ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

With regard to the currency conversion of a dependent child benefit with a view to determining the amount of differential supplement, if any, under Article 68(2) 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, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, the application and the interpretation of Article 90 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004, and of Decision No H3 of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems of 15 October 2009 concerning the date to be taken into consideration for determining the exchange rate referred to in Article 90 of Regulation No 987/2009, are unaffected by the fact that the benefit is paid in Swiss francs by a Swiss institution.
2.

Article 103(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with point 2 of Article 311(1) of that directive and point 7 of Part A of Annex IX thereto, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts the application of the reduced rate of VAT only to photographs that have artistic character, in so far as the existence of such artistic character is subject to an assessment by the competent national tax authority which is not made within the confines of objective, clear and precise criteria set by that national legislation, making it possible to determine precisely the photographs to which that legislation reserves the application of the reduced rate of VAT, in such a way as to avoid infringing the principle of fiscal neutrality.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet

(Case C-222/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Cross-border healthcare - Directive 2011/24/EU - Articles 3(k) and 11(1) - Prescription - Definition - Recognition of a prescription issued in another Member State by an authorised person - Conditions - Free movement of goods - Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports - Articles 35 and 36 TFEU - Restriction on the dispensing by a pharmacy of prescription-only medicinal products - Order form issued in another Member State - Justification - Protection of human health and human life - Directive 2001/83/EC - Second paragraph of Article 81 - Supply of medicinal products to the public of a Member State)

(2019/C 399/12)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(k) and Article 11(1) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which it is not permissible for a pharmacy in that Member State to dispense prescription-only medicinal products on the basis of an order form where that order form has been issued by a healthcare professional authorised to prescribe medicinal products and to exercise his activity in another Member State, whereas such dispensing of those products is permitted where that order form has been issued by a healthcare professional authorised to exercise his activity in the first Member State, bearing in mind that, under that legislation, such order forms do not contain the name of the patient concerned.

Articles 35 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such legislation of a Member State, in so far as that legislation is justified by the objective of protecting human health and human life, is appropriate for securing the attainment of that objective and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it, which is for the national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 221 25.06.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Skarb Pánstwa Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej — Generalny Dyrektor Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v Stephan Riel, acting as liquidator of Alpine Bau GmbH

(Case C-47/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Scope - Article 1(2)(b) - Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings - Not included - Action for a declaration that a claim exists for the purposes of its registration in insolvency proceedings - Application of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 41 - Content of the lodgement of a claim - Main and secondary insolvency proceedings - Lis pendens and related actions - Application by analogy of Article 29(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 399/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skarb Pánstwa Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej — Generalny Dyrektor Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad

Defendant: Stephan Riel, acting as liquidator of Alpine Bau GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(2)(b) 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 an action for a declaration of the existence of claims for the purposes of their registration in the context of insolvency proceedings, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is excluded from the scope of that regulation.

2. Article 29(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as not applying, even by analogy, to an action such as that in the main proceedings which is excluded from the scope of that regulation but falls within the scope of Regulation No 1346/2000.

3. Article 41 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the law applicable to contractual obligations must be interpreted as meaning that a creditor may, in the context of insolvency proceedings, lodge a claim without formally indicating the date on which it arose, where the law of the Member State within the territory of which those proceedings were opened does not impose an obligation to state that date and where that date may, without particular difficulty, be inferred from the supporting documents referred to in Article 41 of that regulation, which it is for the competent authority responsible for the verification of claims to determine.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — UPM France v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-270/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Third subparagraph of Article 21(5) - Exemption of small producers of electricity, subject to the taxation of electricity produced - Lack, during an authorised transitional period, of an internal tax on end consumption of electricity - Article 14(1)(a) - Obligation to exempt energy products and electricity used to produce electricity)

(2019/C 423/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UPM France SAS

Respondent: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of the third subparagraph of Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption provided for in that provision for small electricity producers, provided that, by way of derogation from Article 14(1)(a) of that directive, the energy products used to produce that electricity are taxed, could not be applied by the French Republic during the transitional period granted to it, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 18(10) of that directive, until 1 January 2009 and during which that Member State did not introduce the electricity taxation system provided for in that directive.

(1) OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland, Robert Prandl, Gemeinde Zillingdorf

(Case C-197/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Objective of reducing pollution - Waters affected by pollution - Maximum nitrate level of 50 mg/l - Action programmes adopted by the Member States - Rights of individuals to have such a programme amended - Locus standi before the national authorities and courts)

(2019/C 413/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland, Robert Prandl, Gemeinde Zillingdorf

Intervener: Bundesministerum für Nachhaltigkeit und Tourismus, formerly Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Operative part of the judgment

Article 288 TFEU and Article 5(4) and (5) of, and Annex I A, point 2 to, Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources must be interpreted as meaning that, provided that the discharge of nitrogen compounds of agricultural origin significantly contributes to the pollution of the groundwaters in question, natural and legal persons, such as the applicants in the main proceedings, should be in a position to require the competent national authorities to amend an existing action programme or adopt additional measures or reinforced actions, provided for in Article 5(5) of that directive, as long as the nitrate levels in the groundwaters exceed or could exceed, in the absence of such measures, 50 mg/l at one or more measuring points within the meaning of Article 5(6) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 November 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Eni SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (C-364/18), Shell Italia BV SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità di Regolazione per l’Energia, Reti e Ambiente, formerly Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas e il sistema idrico (Case C-365/18)

(Joined Cases C-364/18 and C-365/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 94/22/EC - Energy - Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons - Royalties - Methods of calculation - QE and PFOR indices - Discriminatory nature)

(2019/C 432/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-364/18)

Applicant: Eni SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Interveners: Autorità di Regolazione per l’Energia, Reti e Ambiente, formerly Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas e il sistema idrico, Regione Basilicata, Comune di Viggiano, Regione Calabria, Comune di Ravenna, Assomineraria

(Case C-365/18)

Applicant: Shell Italia BV SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità di Regolazione per l’Energia, Reti e Ambiente, formerly Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas e il sistema idrico

Interveners: Regione Basilicata, Comune di Viggiano, Assomineraria

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, read in the light of the sixth recital thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the amount of royalties payable by holders of licences for the extraction of natural gas is calculated on the basis of an index based on the prices of oil and other fuels in the medium and long term and not an index that reflects the short-term market price of natural gas.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
1.

The first sentence of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota must be interpreted as meaning that, where a notification of a levy on a sugar surplus is sent by the competent authority of a Member State to the sugar producer concerned in accordance with the time limit provided for by that provision, that time limit applies, in principle, also to the correction of such a notification resulting from a review carried out under Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards the management of the Community market in sugar and the quota system, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 707/2008 of 24 July 2008. A failure to comply with that deadline may however be accepted where the competent national authority, without negligence on its part, did not know the details of the undertaking's sugar production and where that lack of knowledge may reasonably be attributed to the undertaking, because it has not acted in good faith and has not complied with all the relevant provisions. It is for the referring court to determine whether such is the case in the main proceedings, in the light of all of the facts of that case.
1.

Article 148(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2017/2393 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2017, must be interpreted as not precluding rules of national law, such as those provided for in Article 3(3)(1) of the Lietuvos Respublikos Ūkio subjektų, perkančių-parduodančių žalią pieną ir prekiaujančių pieno gaminiais, nesąžiningų veiksmų draudimo įstatymas Nr. XII-1907 (Law No XII-1907 of the Republic of Lithuania prohibiting unfair practices by Lithuanian operators when buying and selling raw milk and trading in milk products) of 25 June 2015, as amended by the Law of 22 December 2015, which, in order to combat unfair commercial practices, prohibit buyers of raw milk from paying a different purchase price to producers who must be regarded as belonging to the same group on the basis of the daily quantity of raw milk sold that is of identical composition and quality and delivered via the same method, in so far as those rules are appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objective pursued and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.
2.

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding, firstly, that a national court which establishes that a penalty clause in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair moderate the amount of the penalty imposed on the consumer and, secondly, that a national court replace that term, in accordance with the principles of its contract law, with a supplementary provision of national law, except where the contract at issue cannot continue in existence in the event that the unfair term is deleted and where the cancelation of the contract in its entirety exposes consumers to particularly unfavourable consequences.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena v Balema GmbH

(Case C-432/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Regulations (EC) No 510/2006 and (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 13(1) - Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 - Article 1 - Registration of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’ - Protection of the non-geographical components of that name - Scope)

(2020/C 36/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena

Defendant: Balema GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 of 3 July 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)] must be interpreted as meaning that the protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ does not extend to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of that name.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 November 2019 — LS Cable & System Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-596/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for underground and submarine power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Fines - Burden of proof - Distortion of the evidence - Public distancing from the cartel)

(2020/C 36/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: LS Cable & System Ltd (represented by: S. Spinks and S. Kinsella, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders LS Cable & System Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — UB v Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

(Case C-447/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 3 - Matters covered - Old-age benefit - Freedom of movement for workers within the European Union - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7 - Equal treatment of national workers and migrant workers - Social advantages - Legislation of a Member State restricting the grant of an ‘additional benefit for sportspersons who have represented the State’ to the citizens of that State)

(2020/C 61/11)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UB

Defendant: Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(1)(d) 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 an additional benefit paid to certain high-level sportspersons who have represented a Member State or its legal predecessors in international sporting competitions is not covered by the ‘old-age benefit’ referred to in that provision and, consequently, falls outside the scope of that regulation.

2. Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes receipt of an additional benefit introduced for certain high-level sportspersons who have represented that Member State or its legal predecessors in international sporting competitions conditional upon, in particular, the person applying for the benefit having the nationality of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Wajos GmbH

(Case C-783/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute ground for refusal - Marks devoid of distinctive character - Three-dimensional marks consisting of the shape of the product - Criteria for the assessment of distinctive character - Obligation to state reasons - Form of a container - Amphora)

(2020/C 54/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Wajos GmbH (represented by: J. Schneiders, R. Krillke and B. Schneiders, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wajos GmbH.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — HK v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-460/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 1d - First paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII - Pension for the surviving spouse - Conditions for granting - Concept of ‘surviving spouse’ of a Union official - Marriage and non-marital partnership - Cohabitation - Principle of non-discrimination - Comparable situation - None - Condition of duration of marriage - Combating fraud - Justification)

(2020/C 68/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HK (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and B. Mongin, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 May 2018, HK v Commission (T-574/16, not published, EU:T:2018:252);

2. Dismisses HK’s action seeking annulment of European Commission’s decision refusing to grant him the benefit of the survivor’s pension and to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage alleged;

3. Orders HK, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.
3.

Point 2 of the operative part of the present judgment may also apply in the case where, first, official controls have been carried out by contracted official veterinarians who are not paid for quarter-hour periods requested by slaughterhouses but not worked and, second, the share of the fee corresponding to those quarter-hour periods requested but not worked is allocated to covering the general overhead costs of the competent authority, within the meaning of Article 2(4) of Regulation No 882/2004, if it is established that the share of the fee relating to those quarter-hour periods does not include the unpaid salary costs of contracted official veterinarians and genuinely corresponds to general overhead costs falling within one or more cost categories referred to in Annex VI to that regulation;