ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against X

(Case C-717/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 2(2) - Execution of a European arrest warrant - Removal of verification of the double criminality of the act - Conditions - Offence punishable by the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence for a maximum period of at least three years - Amendment of the criminal legislation of the issuing Member State between the date of the acts and the date of issue of the European arrest warrant - Version of the law to be taken into account in verifying the maximum sentence threshold of at least three years)

(2020/C 137/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

X

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ascertain whether the offence for which a European arrest warrant has been issued is punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years, as it is defined in the law of the issuing Member State, the executing judicial authority must take into account the law of the issuing Member State in the version applicable to the facts giving rise to the case in which the European arrest warrant was issued.

(1) OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Nikolay Kolev and Others

(Case C-704/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Implementation of a preliminary ruling of the Court - Power of a higher court to impose an injunction relating to the detailed rules for implementation - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of effectiveness - Observance of the rights of the defence)

(2020/C 103/04)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

Nikolay Boykov Kolev, Stefan Georgiev Kostadinov, Nasko Dimitrov Kurdov, Plamen Georgiev Drenski, Georgi Atanasov Zlatanov, Dimitar Atanasov Dimitrov

Operative part of the judgment

In the light of the Court’s interpretation of Article 6(3) and Article 7(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings in point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of 5 June 2018, Kolev and Others (C-612/15, EU:C:2018:392), Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national procedural law which obliges the referring court in the case giving rise to that judgment to comply with an injunction, imposed on it by a higher court, to refer the case back to the prosecutor, after the termination of the trial phase of the criminal proceedings, for procedural irregularities committed during the pre-trial phase of those proceedings to be remedied, to the extent that those provisions of EU law, as interpreted by the Court in point 2 of the operative part of that judgment, are respected in the context of the pre-trial phase of the criminal proceedings or in that of the subsequent trial phase thereof.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
3.

Orders Equivalenza Manufactory SL to bear its own costs relating both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-6/17 and to the appeal proceedings and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in both of those proceedings.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — AAS ‘Balta’ v UAB ‘Grifs AG’

(Case C-803/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 15, point 5 and Article 16, point 5 - Insurance of ‘large risks’ - Jurisdiction clause agreed upon by the policyholder and the insurer - Whether that clause may be relied on against the insured person)

(2020/C 137/27)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AAS ‘Balta’

Defendant: UAB ‘Grifs AG’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15, point 5, and Article 16, point 5, of Regulation 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 the jurisdiction clause in an insurance contract covering a ‘large risk’, within the meaning of the latter provision, concluded by the policyholder and the insurer, may not be relied on against the party insured under that contract, who is not an insurance professional, who has not consented to that clause and who is domiciled in a Member State other than that in which the policyholder and the insurer are domiciled.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 1 February 2018, Larko v Commission (T-423/14, EU:T:2018:57), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court rejected the first part of the first plea in law to the extent that it relates to a guarantee granted in 2008 by the Greek State to Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE concerning a loan of EUR 30 million granted by ATE Bank to Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE;
2.

Article 5 of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that: — the child-rearing allowance for a disabled child, provided for in Article L. 541-1 of the Code de la sécurité sociale (French Social Security Code), and the assistance for integration of mentally disabled children and young people, provided for in Paragraph 35a of Book VIII of the German Social Code, cannot be considered to be benefits of an equivalent nature, for the purposes of Article 5(a); — the principle of equal treatment of facts enshrined in Article 5(b) applies in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings. It is therefore for the competent French authorities to ascertain whether, in the present case, it is established that the fact required for the purposes of that provision has occurred. In that connection, those authorities must take into account similar facts occurring in Germany as though they had taken place on their own territory.
Judgment of the Cour t (Second Chamber) of 23 Apr il 2020 (request for a preliminar y ruling from the 
Cour d'appel de Mons — Belgium) — Wagram Invest SA v Belgian State
(Case C-640/18) (1)
(Ref erence for a preliminar y ruling — Directiv e 78/660/EEC — Annual accounts of certain types of 
companies — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Acquisition of a financial fixed asse t by 
a public limited company — Entr y as a charg e, in the profit and loss account, of a discount relating to a 
non-inter est-bear ing debt due after one year and entr y of the purchase price of the asse t as an asset in the 
balance sheet after deduction of the discount)
(2020/C 230/06)
Language of the case: French
Refe rring cour t
Cour d'appel de Mons
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Wagram Invest SA
Defendant: Belgian State
Operativ e part of the judgment
In the case of the acquisition by a public limited comp any of a financial fixed asset, for which payment of the price is to be 
by long-t erm, interest-free instalments, under conditions similar to those of a loan, the principle of a true and fair view laid 
down in Article 2(3) of Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [44(2)(g) EC] concer ning the 
annual accounts of certain types of comp anies, is to be inter preted as not precluding the use of an accounting method 
which provid es for the entr y as a charge in the prof it and loss account, at the market rate, of a discount relating to a 
non-inte rest-bear ing debt becoming due after one year relating to that acquisition, and the entr y of the purc hase price of 
the fixed asset as an asset in the balance sheet after deduction of that discount. 
(1) OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Judgment of the Cour t (Eighth Chamber) of 2 Apr il 2020 (request for a preliminar y ruling from the 
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — CO v Comune di Ges turi
(Case C-670/18) (1)
(Ref erence for a preliminar y ruling — Social policy — Principle of equal treatment in emplo yment and 
occupation — Directiv e 2000/78/EC — Prohi bition of all discr imination on ground s of age — Public call 
for expr essions of inter est — Conditions of participation — Exclusion of retired public-sector and 
private-sector emplo yees)
(2020/C 230/07)
Language of the case: Italian
Refe rring cour t
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: CO
Defendant: Comune di Gestur iC 230/6 EN Official Jour nal of the European Union 13.7.2020
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim), Svenska Artisters och musikers, intresseorganisation ek. för. (SAMI) v Fleetmanager Sweden AB, Nordisk Biluthyrning AB

(Case C-753/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Directive 2006/115/EC - Article 8(2) - Concept of ‘communication to the public’ - Undertaking hiring out cars each having a radio receiver as standard equipment)

(2020/C 222/13)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim), Svenska Artisters och musikers, intresseorganisation ek. för. (SAMI)

Defendants: Fleetmanager Sweden AB, Nordisk Biluthyrning AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) 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 and Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be interpreted as meaning that the hiring out of motor vehicles equipped with radio receivers does not constitute a communication to the public within the meaning of those provisions.

(1) OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
1.

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement which, first, provides for a contracting authority to make software available free of charge to another contracting authority and, second, is linked to a cooperation agreement under which each party to that agreement is required to make available free of charge to the other party any future developments of that software which it may devise, constitutes a ‘public contract’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(5) of that Directive where it follows both from the terms of those agreements and from the applicable national legislation that the software will in principle be subject to adaptation
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 June 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Haskovo, Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy, Bulgaria) — QH v Varhoven kasatsionen sad na Republika Bulgaria (C-762/18), CV v Iccrea Banca SpA (C-37/19)

(Joined Cases C-762/18 and C-37/19) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Worker unlawfully dismissed then reinstated in her employment by decision of a court - Exclusion of any right to paid annual leave not taken for the period between the dismissal and the reinstatement - No right to financial compensation in lieu of annual leave not taken for that period where the employment relationship subsequently ceases)

(2020/C 279/07)

Languages of the case: Bulgarian and Italian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Haskovo, Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: QH (C-762/18), CV (C-37/19)

Defendants: Varhoven kasatsionen sad na Republika Bulgaria (C-762/18), Iccrea Banca SpA (C-37/19)

Interested party: Prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria (C-762/18)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national case-law by virtue of which a worker who was unlawfully dismissed then reinstated in her employment, in accordance with national law, following the annulment of the dismissal by a decision of a court, is not entitled to paid annual leave for the period between the date of the dismissal and that of the reinstatement in her employment on the ground that, during that period, that worker did not actually carry out work for the employer;

2. Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding national case-law by virtue of which, in the event of termination of the employment relationship after the worker concerned has been unlawfully dismissed then reinstated in her employment, in accordance with national law, following the annulment of the dismissal by a decision of a court, that worker is not entitled to financial compensation in lieu of paid annual leave not taken during the period between the date of the unlawful dismissal and that of her reinstatement in her employment.

(1) OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège — Belgium) — SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech/Get2Get

(Case C-833/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Articles 2 to 5 - Scope - Utilitarian object - Concept of ‘work’ - Copyright protection of works - Conditions - Shape of a product which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Folding bicycle)

(2020/C 271/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd

Defendant: Chedech/Get2Get

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2 to 5 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 be interpreted as meaning that the copyright protection provided for therein applies to a product whose shape is, at least in part, necessary to obtain a technical result, where that product is an original work resulting from intellectual creation, in that, through that shape, its author expresses his creative ability in an original manner by making free and creative choices in such a way that that shape reflects his personality, which it is for the national court to verify, bearing in mind all the relevant aspects of the dispute in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
2.

Article 46(1) and Article 46(2)(c) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that the appropriate safeguards, enforceable rights and effective legal remedies required by those provisions must ensure that data subjects whose personal data are transferred to a third country pursuant to standard data protection clauses are afforded a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union by that regulation, read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. To that end, the assessment of the level of protection afforded in the context of such a transfer must, in particular, take into consideration both the contractual clauses agreed between the controller or processor established in the European Union and the recipient of the transfer established in the third country concerned and, as regards any access by the public authorities of that third country to the personal data transferred, the relevant aspects of the legal system of that third country, in particular those set out, in a non-exhaustive manner, in Article 45(2) of that regulation;
4.

Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with paragraph 1(q) of the Annex thereto and Article 6(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that: — a term included in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer with a view to resolving an existing dispute, whereby the consumer waives the right to submit to a national court claims that he or she could have submitted in the absence of that term, may be regarded as ‘unfair’, in particular where the consumer was not provided with the relevant information enabling him or her to understand the legal consequences for him or her; — a term whereby the same consumer waives, in respect of future disputes, the right to take legal action based on his or her rights under Directive 93/13 is not binding on the consumer.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Brescia — Italy) — JH v KG

(Case C-681/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Article 5(5) - Equal treatment - Appropriate measures to prevent misuse of temporary agency work - Obligation for Member States to prevent successive assignments - No limits in national law - Requirement to interpret national law in conformity with EU law)

(2020/C 423/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Brescia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JH

Defendant: KG

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of Article 5(5) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not limit the number of successive assignments that the same temporary agency worker may fulfil at the same user undertaking and does not make the lawfulness of the use of temporary agency work subject to the prerequisite that it must be justified by technical, production, organisation or replacement-related reasons. On the other hand, that provision must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from taking no measures at all to preserve the temporary nature of temporary agency work and as precluding national legislation which does not lay down any measure to prevent successive assignments of the same temporary agency worker to the same user undertaking in order to circumvent the provisions of Directive 2008/104 as a whole.

(1) OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
1.

By failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2017/593 of 7 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to safeguarding of financial instruments and funds belonging to clients, product governance obligations and the rules applicable to the provision or reception of fees, commissions or any monetary or non-monetary benefits, or by failing to notify those measures to the European Commission, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of Delegated Directive 2017/593;
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 November 2020 — European Commission v GEA Group AG

(Case C-823/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets for tin-based heat stabilisers and for heat stabilisers with epoxised soybean oil and esters as their base - Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Application of the ceiling of 10 % of turnover to one of the entities forming the undertaking - Annulment of the decision amending the fine imposed in the initial infringement decision - Fines - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - Principle of equal treatment - Date on which the fine is payable in the event of amendment)

(2021/C 35/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: initially, T. Christoforou, P. Rossi and V. Bottka, and, subsequently, P. Rossi and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: GEA Group AG (represented by: C. Wagner and I. du Mont, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 October 2018, GEA Group v Commission (T-640/16, EU:T:2018:700);

2. Refers Case T-640/16 back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
2.

Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a difference of treatment indirectly based on religion or belief, arising from an internal rule of an undertaking prohibiting workers from wearing any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace, may be justified by the employer’s desire to pursue a policy of political, philosophical and religious neutrality with regard to its customers or users, provided, first, that that policy meets a genuine need on the part of that employer, which it is for that employer to demonstrate, taking into consideration, inter alia, the legitimate wishes of those customers or users and the adverse consequences that that employer would suffer in the absence of that policy, given the nature of its activities and the context in which they are carried out; secondly, that that difference of treatment is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the employer’s policy of neutrality is properly applied, which entails that that policy is pursued in a consistent and systematic manner; and, thirdly, that the prohibition in question is limited to what is strictly necessary having regard to the actual scale and severity of the adverse consequences that the employer is seeking to avoid by adopting that prohibition;
1.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that permits public authorities to have access to a set of traffic or location data, that are liable to provide information regarding the communications made by a user of a means of electronic communication or regarding the location of the terminal equipment which he or she uses and to allow precise conclusions to be drawn concerning his or her private life, for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, without such access being confined to procedures and proceedings to combat serious crime or prevent serious threats to public security, and that is so regardless of the length of the period in respect of which access to those data is sought and the quantity or nature of the data available in respect of such a period.