ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Nalini Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-94/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Article 21 TFEU - Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 3(1) and Articles 15, 27, 28, 30 and 31 - Definition of ‘beneficiary’ - Third-country national, the spouse of a Union citizen who has exercised his right to freedom of movement - Return of the Union citizen to the Member State of which he is a national, where he is serving a prison sentence - Requirements imposed on the host Member State under Directive 2004/38/EC when making a decision to remove such a third-country national)

(2019/C 383/18)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nalini Chenchooliah

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, is to be interpreted as being applicable to a decision to expel a third-country national on the ground that that person no longer has a right of residence under the directive in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the third-country national concerned married a Union citizen at a time when that citizen was exercising his right to freedom of movement by moving to and residing with that third-country national in the host Member State and, subsequently, the Union citizen returned to the Member State of which he is a national. It follows that the relevant safeguards laid down in Articles 30 and 31 of Directive 2004/38 are applicable when such an expulsion decision is adopted and it is not possible, under any circumstances, for such a decision to impose a ban on entry into the territory.

(1) OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — TE v Pohotovosť s.r.o.

(Case C-331/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer protection - Consumer credit - Article 10(2)(h) and (i) and Article 10(3) - Information to be included in the agreement - National legislation laying down an obligation to specify for each payment the distribution between the repayment of capital, interest and charges)

(2019/C 383/26)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TE

Respondent: Pohotovost’ s.r.o.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 10(2)(h) to (j) 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 conjunction with Article 22(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a credit agreement must specify the breakdown of each repayment showing, where applicable, capital amortisation, interest and other charges.

2. Articles 10(2) and 22(1) of Directive 2008/48, as interpreted by the judgment of 9 November 2016, Home Credit Slovakia (C-42/15, EU:C:2016:842), are applicable to a credit agreement, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which was entered into before that judgment was handed down and before the national legislation was amended in order to comply with the interpretation adopted in that judgment.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen v Reinhard Westphal

(Case C-378/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 3(1) - Limitation period - Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92 and (EC) No 2419/2001 - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - Recovery of undue payments - Application of the more lenient limitation rule)

(2019/C 413/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen

Defendant: Reinhard Westphal

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49(6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 118/2004 of 23 January 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the starting point of the limitation period which it lays down is determined in accordance with Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests and corresponds, in the case of continuous or repeated irregularities, to the day on which the irregularity ceases.

(1) OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
1)

Rules that, by not having completed, within the prescribed time-limit, the information and consultation of the public relating to the revision and the updating of the river basin management plans for Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and El Hierro, and by not having, within the prescribed time-limit, adopted, published and communicated to the European Commission the revision and updating of those management plans, the Kingdom of Spain failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on it in accordance with Article 13(7), read in conjunction with Article 13(1), and Article 14 and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by Council Directive 2013/64/EU of 17 December 2013.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-459/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Deduction for risk capital - Reduction of the amount deductible by companies with a permanent establishment in another Member State which generates exempt income under a double taxation convention - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Unfavourable treatment - No such treatment)

(2019/C 423/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for the calculation of a deduction granted to a company subject to full tax liability in a Member State and having a permanent establishment in another Member State the income from which is exempt in the first Member State under a double taxation convention, the net value of the assets of such a permanent establishment is taken into account, initially, in the calculation of the deduction for risk capital granted to the resident company, but, subsequently, the amount of the deduction is reduced by the lesser of the following amounts, namely the part of the deduction for risk capital which relates to the permanent establishment or the positive result generated by that permanent establishment, whereas such a reduction is not applied in the case of a permanent establishment situated in the first Member State.

(1) OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland — United Kingdom) — Ermira Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-93/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of residence of a third-country national who is a direct relative in the ascending line of Union citizen minors - Article 7(1)(b) - Condition of sufficient resources - Resources formed by income from employment occupied without a residence card and work permit)

(2019/C 413/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ermira Bajratari

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervener: Aire Centre

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a Union citizen minor has sufficient resources not to become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during his period of residence, despite his resources being derived from income obtained from the unlawful employment of his father, a third-country national without a residence card and work permit.

(1) OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — IN (C-469/18), JM (C-470/18) v Belgische Staat

(Joined Cases C-469/18 and C-470/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Personal Income Tax - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2019/C 432/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IN (C-469/18), JM (C-470/18)

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

The requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Hof van Cassatie (Court of Cassation, Belgium) by decisions of 28 June 2018 are inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
2.

The answer to the second and third questions referred by the referring court in Cases C-624/18 and C-625/18 is as follows: Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 9(1) 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 precluding cases concerning the application of EU law from falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court which is not an independent and impartial tribunal, within the meaning of the former provisions. That is the case where the objective circumstances in which that court was formed, its characteristics and the means by which its members have been appointed are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that court to external factors, in particular, as to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it and, thus, may lead to that court not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society must inspire in subjects of the law. It is for the referring court to determine, in the light of all the relevant factors established before it, whether that applies to a court such as the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court). If that is the case, the principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring the referring court to disapply the provision of national law which reserves jurisdiction to hear and rule on the cases in the main proceedings to the abovementioned chamber, so that those cases may be examined by a court which meets the abovementioned requirements of independence and impartiality and which, were it not for that provision, would have jurisdiction in the relevant field
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor

(Case C-68/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 21(3) - No chargeable event giving rise to taxation - Consumption of energy products on a site that produces such products - Article 2(3) - Obligation to obtain a classification for energy products in order to determine the level of excise duty - Tax rate applicable to those products - Principle of proportionality)

(2020/C 10/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA

Defendant: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or national practices which provide for the taxation of energy products consumed in the combined heat and power plant of the establishment in which they were produced, provided that that consumption concerns the production of energy products by generating the thermal energy necessary for the technological process of producing those products. That interpretation does not affect the application, in principle, of Article 14(1)(a) of that directive to the proportion of energy products consumed for the purpose of producing electricity;

2. Article 2(3) of Directive 2003/96 and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or national practices which, in the absence of a request made to the competent tax authorities for the purpose of classification in relation to excise duties for energy products whose level of taxation has not been determined by that directive, provide for the application of the excise duty rate laid down for gas oil and the maintenance of that rate, even though a classification decision was obtained subsequently in which those products were treated as heating oil.

(1) OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Antonio Bocero Torrico (C-398/18), Jörg Paul Konrad Fritz Bode (C-428/18) v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

(Joined Cases C-398/18 and C-428/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Early retirement pension - Eligibility - Requirement for the pension to be received to be higher than the statutory minimum - Account taken only of pension acquired in the Member State concerned - No account taken of the retirement pension acquired in another Member State - Difference in treatment of workers who have exercised their right to freedom of movement)

(2020/C 36/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Antonio Bocero Torrico (C-398/18), Jörg Paul Konrad Fritz Bode (C-428/18)

Defendants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(a) of Regulation No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires, as a condition for a worker to be eligible for an early retirement pension, that the amount of the pension to be received must be higher than the minimum pension that would be due to that worker upon reaching the statutory retirement age under that legislation, where the term ‘pension to be received’ is interpreted as referring only to the pension from that Member State, and not including the pension which that worker may receive through equivalent benefits payable by one or more other Member States

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 November 2019 — Brugg Kabel AG, Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding v European Commission

(Case C-591/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for underground and submarine power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Fines - Rights of the defence - Access to the file - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Distortion of the evidence)

(2020/C 36/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Brugg Kabel AG, Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding (represented by: A. Rinne, M. Lichtenegger and S. Schricker, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, H. van Vliet and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — GN, represented for legal purposes by HM v ZU, acting as administrator in the insolvency of Niki Luftfahrt GmbH

(Case C-532/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Montreal Convention - Article 17(1) - Air carrier liability in the event of accidents - Concept of ‘accident’ - Aircraft in flight - Spillage of a cup of coffee placed on the tray table of a seat - Bodily injuries caused to the passenger)

(2020/C 61/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GN, represented for legal purposes by HM

Defendant: ZU, acting as administrator in the insolvency of Niki Luftfahrt GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘accident’ within the meaning of that provision covers all situations occurring on board an aircraft in which an object used when serving passengers has caused bodily injury to a passenger, without it being necessary to examine whether those situations stem from a hazard typically associated with aviation.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
2.

Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as not precluding a national practice under which the competent authorities may, on grounds of public policy, first, reject an application, founded on that directive, for entry and residence, on the basis of a criminal conviction imposed during a previous stay on the territory of the Member State concerned and, second, withdraw a residence permit founded on that directive or refuse to renew it where a sentence sufficiently severe in comparison with the duration of the stay has been imposed on the applicant, provided that that practice is applicable only if the offence which warranted the criminal conviction at issue is sufficiently serious to establish that it is necessary to rule out residence of that applicant and that those authorities carry out the individual assessment provided for in Article 17 of that directive, matters which are for the referring court to verify.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Energiavirasto

(Case C-578/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 3 - Consumer protection - Article 37 - Tasks and powers of the regulatory authority - Out-of-court dispute settlement - Concept of ‘party’ - Right to appeal against a decision of the regulatory authority - Complaint made by a household customer against an electricity distribution system operator)

(2020/C 77/06)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Energiavirasto

Intervener: A, Caruna Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require Member States to confer competence on the regulatory authority to settle disputes between household customers and system operators and, consequently, to grant household customers who have lodged a complaint with the regulatory authority against a system operator the status of ‘party’ within the meaning of that provision, and the right to appeal against the decision taken by that authority following that complaint.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
1.

The concept of ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products must be interpreted as covering products containing one or more bacterial species, enzymes or other constituents which, due to the specific way in which they act, have no direct effect on the harmful organism for which they are intended, but on the creation or maintenance of a potential habitat of that harmful organism, provided that those products involve an action other than mere physical or mechanical action, which forms an integral part of a causal chain, the objective of which is to produce an inhibiting effect in relation to those organisms;
2.

Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, as amended by Regulation No 1891/2006, and Article 3(2)(d) of First Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark application made without any intention to use the trade mark in relation to the goods and services covered by the registration constitutes bad faith, within the meaning of those provisions, if the applicant for registration of that mark had the intention either of undermining, in a manner inconsistent with honest practices, the interests of third parties, or of obtaining, without even targeting a specific third party, an exclusive right for purposes other than those falling within the functions of a trade mark. When the absence of the intention to use the trade mark in accordance with the essential functions of a trade mark concerns only certain goods or services referred to in the application for registration, that application constitutes bad faith only in so far as it relates to those goods or services.