ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-117/18 P) (1)

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

(2020/C 36/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH (represented by: M. Jeżewski, O. Waluśkiewicz, adwokaci, E. Buczkowska and M. Trepka, radcowie prawni)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and O. Beynet, acting as Agents),

Intervener in support of the Commission: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH to pay its own costs and bear those incurred by the European Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
1.

A provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which reproduces verbatim the provisions of Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014, must — in so far as it applies to vehicles with a maximum permissible mass of more than 2.8 tonnes but not exceeding 3.5 tonnes and which, as a result, do not fall within the scope of Regulation No 561/2006, as amended by Regulation No 165/2014 — be interpreted exclusively on the basis of EU law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, where those provisions have, directly and unconditionally, been rendered applicable to such vehicles by national law.
2.

Article 13(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the fruit of a plant variety, which is not likely to be used as propagating material, may not be regarded as having been obtained through the ‘unauthorised use of variety constituents’ of that plant variety, within the meaning of that provision, where those variety constituents were propagated and sold to a farmer by a nursery in the period between the publication of the application for a Community plant variety right in relation to that plant variety and the grant thereof. Where, after such protection has been granted, those variety constituents were propagated and sold without the authorisation of the right holder, the latter may assert his or her right under Article 13(2)(a) and (3) of that regulation in respect of that fruit, unless he or she had reasonable opportunity to exercise his or her right in relation to those variety constituents.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Otis GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Kone AG, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v Land Oberösterreich and Others

(Case C-435/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 101 TFEU - Damages for the loss caused by a cartel - Right to compensation of persons not acting as supplier or purchaser on the market affected by the cartel - Damage suffered by a public body which granted loans on favourable terms in order to acquire assets subject to the cartel)

(2020/C 54/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Otis GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Kone AG, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH

Defendants: Land Oberösterreich, Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgenossenschaft ‘Lebensräume’ eingetragene GmbH, EBS Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH, WAG Wohnungsanlagen GmbH, WSG Gemeinnützige Wohn- und Siedlergemeinschaft reg.GmbH, Neue Heimat Oberösterreich Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und SiedlungsgesmbH, BRW Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft ‘Baureform Wohnstätte’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft ‘Familie’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., VLW Vereinigte Linzer Wohnungsgenossenschaften Gemeinnützige GmbH, Gemeinnützige Steyrer Wohn- und Siedlungs Genossenschaft ‘Styria’ reg.Gen.m.b.H., Innviertler Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft reg.Gen.m.b.H., Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgesellschaft der Stadt Steyr GmbH, Gemeinnützige Industrie-Wohnungsaktiengesellschaft, Gemeinnützige Siedlungsgesellschaft m.b.H. für den Bezirk Vöcklabruck, GEWOG Neues Heim Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgesellschaft m.b.H.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that persons who are not active as suppliers or customers on the market affected by a cartel, but who provide subsidies, in the form of promotional loans, to buyers of the products offered on that market, may seek an order that the undertakings which participated in that cartel pay compensation for the losses they suffered as a result of the fact that, since the amount of those subsidies was higher than what it would have been without that cartel, those persons were unable to use that difference more profitably.

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

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Amoena Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-677/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 6212 and 9021 - Mastectomy bras - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1167 - Validity - Notion of ‘accessories’ - Sincere cooperation)

(2020/C 68/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Amoena Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the questions referred has not revealed any elements capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1167 of 26 June 2017 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd v European Commission, Viscas Corp.

(Case C-589/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for underground and submarine power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Determination of the value of sales - Principle of equal treatment)

(2020/C 61/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (represented by: initially, A. Luke and C. Pouncey, Solicitors, then A. Luke and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, A. Biolan and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents), Viscas Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Declares that Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Declares that Viscas Corp. is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
1.

Declares that, by not ensuring that its public authorities effectively comply with the periods for payment prescribed in Article 4(3) and (4) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against TX, UW

(Case C-688/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Presumption of innocence and right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Article 8(1) and (2) - Conditions laid down by national law in order to hold a trial in absentia - Non-appearance of accused persons at certain hearings for reasons either within or beyond their control - Right to fair legal process)

(2020/C 103/03)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

TX, UW

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides, in a situation where the accused person has been informed, in due time, of his trial and of the consequences of not appearing at that trial, and where that person was represented by a mandated lawyer appointed by him, that his right to be present at his trial is not infringed where:

— he decided unequivocally not to appear at one of the hearings held in connection with his trial; or

— he did not appear at one of those hearings for a reason beyond his control if, following that hearing, he was informed of the steps taken in his absence and, with full knowledge of the situation, decided and stated either that he would not call the lawfulness of those steps into question in reliance on his non-appearance, or that he wished to participate in those steps, leading the national court hearing the case to repeat those steps, in particular by conducting a further examination of a witness, in which the accused person was given the opportunity to participate fully.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), M.J. Dairies EOOD

(Case C-766/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Opposition - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Criteria for assessment - Applicability in the case of an earlier collective mark - Interdependence between the similarity of the trade marks at issue and that of the goods or services covered by those marks)

(2020/C 161/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor, and K.K. Kleanthous)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent). M.J. Dairies EOOD (represented by: D. Dimitrova and I. Pakidanska, advokati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 September 2018, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI) (T-328/17, not published, EU:T:2018:594);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AURES Holdings a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-405/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Transfer of a company’s place of effective management to a Member State other than its registered seat - Transfer of tax residency to that other Member State - National legislation not allowing a tax loss incurred in the Member State of incorporation before the transfer of its seat to be claimed)

(2020/C 137/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AURES Holdings a.s.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a company incorporated under the law of a Member State, which transfers its place of effective management to another Member State without that transfer affecting its status as a company incorporated under the law of the first Member State, may rely on that article for the purposes of contesting a refusal in the second Member State to defer losses prior to that transfer;

2. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which excludes the possibility for a company, which has transferred its place of effective management and, as a result, its tax residency to that Member State, from claiming a tax loss incurred, prior to that transfer, in another Member State, in which it has retained its registered seat.

(1) OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
2.

Rejects the third complaint in the sixth plea in law in the action for annulment in so far as that complaint alleges infringement of the procedural rights of the interested parties in the present case based on the fact that they were not given the opportunity to express their views on the relevance of the Commission Communication entitled ‘Guidelines on State aid to airports and airlines’, before Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1586 of 26 February 2015 on measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport was adopted;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich — Poland) — Mikrokasa S.A. and Revenue Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty v XO

(Case C-779/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Article 3(g), Article 10(2) and Article 22(1) - Level of harmonisation - Concept of ‘non-interest credit costs’ - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 1(2) - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Ceiling value for the total non-interest credit costs - Contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions - Not included)

(2020/C 215/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mikrokasa S.A. and Revenue Niestandaryzowany Sekurytyzacyjny Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty

Defendant: XO

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(g), Article 10(2) and Article 22(1) 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 not precluding a provision of national legislation which lays down a calculation method regarding the maximum amount of non-interest credit costs that may be imposed on the consumer, provided that that provision does not introduce additional information obligations regarding those non-interest credit costs which go beyond those laid down in Article 10(2) of that directive.

2. Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term which establishes non-interest credit costs in accordance with the ceiling value set by a provision of national legislation, without necessarily taking the costs actually incurred into account, does not fall outside the scope of that directive.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — CO v Comune di Gesturi

(Case C-670/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age - Public call for expressions of interest - Conditions of participation - Exclusion of retired public-sector and private-sector employees)

(2020/C 230/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CO

Defendant: Comune di Gesturi

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in particular Article 2(2), Article 3(1) and Article 6(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation prohibiting public administrative authorities from awarding analysis and consultancy roles to retired persons in so far as, first, that legislation pursues a legitimate employment policy and labour market objective and, second, the means deployed to achieve that objective are appropriate and necessary. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is in fact the case in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — LH v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-564/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Application for international protection - Article 33(2) - Grounds of inadmissibility - National legislation under which an application is inadmissible if the applicant has arrived in the Member State concerned via a country in which he or she is not exposed to persecution or the risk of serious harm, or if that country provides sufficient protection - Article 46 - Right to an effective remedy - Judicial review of administrative decisions concerning the inadmissibility of applications for international protection - Time limit of eight days within which to give a decision - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2020/C 222/10)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LH

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 33 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 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member State concerned via a State in which that person was not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed;

2. Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which sets a time limit of eight days within which a court hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible is to give a decision, where that court is unable to ensure, within such a time limit, that the substantive rules and procedural guarantees enjoyed by the applicant under EU law are effective.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra — Portugal) — Nelson Antunes da Cunha, Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)

(Case C-627/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aids - Article 108 TFEU - Aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - European Commission decision ordering the recovery of unlawful aid - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 17(1) - Limitation period of 10 years - Application to the Commission’s recovery powers - Article 16(2) and (3) - Limitation period of a lesser duration provided for by national law - Principle of effectiveness)

(2020/C 240/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nelson Antunes da Cunha, Lda

Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 17(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period of 10 years laid down in that provision for the exercise of the European Commission’s powers to recover aid applies only to relations between the Commission and the Member State to which the recovery decision emanating from that institution is addressed;

2. Article 16(2) of Regulation 2015/1589, under which the aid to be recovered is to include interest, and the principle of effectiveness laid down in Article 16(3) of that regulation, must be interpreted as precluding the application of a national limitation period for the recovery of aid where that period expired even before the adoption of the Commission’s decision declaring that aid unlawful and ordering its recovery or where that limitation period has elapsed, mainly by reason of the delay by the national authorities in implementing that decision.

(1) OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.
2.

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State which has the effect of compelling a parent company established in another Member State to dissolve an existing vertical tax integration between one of its subsidiaries and a certain number of its resident sub-subsidiaries in order to allow that subsidiary to undertake a horizontal tax integration with other resident subsidiaries of that parent company, even though the resident integrating subsidiary remains the same and dissolution of the vertical tax integration before the end of the minimum duration of the integration, laid down by the national legislation, entails the individual correcting taxation of the companies concerned;