ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-78/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Existence of a restriction - Burden of proof - Indirect discrimination linked to the origin of the capital - Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to freedom of association - National rules imposing on associations receiving financial support sent from other Member States or from third countries legally binding obligations of registration, declaration and publication which can be enforced - Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right to respect for private life - Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right to the protection of personal data - National rules imposing the disclosure of information on persons providing financial support to associations and of the amount of that support - Justification - Overriding reason in the public interest - Transparency of the financing of associations - Article 65 TFEU - Public policy - Public security - Fight against money laundering, financing of terrorism and organised crime - Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2020/C 271/02)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Havas, L. Malferrari and K. Talabér-Ritz, then by V. Di Bucci, L. Havas and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz and H. Shev, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting the provisions of the a külföldről támogatott szervezetek átláthatóságáról szóló 2017. évi LXXVI. törvény (Law No LXXVI of 2017 on the Transparency of Organisations which receive Support from Abroad), which impose obligations of registration, declaration and publication on certain categories of civil society organisations directly or indirectly receiving support from abroad exceeding a certain threshold and which provide for the possibility of applying penalties to organisations that do not comply with those obligations, Hungary has introduced discriminatory and unjustified restrictions on foreign donations to civil society organisations, in breach of its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Articles 7, 8 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

2. Orders Hungary to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Hungary v European Commission

(Case C-456/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Alleged aid - Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU - Suspension injunction in respect of the measures at issue - Conditions governing the legality of the injunction)

(2020/C 262/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, P.-J. Loewenthal, V. Bottka and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and A. Kramarczyk, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 April 2018, Hungary v Commission (T-554/15 and T-555/15, EU:T:2018:220);

2. Annuls Commission Decision C(2015) 4805 final of 15 July 2015 on State aid SA. 41187 (2015/NN) — Hungary — Health contribution of tobacco industry businesses and Commission Decision C(2015) 4808 final of 15 July 2015 on State aid SA. 40018 (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) — 2014 Amendment of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee in so far as they order suspension of the application of the progressive tax rate of, respectively, the health contribution and the food chain inspection fee, in their form resulting from Law No XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution of tobacco industry businesses and from the amendment in 2014 of Law No XLVI of 2008 on the food chain and the official supervision thereof;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hungary, both at first instance and on appeal;

4. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
1.

Article 29 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, Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 of 7 January 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 with regard to regulatory technical standards for Own Funds requirements for institutions and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which prohibits people’s banks established in that Member State from refusing the redemption of capital instruments but which allows those banks to defer, for an unlimited period, the redemption of the shares held by the withdrawing shareholder and to limit the amount to be redeemed in full or in part, provided that the limitations on redemption imposed when exercising that option do not go beyond what is necessary, in the light of the prudential situation of the banks concerned, in order to ensure that the capital instruments they issue qualify as Common Equity Tier 1 instruments, having regard, in particular, to the matters referred to in Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation No 241/2014, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 July 2020 — Czech Republic v European Commission

(Case C-575/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Own resources of the European Union - Financial liability of the Member States - Request to be released from the obligation to make own resources available - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Letter from the European Commission - Concept of ‘actionable measure’ - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial protection - Action alleging unjust enrichment on the part of the European Union)

(2020/C 287/03)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: O. Serdula, J. Vláčil and M. Smolek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by M. Owsiany-Hornung and Z. Malůšková, and subsequently by Z. Malůšková and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, C.S. Schillemans, M.L. Noort, M.H.S. Gijzen and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.
2.

The concept of ‘charges’ or ‘fees’, within the meaning of Article 45(2) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, Article 55(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC, and Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features, must be interpreted as not including the loss of an individual advantage offered by a lender to a borrower as consideration for the opening of an account with that lender for the purpose of depositing his or her income in the context of a credit agreement, caused by the termination of that account.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 September 2020 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini, J.M.-E.V. e hijos SRL (C-449/18 P) and J.M.-E.V. e hijos SRL v Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-474/18 P)

(Joined Cases C-449/18 P and C-474/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MESSI - Earlier EU word marks MASSI - Partial refusal of registration)

(2020/C 390/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

(Case C-449/18 P)

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (represented by: J.-Y. Teindas Maillard and J.-B. Devaureix, abogados), J.M.-E.V. e hijos SRL (represented by: J. Güell Serra and R. Gimeno-Bayón Cobos, abogados)

(Case C-474/18 P)

Appellant: J.M.-E.V. e hijos SRL (represented by: J. Güell Serra and R. Gimeno-Bayón Cobos, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (represented by: J.-Y. Teindas Maillard and J.-B. Devaureix, abogados), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini in Case C-449/18 P;

3. Orders J.M.-E.V. e hijos SRL to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini and by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in Case C-474/18 P.

(1) OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.
1.

Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 12(1) and Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, under Article 6, Article 24(3), Article 43 and Article 46(5) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, and under Articles 8, 9 and 11 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: — in providing that applications for international protection from third-country nationals or stateless persons who, arriving from Serbia, wish to access, in its territory, the international protection procedure, may be made only in the transit zones of Röszke (Hungary) and Tompa (Hungary), while adopting a consistent and generalised administrative practice drastically limiting the number of applicants authorised to enter those transit zones daily; — in establishing a system of systematic detention of applicants for international protection in the transit zones of Röszke and Tompa, without observing the guarantees provided for in Article 24(3) and Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 and Articles 8, 9 and 11 of Directive 2013/33; — in allowing the removal of all third-country nationals staying illegally in its territory, with the exception of those of them who are suspected of having committed a criminal offence, without observing the procedures and safeguards laid down in Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 12(1) and Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/115; — in making the exercise by applicants for international protection who fall within the scope of Article 46(5) of Directive 2013/32 of their right to remain in its territory subject to conditions contrary to EU law;
3.

Orders John Mills Ltd to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) relating to the present appeal and to the proceedings before the General Court, and those incurred by Jerome Alexander Consulting Corp. relating to the proceedings before the General Court.
1.

Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany, — by having systematically and persistently exceeded, from 1 January 2010 up to and including 2016, first, the annual limit value for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in 26 zones and agglomerations situated in German territory, namely, zones DEZBXX0001A (agglomeration of Berlin), DEZCXX0007A (agglomeration of Stuttgart), DEZCXX0043S (district of Tübingen), DEZCXX0063S (district of Stuttgart (without agglomeration)), DEZCXX0004A (agglomeration of Freiburg), DEZCXX0041S (district of Karlsruhe (without agglomerations)), DEZCXX0006A (agglomeration of Mannheim/Heidelberg), DEZDXX0001A (agglomeration of Munich), DEZDXX0003A (agglomeration of Nuremberg/Fürth/Erlangen), DEZFXX0005S (Zone III Central and Northern Hesse), DEZFXX0001A (agglomeration I (Rhine-Main)), DEZFXX0002A (agglomeration II (Kassel)), DEZGLX0001A (agglomeration of Hamburg), DEZJXX0015A (Grevenbroich (Rhineland mining area)), DEZJXX0004A (Cologne), DEZJXX0009A (Düsseldorf), DEZJXX0006A (Essen), DEZJXX0017A (Duisburg, Oberhausen, Mülheim), DEZJXX0005A (Hagen), DEZJXX0008A (Dortmund), DEZJXX0002A (Wuppertal), DEZJXX0011A (Aachen), DEZJXX0016S (urban and rural areas in North Rhine-Westphalia), DEZKXX0006S (Mainz), DEZKXX0007S (Worms/Frankenthal/Ludwigshafen), DEZKXX0004S (Koblenz/Neuwied), and, secondly, the hourly limit value for NO2 in two of those zones, namely, agglomerations DEZCXX0007A (agglomeration of Stuttgart) and DEZFXX0001A (agglomeration I (Rhine-Main)), has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13(1) and Annex XI to Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, and — by not having adopted, from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values for NO2 in all those zones, failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 23(1), read alone and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to Directive 2008/50 and in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, to ensure that the period of exceedance of limit values is kept as short as possible;
2.

Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that, where abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts, within the meaning of that provision, has occurred, the obligation incumbent on the referring court to undertake, to the fullest extent possible, an interpretation and an application of all the relevant provisions of domestic law capable of duly penalising that abuse and of nullifying the consequences of the breach of EU law extends to an assessment of whether the provisions of earlier national legislation, which remain in force, and which permit the conversion of a succession of fixed-term contracts to one employment contract of indefinite duration, may, where appropriate, be applied for the purposes of that interpretation in conformity with EU law, even though national constitutional provisions impose an absolute prohibition, in the public sector, on such conversion.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — JC v Kreissparkasse Saarlouis

(Case C-66/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Credit agreements for consumers - Right of withdrawal - Time limit for the exercise of that right - Requirements concerning the information to be included in a credit agreement - Information notice merely referring to a series of national provisions)

(2020/C 215/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JC

Defendant: Kreissparkasse Saarlouis

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 10(2)(p) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the information to be specified, in a clear and concise manner, in a credit agreement in accordance with that provision includes information on how the period of withdrawal, provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 14(1) of that directive, is to be calculated.

2. Article 10(2)(p) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as precluding a credit agreement from making reference, as regards the information referred to in Article 10 of that directive, to a provision of national law which itself refers to other legislative provisions of the Member State in question.

(1) OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

(Case C-79/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Lithuania - Aid for early retirement - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Article 33m(1) - Distortion of the evidence)

(2020/C 137/30)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Lithuania (initially represented by R. Krasuckaitė, and subsequently by K. Dieninis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by J. Jokubauskaitė and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

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

(1) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — EUROVIA Ipari, Kereskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-258/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - First and third subparagraphs of Article 10(2), Article 17(1) and first subparagraph of Article 18(2) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 63, Article 64(1), subparagraphs (a) to (c) of the first paragraph of Article 66, Article 167 and the first paragraph of Article 179 - Services supplied before Hungary acceded to the European Union - Exact price of that supply determined after accession - Invoice relating to that supply issued and paid after accession - Refusal on the grounds of limitation of the right of deduction based on that invoice - Jurisdiction of the Court)

(2020/C 240/30)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EUROVIA Ipari, Kereskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary).

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
1.

Article 3(1)(e)(ii) 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 meaning that, in order to establish whether a sign consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, assessment does not have to be limited to the graphic representation of that sign. Information other than that relating to the graphic representation alone, such as the perception of the relevant public, may be used in order to identify the essential characteristics of the sign at issue. However, while information which is not apparent from the graphic representation of the sign may be taken into consideration in order to establish whether those characteristics perform a technical function of the goods in question, such information must originate from objective and reliable sources and may not include the perception of the relevant public;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — Dovgan GmbH v Monolith Frost GmbH — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-142/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for a declaration of invalidity of EU word mark PLOMBIR - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of facts and evidence)

(2020/C 271/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Dovgan GmbH (represented by C. Rohnke, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Monolith Frost GmbH (represented by E. Liebich and S. Labesius, Rechtsanwälte), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by A. Söder, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Dovgan GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by Monolith Frost GmbH.

3. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia — Italy) — HB (C-168/19), IC (C-169/19) v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale

(Joined Cases C-168/19 and C-169/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 21 TFEU - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - Article 18 TFEU - Convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Public sector workers - Pensioner residing in a Member State other than that paying retirement pension and who does not have the nationality of the Member State of residence - Income tax - Alleged loss of tax advantages - Alleged impediment to freedom of movement and alleged discrimination)

(2020/C 240/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HB (C-168/19), IC (C-169/19)

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU do not preclude a tax regime resulting from a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded between two Member States, pursuant to which the powers of taxation of those States in relation to the taxation of retirement pensions are allocated according to whether the recipients of those pensions were in employment in the private sector or the public sector and, in the latter case, according to whether or not they are nationals of the Member State of residence.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
1.

Article 135(1)(l) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that computing centre services with which the supplier of those services makes available to its customers equipment cabinets for holding their servers and provides them with ancillary goods and services, such as electricity and various services designed to ensure the use of those servers under optimal conditions, do not constitute the letting of immovable property falling within the exemption from value added tax provided for by that provision, where — which it is for the referring court to verify — first, that supplier does not provide an area or space to its customers passively, guaranteeing them the right to occupy it as if they were the owners thereof and secondly, the equipment cabinets do not form an integral part of the building in which they are installed nor are they installed there permanently;