ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Shajin Ahmed v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-369/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Borders, asylum and immigration - Refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 17 - Exclusion from subsidiary protection status - Grounds - Conviction for a serious crime - Determination of seriousness on the basis of the penalty provided for under national law - Whether permissible - Need for an individual assessment))

(2018/C 408/32)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Shajin Ahmed

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the applicant for subsidiary protection is deemed to have ‘committed a serious crime’ within the meaning of that provision, which may exclude him from that protection, on the basis of the sole criterion of the penalty provided for a specific crime under the law of that Member State. It is for the authority or competent national court ruling on the application for subsidiary protection to assess the seriousness of the crime at issue, by carrying out a full investigation into all the circumstances of the individual case concerned.

(1) OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission

(Case C-172/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clauses - Pocemon Agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 - Eligible costs - European Commission decision - Obligation to reimburse sums paid - Counter-claim))

(2018/C 408/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: S. Paliou, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.
1.

The fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that certain judicial proceedings in environmental matters must not be prohibitively expensive which it lays down does not have direct effect. Where that article has not been transposed by a Member State, the national courts of that Member State are nonetheless required to interpret national law to the fullest extent possible, once the time limit for transposing that article has expired, in such a way that persons should not be prevented from seeking, or pursuing a claim for, a review by the courts, which falls within the scope of that article, by reason of the financial burden that might arise as a result.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 October 2018 — French Republic v European Parliament

(Case C-73/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Institutional law - Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union - European Parliament - Concept of ‘budget session’ held in Strasbourg (France) - Article 314 TFEU - Exercise of budgetary powers during an additional plenary part-session in Brussels (Belgium)))

(2018/C 436/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, B. Fodda and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Crowe and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer and C. Schiltz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay, in addition to its own costs, those of the European Parliament;

3. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — XC, YB, ZA

(Case C-234/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - Sincere cooperation - Procedural autonomy - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - National legislation laying down a remedy allowing criminal proceedings to be reheard in the event of infringement of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - No obligation to extend that procedure to cases of alleged infringement of the fundamental rights enshrined in EU law)

(2019/C 4/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: XC, YB, ZA

Intervener: Generalprokuratur

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court is not required to extend to infringements of EU law, in particular to infringements of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and 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 at Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990 and which entered into force on 26 March 1995, a remedy under national law permitting, only in the event of infringement of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, or one of the protocols thereto, the rehearing of criminal proceedings closed by a national decision having the force of res judicata.

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

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 — Enercon GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Gamesa Eólica, SL

(Case C-433/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Invalidity proceedings - Article 53 - EU colour mark consisting of blended shades of green - Partial declaration of invalidity - Remittal of the case to the Cancellation Division)

(2019/C 4/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Enercon GmbH (represented by: R. Böhm, Rechtsanwalt, and M. Silverleaf QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis, V. Ruzek and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents), Gamesa Eólica, SL (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, abogada)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
1.

Articles 56 and 57 TFEU, together with Chapter 2, paragraph 2, of Annex V to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is entitled to restrict, by the requirement of a work permit, the posting of Croatian workers who are employed by an undertaking which has its registered office in Croatia, when the posting of those workers takes place through their hiring-out, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) 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, to an undertaking established in another Member State for the purposes of the provision of services in the first of those Member States by the latter undertaking.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor d.d. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-215/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Re-use of public sector information - Directive 2003/98/EC - Article 1(2)(c), third indent - Prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms - Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Information to be published by credit institutions and investment firms - Article 432(2) - Exceptions to public disclosure requirements - Information considered commercially sensitive or confidential - Applicability - Credit institutions predominantly owned by the State - National legislation laying down the public nature of certain commercial information held by those institutions))

(2019/C 16/11)

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor d.d.

Respondent: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(c), third indent, of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, and Article 432(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a bank which has been under the dominant influence of a body governed by public law to disclose information on contracts provided for consultancy and legal services, copyright contracts and other services of an intellectual nature which it concluded during the period in which it was under that dominant influence, with no exceptions on the ground of the protection of that bank’s business secrets, and, accordingly, as not precluding such national legislation.

(1) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 November 2018 — European Commission v Slovenian Republic

(Case C-506/17) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Landfilling of waste - Directive 1999/31/EC - Article 14(b) and (c) - Operation permit - Closure of unauthorised sites - Authorisation of necessary work on the basis of the approved site-conditioning plan - Laying down transitional period for completion of the plan))

(2019/C 35/08)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by E. Sanfrutos Cano and M. M. Žebre, and subsequently by E. Sanfrutos Cano, B. Rous Demiri and F. Thiran and, finally, by E. Sanfrutos Cano and B. Rous Demiri, F. Thiran and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: J. Morela and N. Pintar Gosenca, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

1. By failing to adopt the measures necessary: — to close, by 16 July 2009 at the latest, in accordance with Article 7(g) and Article 13 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC or 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the landfill sites of Dragonja, Dvori, Rakek-Pretržje, Bukovžlak-Cinkarna, Suhadole, Lokovica, Mislinjska Dobrava, Izola, Mozelj, Dolga Poljana, Dolga vas, Jelšane, Volče, Stara gora, Stara vas, Dogoše, Mala gora, Tuncovec-Steklarna, Tuncovec-OKP and Bočna-Podhom, which have not obtained operation permits in accordance with Article 8 of that directive, and — to ensure, by 16 July 2009 at the latest, that the Ostri vrh landfill site complies with the requirements of Directive 1999/31, with the exception of those set out in point 1 of Annex I thereto, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(b) and Article 14(c) of Directive 1999/31.

2. The Republic of Slovenia is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
3.

In the event the national court finds that a measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the compulsory payment of compensation to workers employed under certain fixed-term contracts on the expiry of the term for which those contracts were concluded, constitutes an adequate measure for the purpose of preventing, and, where appropriate, imposing penalties in respect of, abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships, or an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, that provision must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the expiry of certain categories of fixed-term employment contracts confers entitlement to payment of such compensation to workers employed under such contracts, whereas the expiry of other categories of fixed-term employment contracts does not entitle the workers employed under those contracts to payment of any compensation, unless there is no other effective measure available under the national legal system for avoiding and imposing penalties for such abuse in respect of the latter group of workers, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Marin-Simion Sut

(Case C-514/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 4(6) - Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant - Offence underlying the imposition of a custodial sentence in the issuing Member State being punishable in the executing Member State by fine only))

(2019/C 65/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Marin-Simion Sut

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where, as in the case in the main proceedings, a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence resides in the executing Member State and has family, social and working ties in that Member State, the executing judicial authority may, for reasons related to the social rehabilitation of that person, refuse to execute that warrant, despite the fact that the offence which provides the basis for that warrant is, under that national law of the executing Member State, punishable by fine only, provided that, in accordance with its national law, that fact does not prevent the custodial sentence imposed on the person requested from actually being enforced in that Member State, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

(Case C-480/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Income tax - Deductibility of contributions to an occupational pension scheme and to a private pension scheme - Exclusion of non-residents))

(2019/C 44/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frank Montag

Defendant: Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a non-resident taxable person, subject, in that Member State, to income tax in the framework of limited tax liability, cannot deduct from the income tax basis of assessment the amount of compulsory contributions paid into an occupational pension scheme in due proportion to the share of the income taxable in that Member State if directly linked to the activity which generated that income, whereas a resident taxable person, subject to income tax in the framework of unlimited tax liability, can deduct such contributions from the income tax basis of assessment to the extent laid down by national law.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a non-resident taxable person, subject, in that Member State, to income tax in the framework of limited tax liability, cannot deduct from the income tax basis of assessment the amount of additional contributions paid into an occupational pension scheme or the amount of contributions paid into a private pension scheme, whereas a resident taxable person, subject to income tax in the framework of unlimited tax liability, can deduct such contributions from the income tax basis of assessment to the extent laid down by national law.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by ‘Paysera LT’ UAB, formerly ‘EVP International’ UAB

(Case C-389/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taking up of the business of electronic money institutions - Directive 2009/110/EC - Article 5(2) and (3) - Rules on own funds - Own funds required for the pursuit of activities linked to the issuance of electronic money - Definition of ‘activity linked to the issuance of electronic money’ - Issuance, for the benefit of the seller, of electronic money at par value of the funds received))

(2019/C 93/14)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Paysera LT’ UAB, formerly ‘EVP International’ UAB

Other party: Lietuvos bankas

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC, must be interpreted as meaning that services provided by electronic money institutions in payment transactions such as those at issue in the main proceedings constitute activities linked to the issuance of electronic money, within the meaning of that provision, if those services trigger the issuance or redemption of electronic money in a single payment transaction.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt B v A- Brauerei

(Case C-374/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Real property transfer tax - Exemption - Transfers in ownership of a property occurring as a result of restructuring procedures carried out within certain groups of companies - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Justification))

(2019/C 65/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt B

Defendant: A-Brauerei

Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a tax advantage, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in exempting from real property transfer tax the transfer of ownership of a property which occurred because of a restructuring procedure involving only companies of the same group, linked by a shareholding of at least 95 % during a minimum, uninterrupted period of five years prior to that procedure and of five years thereafter, does not fulfil the condition relating to the selectivity of the advantage concerned, laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag — Netherlands) — Staat der Nederlanden v Warner-Lambert Company LLC

(Case C-423/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 11 - Generic medicinal products - Summary of product characteristics - Exclusion of references referring to indications or dosage forms still covered by patent law at the time when the generic medicine was marketed)

(2019/C 131/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staat der Nederlanden

Defendant: Warner-Lambert Company LLC

Operative part of the judgment

The second paragraph of Article 11 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a marketing authorisation procedure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, communication to the competent national authority by the applicant or holder of a marketing authorisation for a generic medicinal product of the package leaflet or a summary of the product characteristics of that medicinal product which does not include any reference to indications or dosage forms which were still covered by patent law at the time that medicinal product was placed on the market constitutes a request to limit the scope of the marketing authorisation of the generic medicinal product in question.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.