ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-165/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Article 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Beneficiaries - Dual nationality - Union citizen having acquired the nationality of the host Member State while retaining her nationality of origin - Right of residence in that Member State of a third-country national who is a family member of the Union citizen))

(2018/C 022/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Toufik Lounes

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation in which a citizen of the European Union (i) has exercised his freedom of movement by moving to and residing in a Member State other than that of which he is a national, under Article 7(1) or Article 16(1) of that directive, (ii) has then acquired the nationality of that Member State, while also retaining his nationality of origin, and (iii) several years later, has married a third-country national with whom he continues to reside in that Member State, that third-country national does not have a derived right of residence in the Member State in question on the basis of Directive 2004/38. The third-country national is however eligible for a derived right of residence under Article 21(1) TFEU, on conditions which must not be stricter than those provided for by Directive 2004/38 for the grant of such a right to a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who has exercised his right of freedom of movement by settling in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/16

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch

(Case C-372/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation - Recognition of a private divorce obtained before a religious court in a third country - Scope of that regulation))

(2018/C 072/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

Defendant: Raja Mamisch

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation must be interpreted as meaning that a divorce resulting from a unilateral declaration made by one of the spouses before a religious court, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not come within the substantive scope of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
2.

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on persons who are already concession holders in the sector of the online operation of legal gaming, new conditions for the exercise of their activity by means of an addendum to the existing agreement, inasmuch as the referring court considers that that legislation may be justified by overriding reasons relating to the general interest, is suitable for ensuring the attainment of the objectives pursued, and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
1.

By failing to comply with the obligation to ensure that the definition of categories C1 and C covers only motor vehicles other than those in category D1 or D, the Czech Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (4)(d) and (f) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/8

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n. 1 de Oviedo (Administrative Court No 1, Oviedo — Spain)) — Margarita Isabel Vega González v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias

(Case C-158/16) (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 - Principle of non-discrimination - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Placement on the administrative status for special service leave - National legislation providing for special leave to be granted, in case of election to public office, only to established civil servants, to the exclusion of non-established civil servants))

(2018/C 072/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n. 1 de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Margarita Isabel Vega González

Defendant: Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias

Operative part of the judgment

1. Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, 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 meaning that the concept of ‘employment conditions’, referred to in that provision, includes the right for a worker who has been elected to a parliamentary role to benefit from special service leave, provided for by national legislation, under which the employment relationship is suspended such that the worker’s job and his entitlement to promotion are guaranteed until the end of that parliamentary term of office;

2. Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that absolutely precludes granting a fixed-term worker, so that he may hold political office, leave during which the employment relationship is suspended until reinstatement of that worker at the end of the term of office, when that right is conferred on permanent workers.

(1) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/9

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — Kreuzmayr GmbH v Finanzamt Linz

(Case C-628/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Successive supplies relating to the same goods - Place of the second supply - Information provided by the first supplier - VAT identification number - Right to deduct - Legitimate expectation on the part of the taxable person regarding the existence of the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct))

(2018/C 134/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kreuzmayr GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Linz

Operative part of the judgment

1. In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the first paragraph of Article 32 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the second of two successive supplies of the same goods which gave rise to only one intra-Community transport.

2. Where the second supply in a chain of two successive supplies involving a single intra-Community transport is an intra-Community supply, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that the person ultimately acquiring the goods, who wrongly claimed a right to deduct input value added tax, may not deduct, as input value added tax, the value added tax paid to the supplier solely on the basis of the invoices provided by the intermediary operator which incorrectly classified its supply.

(1) OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/3

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Schenker Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-263/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - International air freight forwarding services - Pricing agreement affecting the final price of the services))

(2018/C 112/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Schenker Ltd (represented by: F. Montag and M. Eisenbarth, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Hoseinian, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Schenker Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — E.ON Czech Holding AG v Michael Dědouch, Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda

(Case C-560/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Exclusive jurisdiction - Article 22(2) - Validity of decisions of the organs of companies or legal persons having their seat in the territory of a Member State - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State - Decision of the general meeting of a company ordering the compulsory transfer to that company’s principal shareholder of the shares held by the company’s minority shareholders and determining the consideration to be paid to them by the principal shareholder - Judicial procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of that consideration))

(2018/C 161/10)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.ON Czech Holding AG

Defendants: Michael Dědouch, Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda

Intervener: Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for review of the reasonableness of the consideration that the principal shareholder of a company is required to pay to the minority shareholders of that company in the event of the compulsory transfer of their shares to that principal shareholder comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which that company is established.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Nidera BV

(Case C-387/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax - Article 183 - Refund of overpaid VAT - Late refund - Amount of default interest due under national law - Reduction of that amount for reasons not attributable to the taxable person - Whether permissible - Fiscal neutrality - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 142/07)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Defendant: Nidera BV

Intervener: Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as precluding a reduction in the amount of interest normally payable under national law on overpaid value added tax which was not refunded in due time for reasons connected to circumstances not attributable to the taxable person, such as the high amount of that interest when compared with the amount of the overpaid value added tax, the period of time during which the overpayment was not refunded and the underlying reasons for this, as well as the losses actually incurred by the taxable person.

(1) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, Stefano Ricucci, Magiste International SA v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-537/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/6/EC - Market manipulation - Penalties - National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Criminal nature of the administrative penalties - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle - Conditions))

(2018/C 166/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, Stefano Ricucci, Magiste International SA

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits the possibility of bringing administrative proceedings against a person in respect of unlawful conduct consisting in market manipulation for which the same person has already been finally convicted, in so far as that conviction is, given the harm caused to the company by the offence committed, such as to punish that offence in an effective, proportionate and dissuasive manner.

2. The ne bis in idem principle guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union confers on individuals a right which is directly applicable in the context of a dispute such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/12

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — J. Klein Schiphorst v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-551/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 7, 63 and 64 - Unemployment benefits - Unemployed person going to another Member State - Retention of entitlement to benefits - Duration))

(2018/C 166/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: J. Klein Schiphorst

Respondent: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 64(1)(c) 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 not precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that requires the competent institution to refuse, as a matter of principle, any request to extend the unemployment benefit export period beyond three months, provided the institution does not consider that refusing that request would lead to an unreasonable result.

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Case C-353/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — MP v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 4 — Directive 2004/83/EC — Article 2(e) — Eligibility for subsidiary protection — Article 15(b) — Risk of serious harm to the psychological health of the applicant if returned to the country of origin — Person who has been tortured in the country of origin)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — MP v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-353/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 4 — Directive 2004/83/EC — Article 2(e) — Eligibility for subsidiary protection — Article 15(b) — Risk of serious harm to the psychological health of the applicant if returned to the country of origin — Person who has been tortured in the country of origin)’

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MP

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(e) and 15(b) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, read in the light of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a third country national who in the past has been tortured by the authorities of his country of origin and no longer faces a risk of being tortured if returned to that country, but whose physical and psychological health could, if so returned, seriously deteriorate, leading to a serious risk of him committing suicide on account of trauma resulting from the torture he was subjected to, is eligible for subsidiary protection if there is a real risk of him being intentionally deprived, in his country of origin, of appropriate care for the physical and mental after-effects of that torture, that being a matter for the national court to determine.

( 1 ) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
Case C-483/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Zsolt Sziber v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7(1) — Loan agreements denominated in a foreign currency — National legislation providing for specific procedural requirements when the fairness of terms is challenged — Principle of equivalence — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Zsolt Sziber v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

(Case C-483/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7(1) — Loan agreements denominated in a foreign currency — National legislation providing for specific procedural requirements when the fairness of terms is challenged — Principle of equivalence — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection)’

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zsolt Sziber

Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

Intervener: Mónika Szeder

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation which imposes specific procedural requirements, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, on actions brought by consumers who have concluded loan contracts denominated in a foreign currency, containing a term stipulating a differential between the exchange rate applicable to the provision of the loan and that applicable to the repayment of the loan and/or a clause providing for an option of unilateral amendment allowing the lender to increase the interest rate, commission and costs, provided that a finding of unfairness in respect of those terms in such a contract makes it possible to restore the legal and factual situation in which the consumer would have found himself had it not been for those unfair terms.

2. Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as also applying to situations without a cross-border element.

( 1 ) OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.
Case C-219/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — Lowell Financial Services GmbH, formerly GFKL Financial Services AG v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeal — State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying certain losses forward to future tax years (‘restructuring clause’) — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Person individually concerned — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Determination of the reference framework — Legal classification of the facts)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — Lowell Financial Services GmbH, formerly GFKL Financial Services AG v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-219/16 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying certain losses forward to future tax years (‘restructuring clause’) — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Person individually concerned — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Determination of the reference framework — Legal classification of the facts)’

Parties

Appellant: Lowell Financial Services GmbH, formerly GFKL Financial Services AG (represented by: M. Schweda, J. Eggers, M. Knebelsberger and F. Loose, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck-Putz, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the cross-appeal;

2. Sets aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 February 2016, GFKL Financial Services v Commission (T-620/11, EU:T:2016:59);

3. Annuls Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel);

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Lowell Financial Services GmbH in relation to the proceedings both at first instance and on appeal.

( 1 ) OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.