reimbursement of school transport costs - Requirement of residence in a Land - Exclusion of children attending school in that Land and residing in a Member State other than that of the school attended - Exclusion of nationals residing in other Länder)

(2020/C 230/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße

Defendant: PF and Others

Other party to the proceedings: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which makes the payment of school transport costs by a Land subject to a requirement of residence in the territory of that Land constitutes indirect discrimination, in that it is intrinsically liable to affect frontier workers more than national workers;

2. Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that practical difficulties linked to the effective organisation of school transport within a Land do not constitute an overriding reason in the public interest that is capable of justifying a national measure categorised as indirect discrimination.

(1) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.