ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it concerns the taking into account of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) when calculating the amount of the correction of EUR 5 496 524,54, of the deduction of EUR 270 175,45 and of the financial impact of EUR 5 226 349,09, which related to expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the sector of Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area-related measures) and were imposed in respect of the 2010 financial year, on account of weaknesses in the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) and the on-the-spot checks (second pillar, claim year 2008);
1.

Article 9(2)(c), first indent, of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, and Article 52(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that a complex service, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in offering interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and broadcast live on the internet constitutes an ‘entertainment activity’, within the meaning of those provisions, which must be considered as being ‘physically carried out’, within the meaning of those same provisions, in the place where the service provider has established his place of business or a permanent establishment whence that service is provided or, failing that, in the place of his domicile or habitual residence.
1.

Declares that:- — by restricting the legal form of mediation training service providers to non-profit companies, which have to be set up jointly by at least one association of lawyers and at least one Professional Chamber in Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2)(b) and (c) and Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market; and — by subjecting the procedure for the recognition of academic qualifications to the imposition of additional requirements related to the content of certificates required and to compensatory measures without a prior assessment of substantial differences from national training, and by maintaining in force discriminatory provisions which require applicants for accreditation as mediators who have accreditation that was obtained outside Greece or from a recognised provider of training outside Greece following training provided in Greece, to prove experience of having taken part in at least three mediation procedures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13, 14 and 50(1) of, and Annex VII to, Directive 2005/36/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005, on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 November 2013;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — ReFood GmbH & Co. KG v Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen

(Case C-634/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Shipments of waste within the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Article 1(3)(d) - Scope - Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 - Shipments of animal by-products)

(2019/C 263/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ReFood GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, must be interpreted as meaning that shipments of animal by-products falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation), are excluded from the scope of Regulation No 1013/2006, unless Regulation No 1069/2009 expressly provides for the application of Regulation No 1013/2006.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 — Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Hecht-Pharma GmbH

(Case C-668/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Union trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Word mark Boswelan - No genuine use - Use of the mark in a clinical trial prior to filing an application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market - Proper reason for non-use - Concept)

(2019/C 305/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd. (represented by C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by S. Hanne, acting as Agent), Hecht-Pharma GmbH (represented by J. Sachs and C. Sachs, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Hecht-Pharma GmbH.

(1) OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.
1.

Article 4(2) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that a contractual term be drafted in plain, intelligible language does not require that non-individually negotiated contractual terms in a loan contract concluded with a consumer, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, that specify the exact amount of management charges and of a disbursement commission to be borne by the consumer, their method of calculation and the time when they have to be paid, also have to indicate all of the services provided in return for the amounts concerned;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 — TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV, Sambucus eV v European Commission, Monsanto Europe, Monsanto Company, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

(Case C-82/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Environment - Genetically modified products - Commission decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing genetically modified soybean MON 87701 x MON 89788 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 10(1) - Request for internal review of the decision, submitted under the provisions relating to public participation in environmental decision-making - Rejection of the request)

(2019/C 383/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV, Sambucus eV (represented by: K. Smith QC and J. Stevenson, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, G. Gattinara and C. Valero, Agents), Monsanto Europe, Monsanto Company (represented initially by M. Pittie, and subsequently by P. Honoré and A. Helfer, avocats), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV and Sambucus eV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Monsanto Europe and Monsanto Company to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by the Finanzamt Linz, Finanzamt Kirchdorf Perg Steyr

(Case C-585/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Alteration of an authorised aid scheme - Article 108(3) TFEU - Notification requirement - Standstill obligation subject to approval from the European Commission - Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 - Exemption - Article 58(1) - Temporal scope of the regulation - Article 44(3) - Scope - National legislation laying down a formula for calculating a partial rebate of energy taxes)

(2020/C 10/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Finanzamt Linz, Finanzamt Kirchdorf Perg Steyr

Intervener: Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which alters an aid scheme by restricting those eligible for such aid is, in principle, subject to the notification requirement laid down in that article.

2. Article 58(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that aid granted before the entry into force of that regulation, on the basis of an aid scheme such as the one at issue in the disputes in the main proceedings, may be exempted, under that regulation, from the notification requirement laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU.

3. Article 44(3) of Regulation No 651/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that an aid scheme, such as the one at issue in the disputes in the main proceedings, in which the amount of an energy tax rebate is specifically fixed in a calculation formula provided for by the national legislation establishing that scheme, complies with that provision.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
1.

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the limitation period for actions seeking compensation for damage resulting from an accident is three years, cannot be considered to be an overriding mandatory provision, within the meaning of that article, unless the court hearing the case finds, on the basis of a detailed analysis of the wording, general scheme, objectives and the context in which that provision was adopted, that it is of such importance in the national legal order that it justifies a departure from the law applicable, designated pursuant to Article 4 of that regulation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2018 — Claire Staelen v European Ombudsman

(Case C-45/18 P) (1)

((Appeal - Application for revision - Conditions for admissibility))

(2018/C 436/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman (represented by: L. Papadias and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Claire Staelen to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 104, 19.3.2018
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Idi Srl v Arcadis Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo

(Case C-101/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 45(2), first subparagraph, point (b) - Personal situation of the candidate or tenderer - Possibility for the Member States to exclude from participation in a public contract any operator subject to a procedure for an arrangement with creditors - National legislation providing for the exclusion of persons subject to an ‘ongoing’ procedure for a declaration of admission to an arrangement with creditors, except where the insolvency plan provides for the continuation of the business - Operator having filed an application for an arrangement with creditors, reserving the possibility to submit a plan providing for the continuation of the business)

(2019/C 187/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Idi Srl

Defendant: Arcadis — Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo

intervening parties: Regione Campania

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45(2), first subparagraph, point (b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows the exclusion from a public procurement procedure of an economic operator who, at the date of the exclusion decision, has filed an application for an arrangement with creditors, while reserving the right to present a plan which provides for the continuation of the business

(1) OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy — France) — Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics v Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer

(Case C-372/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 3 - Matters covered - Levies on income from assets charged to a French resident insured under the Swiss social security scheme - Levies apportioned for the funding of two benefits administered by the French National Solidarity Fund for Independent Living - Direct and sufficiently relevant link with certain branches of social security - Definition of ‘social security benefit’ - Individual assessment of an applicant’s personal needs - Taking into account the applicant’s resources in calculating the amount of the benefits)

(2019/C 155/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Respondents: Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 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 meaning that benefits, such as the personal independence allowance and the disability compensation allowance, must, for the purposes of their classification as ‘social security contributions’ within the meaning of that provision, be regarded as granted without any individual assessment of a recipient’s personal needs, since the recipient’s resources are taken into account for the sole purpose of calculating the actual amount of those benefits on the basis of legally defined, objective criteria.

(1) OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Budimex S.A. v Minister Finansów

(Case C-224/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 66 - Chargeable event and chargeability of the tax - Time of the supply of the services - Construction and installation work - Taking into account the time of the acceptance of the work stipulated in the contract for the supply of services)

(2019/C 220/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Budimex S.A.

Other party to the proceedings: Minister Finansów

Operative part of the judgment

Point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as not precluding, if an invoice relating to the performance of the service supplied is not issued or is issued late, the formal acceptance of that service from being regarded as the time when that service was supplied, where, as in the case in the main proceedings, the Member State provides that VAT is to become chargeable on expiry of a time limit running from the day when the service was supplied, provided, first, that the formality of acceptance was stipulated by the parties in the contract that binds them according to contractual terms reflecting the economic and commercial realities in the field in which the service is supplied and, second, that that formality constitutes the actual completion of the service and determines the amount of consideration due, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
2.

Orders The Green Effort Limited to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Fédération internationale de l’automobile (FIA).
3.

The combined provisions of Article 3(3) and the second indent of Article 3(5) of Directive 1999/44 are to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a consumer who has informed the vendor of the non-conformity of goods acquired under a distance contract, the transport of which to the seller’s place of business was likely to cause a significant inconvenience to him, and who has made the goods available to the seller at his home for them to be brought into conformity, is entitled to rescission of the contract as a result of the failure to compensate him within a reasonable time, if the seller has failed to take any adequate steps to bring those goods into conformity, including that of informing the consumer of the place where those goods are to be made available to it for it to bring them into conformity. In that regard, it is for the national court, by means of an interpretation in conformity with Directive 1999/44, to ensure the right of that consumer to rescission of the contract.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Blagoevgrad — Bulgaria) — Brian Andrew Kerr v Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova

(Case C-25/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(1)(a) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to contract - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ - Decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building - Obligation of the owners to pay annual financial contributions to the budget of the association of property owners as determined by that decision - Legal action seeking enforcement of that decision - Law applicable to contractual obligations - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Article 4(1)(b) and (c) - Concepts of ‘contract for the provision of services’ and ‘a contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property’ - Decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building relating to maintenance costs for communal areas)

(2019/C 230/12)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Okrazhen sad — Blagoevgrad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Brian Andrew Kerr

Respondents: Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning a payment obligation arising from a decision taken by a general meeting of the owners of property in a building, which does not have legal personality and has been specifically established by law in order to exercise certain rights, — where that decision has been taken by a majority of members, but binds all members — must be regarded as falling within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning a payment obligation resulting from a decision of a general meeting of the owners of property in an apartment building, relating to the costs of maintaining the communal areas of that property, must be regarded as relating to a contract for the provision of services, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Pamplona — Spain) — Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui v Departamento de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra

(Case C-72/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4(1) - Principle of non-discrimination - Public sector education - National provision granting particular additional remuneration only to teachers employed for an indefinite duration as established public officials - Exclusion of teachers employed under a fixed-term contract governed by public law - Concept of ‘objective grounds’ - Characteristics inherent in the status of established public official)

(2019/C 270/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Pamplona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui

Defendant: Departamento de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts entitlement to particular additional remuneration to teachers employed for an indefinite duration as established public officials, to the exclusion of, in particular, teachers employed under fixed-term contracts governed by public law, if the completion of a certain period of service is the only condition for grant of that additional remuneration.

(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.