ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG v Finanzamt Feldkirch

(Case C-625/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 56 and 63 TFEU - Freedom to provide services and free movement of capital - Credit institutions - Stability charge and the special contribution for that charge determined according to the unconsolidated balance sheet total of credit institutions established in Austria - Inclusion of cross-border banking transactions - Exclusion of subsidiaries’ transactions in another Member State - Difference in treatment - Restriction - Justification))

(2019/C 25/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

Defendant: Finanzamt Feldkirch

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it imposes on credit institutions established in Austria, such as the credit institution at issue in the main proceedings, which do not supply services to their clients resident in other Member States through permanent credit institutions established in those Member States, a charge determined according to the ‘average unconsolidated balance sheet total’, which includes the banking transactions which those institutions enter into directly with nationals of other Member States, whilst excluding the same transactions entered into by subsidiaries of credit institutions established in Austria where those subsidiaries are established in other Member States.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverfassungsgericht — Germany) — proceedings brought by Heinrich Weiss and Others

(Case C-493/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Economic and monetary policy - Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank - Validity - Secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme - Articles 119 and 127 TFEU - Powers of the ECB and the European System of Central Banks - Maintenance of price stability - Proportionality - Article 123 TFEU - Prohibition of monetary financing of Member States in the euro area))

(2019/C 65/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverfassungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Heinrich Weiss, Jürgen Heraeus, Patrick Adenauer, Bernd Lucke, Hans-Olaf Henkel, Joachim Starbatty, Bernd Kölmel, Ulrike Trebesius, Peter Gauweiler, Johann Heinrich von Stein, Gunnar Heinsohn, Otto Michels, Reinhold von Eben-Worlée, Michael Göde, Dagmar Metzger, Karl-Heinz Hauptmann, Stefan Städter, Markus C. Kerber

Interested parties: Bundesregierung, Bundestag, Deutsche Bundesbank

Operative part of the judgment

1. Consideration of the first to fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2015 on a secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme, as amended by Decision (EU) 2017/100 of the European Central Bank of 11 January 2017.

2. The fifth question is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána v Workplace Relations Commission

(Case C-378/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Recruitment of police officers - National body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area - Power to disapply national legislation that conflicts with EU law - Primacy of EU law))

(2019/C 44/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Respondent: Workplace Relations Commission

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular the principle of primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a national body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area lacks jurisdiction to decide to disapply a rule of national law that is contrary to EU law.

(1) OJ C 283, 28.8.2018.
3.

Article 24(6) of Directive 2007/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the regime provided for therein does not apply to a second-hand vehicle already registered in a Member State which is, on the basis of Article 4 of Directive 1999/37, submitted for re-registration before another Member State authority which is competent in that regard. However, if there is evidence that the vehicle presents a risk to road safety, that authority may, pursuant to Article 5(a) of Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers, require the vehicle to be submitted for testing prior to registration.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2018 — European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union v Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sachsa Verpackung GmbH, Gascogne SA, European Commission (C-138/17), Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Gascogne SA v European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, European Commission (C-146/17)

(Joined Cases C-138/17 P and C-146/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Actions for damages - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Excessive duration of the proceedings in two cases before the General Court of the European Union - Damage allegedly suffered by the applicants - Material damage - Bank guarantee charges - Causal link - Default interest - Non material damage))

(2019/C 65/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

(Case C-138/17 P)

Appellant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á.M. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sachsa Verpackung GmbH, Gascogne SA (represented by: F. Puel and E. Durand, avocats), European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes, S. Noë and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

(Case C-146/17 P)

Appellants: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Gascogne SA (represented by: F. Puel and E. Durand, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á.M. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents), European Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 January 2017, Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union (T-577/14, EU:T:2017:1);

2. Dismisses the appeal in Case C-146/17 P brought by Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Gascogne SA;

3. Dismisses the claim for damages brought by Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Gascogne SA inasmuch as it seeks to obtain compensation in the amount of EUR 187 571 for the alleged material damage consisting in the payment of bank guarantee charges beyond a reasonable time for adjudicating in the cases which gave rise to the judgments of 16 November 2011, Groupe Gascogne v Commission (T-72/06, not published, EU:T:2011:671), and of 16 November 2011, Sachsa Verpackung v Commission (T-79/06, not published, EU:T:2011:674);

4. Orders Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Gascogne SA to bear their own costs and to pay all the costs incurred by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in relation to the present appeals, and to bear their own costs at first instance;

5. Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to bear its own costs incurred at first instance;

6. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs of both the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal in Case C-138/17 P.

(1) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato, Italy) — CCC — Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni Soc. Cooperativa v Comune di Tarvisio

(Case C-710/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 48(3) - Assessment and verification of the technical capacities of economic operators - National provision which cannot be regarded as a transposition of Directive 2004/18 - No direct and unconditional reference to EU law - No request based on the existence of a certain cross-border interest - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2019/C 131/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato, Italy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CCC — Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni Soc. Cooperativa

Defendant: Comune di Tarvisio

Interveners: Incos Srl, RTI — Idrotermica F.lli Solera, Gabriele Indovina

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), by decision of 28 September 2017, is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
2.

Article 12 of Regulation No 204/2011 is to be interpreted as: — being applicable, in its original version, where costs payable under counter guarantee agreements must be paid by an EU bank to a Libyan bank listed in Annex III to that regulation and by an EU bank to a Libyan bank which is not on that list if the bank guarantee granted by the Libyan bank benefits an entity that is on that list, provided that the Libyan bank is regarded as an entity acting on behalf of the Libyan Government, which is a matter for the referring court to verify; — not being applicable, in the version resulting from Council Regulation (EU) No 45/2014 of 20 January 2014, where the costs payable under counter guarantee agreements must be paid by an EU bank to a Libyan bank listed in Annex III to that regulation and by an EU bank to a Libyan bank which is not on that list if the bank guarantee granted by the Libyan bank benefits an entity which is on the list, provided that those costs were paid before the entry into force of that regulation; and — not being applicable, either in the original version or in the version resulting from Regulation No 45/2014, where the costs payable under counter agreements must be paid by one EU bank to another EU bank.
1.

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that: — it does not preclude national legislation which prevents the court seised of the case from granting an application for the cancellation of a loan contract on the basis of the unfair nature of a term relating to the exchange difference, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, provided that a finding that terms in such an agreement were unfair would restore the legal and factual situation that the consumer would have been in had that unfair term not existed; and — it precludes national legislation which prevents, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the court seised of the case from granting an application for the cancellation of a loan contract on the basis of the unfair nature of a term relating to exchange rate risk where it is found that that term is unfair and that the contract cannot continue to exist without that term.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Groupe Léa Nature v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Debonair Trading Internacional Lda

(Case C-505/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) - Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SO’BiO ētic’ - EU and national word and figurative marks containing the word element ‘SO…?’ - Opposition by the proprietor - Refusal of registration)

(2019/C 139/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Groupe Léa Nature SA (represented by: E. Baud, Avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and D. Botis, Agents), Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by T. Alkin, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Groupe Léa Nature SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Debonair Trading Internacional Lda and by The Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
1.

Declares that, by imposing on transport undertakings a requirement to be in possession of special permits in order to be able to circulate on certain public roads, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 3 and 7 of Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/719 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015, read in conjunction with points 3.1 and 3.4 of Annex I to Directive 96/53;
5.

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national authority undertakes on its own initiative to recover aid which it has wrongly granted under Regulation No 800/2008, it is the duty of that authority to claim interest from the beneficiary of that aid in accordance with the rules of the applicable national law. In that regard, Article 108(3) TFEU requires that those rules should be such as to ensure full recovery of the unlawful aid and that, therefore, the beneficiary of that aid must be ordered to pay, inter alia, interest for the whole of the period over which it benefited from that aid and at a rate equivalent to that which would have been applied if the beneficiary had had to borrow the amount of the aid at issue on the market within that period.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Germanwings GmbH v Wolfgang Pauels

(Case C-501/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Scope - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object lying on an airport runway)

(2019/C 206/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Germanwings GmbH

Respondent: Wolfgang Pauels

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, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a foreign object, such as loose debris, lying on an airport runway falls within the notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

However, in order to be released from its obligation to pay passengers compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, an air carrier whose flight has been subject to long delay due to such ‘extraordinary circumstances’ must prove that it deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal in order to avoid the changing of a tyre damaged by a foreign object, such as loose debris, lying on the airport runway from leading to long delay of the flight in question.

(1) OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.
1.

Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 of 18 December 2014, and the Annex to Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, as amended by Commission Decision 2014/955/EU of 18 December 2014, must be interpreted to the effect that a holder of waste which may be classified under either hazardous waste codes or non-hazardous waste codes, but the composition of which is not immediately known, must, in view of that classification, determine that composition and ascertain the hazardous substances which may reasonably be found in that waste in order to establish whether that waste has hazardous properties and may, for that purpose, use the sampling, chemical analyses and tests provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 of 30 May 2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), or any other internationally recognised sampling, chemical analysis or test.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 — VM Vermögens-Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), DAT Vermögensmanagement GmbH

(Case C-653/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 - Invalidity proceedings - Word mark Vermögensmanufaktur - Declaration of invalidity - Right to a fair hearing - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Retrospectivity - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Statement of reasons for judgments)

(2019/C 255/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: VM Vermögens-Management GmbH (represented by: T. Dolde and P. Homann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent), DAT Vermögensmanagement GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders VM Vermögens-Management GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Monachos Eirinaios, kata kosmon Antonios Giakoumakis tou Emmanouil v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

(Case C-431/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/5/EC - Access to the profession of lawyer - Monk who has obtained the professional qualification of lawyer in a Member State other than the host Member State - Article 3(2) - Condition requiring registration with the competent authority of the host Member State - Certificate attesting to registration with the competent authority of the home Member State - Refusal to register - Rules of professional conduct - Incompatibility of the status of monk with practice of the profession of lawyer)

(2019/C 230/04)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Monachos Eirinaios, kata kosmon Antonios Giakoumakis tou Emmanouil

Defendant: Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, on account of the incompatibility under that legislation between the status of monk and practice of the profession of lawyer, prohibits a lawyer who has the status of monk, and who is registered as a lawyer with the competent authority of the home Member State, from registering with the competent authority of the host Member State in order to practise there under his home-country professional title.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
2.

The principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a national court to disapply a provision of national law which is incompatible with the provisions of a framework decision, such as the framework decisions at issue in the main proceedings, the legal effects of which are preserved in accordance with Article 9 of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, annexed to the treaties, since those provisions do not have direct effect. The authorities of the Member States, including the courts, are nevertheless required to interpret their national law, to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with EU law, which enables them to ensure an outcome that is compatible with the objective pursued by the framework decision concerned.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Patent- och registreringsverket v Mats Hansson

(Case C-705/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 4(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Overall impression - Earlier trade mark registered with a disclaimer - Effects of such a disclaimer on the extent of protection of the earlier trade mark)

(2019/C 263/09)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Patent- och registreringsverket

Defendant: Mats Hansson

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as precluding national legislation making provision for a disclaimer whose effect would be to exclude an element of a complex trade mark, referred to in that disclaimer, from the global analysis of the relevant factors for showing the existence of a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of that provision, or to attribute to such an element, in advance and permanently, limited importance in that analysis.

(1) OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.
1.

Article 2(c) 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, in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the phonogram producer’s exclusive right under that provision to reproduce and distribute his or her phonogram allows him to prevent another person from taking a sound sample, even if very short, of his or her phonogram for the purposes of including that sample in another phonogram, unless that sample is included in the phonogram in a modified form unrecognisable to the ear.