ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank v D. Balandin, I. Lukachenko, Holiday on Ice Services BV

(Case C-477/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 - Applicable legislation - A1 certificate - Article 1 - Extension of coordination of social security systems to citizens of third countries residing legally in the territory of a Member State - Legal residence - Concept))

(2019/C 93/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

Defendants: D. Balandin, I. Lukachenko, Holiday on Ice Services BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality must be interpreted as meaning that third country nationals, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, who temporarily reside and work in different Member States in the service of an employer established in a Member State, may rely on the coordination rules laid down by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for Regulation No 883/2004, in order to determine the social security legislation to which they are subject, provided that they are legally staying and working in the territory of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Srf konsulterna AB

(Case C-647/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 53 - Supply of services in respect of admission to educational events - Place of taxable transactions)

(2019/C 155/11)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Srf konsulterna AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 53 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘services in respect of admission to events’ in that provision includes a service, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in the form of a five-day course on accountancy and management which is supplied solely to taxable persons and requires advance registration and payment.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Martin Wächtler v Finanzamt Konstanz

(Case C-581/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the free movement of persons - Transfer by a natural person of his domicile from a Member State to Switzerland - Taxation of unrealised capital gains with respect to shares in a company - Direct taxation - Freedom of movement of self-employed persons - Equal treatment)

(2019/C 139/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin Wächtler

Defendant: Finanzamt Konstanz

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the 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, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, must be interpreted as precluding a tax regime of a Member State which, in a situation where a natural person who is a national of a Member State and who pursues an economic activity in the territory of the Swiss Confederation transfers his domicile from the Member State whose tax regime is at issue to Switzerland, provides for the collection, at the time of that transfer, of the tax payable on unrealised capital gains with respect to shares owned by that national, whereas, if domicile is retained in that Member State, the collection of the tax takes place only at the time when the capital gains are realised, that is on a disposal of the shares concerned.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-237/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive countervailing duty - Regulation (EC) No 597/2009)

(2019/C 187/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd, formerly Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. (represented by: J. Bourgeois and A. Willems, avocats, and by S. De Knop and M. Meulenbelt, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, avocată), European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, J.-F. Brakeland and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal;

4. Orders the Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal;

5. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 March 2019 — BMB sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Ferrero SpA

(Case C-693/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community design - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 25(1)(e) - Invalidity proceedings - Design representing comfit boxes for sweets - Declaration of invalidity)

(2019/C 148/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BMB sp. z o.o. (represented by: K. Czubkowski, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents), Ferrero SpA (represented by: M. Kefferpütz, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders BMB sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 April 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v H. (C-582/17), R. (C-583/17)

(Joined Cases C-582/17 and C-583/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Article 18(1)(b) to (d) - Article 23(1) - Article 24(1) - Take back procedure - Criteria for determining responsibility - New application lodged in another Member State - Article 20(5) - Ongoing determination process - Withdrawal of the application - Article 27 - Remedies)

(2019/C 206/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Defendants: H. (C-582/17), R. (C-583/17)

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national who lodged an application for international protection in a first Member State, then left that Member State and subsequently lodged a new application for international protection in a second Member State:

— is not, in principle, entitled to rely, in an action brought under Article 27(1) of the Regulation in that second Member State against a decision to transfer him or her, on the criterion for determining responsibility set out in Article 9 thereof;

— may, by way of exception, invoke, in such an action, that criterion for determining responsibility, in a situation covered by Article 20(5) of the Regulation, in so far as that third-country national has provided the competent authority of the requesting Member State with information clearly establishing that it should be regarded as the Member State responsible for examining the application pursuant to that criterion for determining responsibility.

(1) OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.
1.

The second sentence of Article 29(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that an applicant ‘absconds’, within the meaning of that provision, where he deliberately evades the reach of the national authorities responsible for carrying out his transfer, in order to prevent the transfer. It may be assumed that that is the case where the transfer cannot be carried out due to the fact that the applicant has left the accommodation allocated to him without informing the competent national authorities of his absence, provided that he has been informed of his obligations in that regard, which it is for the referring court to determine. The applicant retains the possibility of demonstrating that the fact that he has not informed the authorities of his absence is due to valid reasons and not the intention to evade the reach of those authorities. Article 27(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings brought against a transfer decision, the person concerned may rely on Article 29(2) of that regulation, by claiming that, since he had not absconded, the six-month transfer time limit had expired.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Christa Plessers v PREFACO NV, Belgische Staat

(Case C-509/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Articles 3 to 5 - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Exceptions - Insolvency proceedings - Proceedings for judicial restructuring by transfer under judicial supervision - Total or partial safeguard of the undertaking - National legislation authorising the transferee, after the transfer, to choose which employees to keep on)

(2019/C 255/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christa Plessers

Defendants: PREFACO NV, Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, in particular Articles 3 to 5 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the event of the transfer of an undertaking which has taken place in the context of proceedings for judicial restructuring by transfer under judicial supervision applied with a view to maintaining all or part of the transferor or its activity, entitles the transferee to choose the employees which it wishes to keep on

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — SF v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

(Case C-631/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 11(3)(e) - National of a Member State employed as a seaman on board a vessel flying the flag of a third State - Employer established in a Member State other than the worker’s State of residence - Determination of the applicable legislation)

(2019/C 230/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SF

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(3)(e) 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 (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted to the effect that a situation such as the one at issue in the main proceedings in which a person, whilst working as a seaman for an employer established in a Member State on board a vessel flying the flag of a third State and travelling outside of the territory of the European Union, maintained his residence in his Member State of origin, falls within the scope of that provision, such that the applicable national legislation is that of the Member State of residence of that person.

(1) OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
1.

Article 4(3) TEU and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, and Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe must be interpreted as meaning that it is for a national court, hearing an application submitted for that purpose by individuals directly affected by the exceedance of the limit values referred to in Article 13(1) of that directive, to verify whether the sampling points located in a particular zone have been established in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 1(a) of Section B of Annex III to the directive and, if they were not, to take all necessary measures in respect of the competent national authority, such as, if provided for by national law, an order, with a view to ensuring that those sampling points are sited in accordance with those criteria.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v Orange Polska S.A.

(Case C-628/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices - Concept of an aggressive commercial practice - Consumer required to take a final transactional decision in the presence of the courier handing over the general terms and conditions of the contract)

(2019/C 263/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

Defendant: Orange Polska S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(j) and Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the application by a trader of a model for concluding or amending contracts for the supply of telecommunications services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the consumer must take the final transactional decision in the presence of a courier who delivers the standard-form contract, without being able freely to take cognisance of the content of that contract while the courier is present:

— does not constitute an aggressive commercial practice in all circumstances;

— does not constitute an aggressive commercial practice through the exertion of undue influence solely on the ground that not all the standard-form contracts were sent to the consumer individually beforehand, for example by email or to his home address, where that consumer had the opportunity, prior to the courier’s visit, to take cognisance of their content; and

— constitutes an aggressive commercial practice through the exertion of undue influence where the trader or its courier adopt unfair conduct, the effect of which is to put pressure on the consumer such that his freedom of choice is significantly impaired, such as conduct that makes that consumer feel uncomfortable or confuses his thinking concerning the transactional decision to be taken.

(1) OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
3.

In striking the balance which is incumbent on a national court between the exclusive rights of the author referred to in Article 2(a) and in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 on the one hand, and, on the other, the rights of the users of protected subject matter referred to in Article 5(3)(c), second case, and (d) of that directive, the latter of which derogate from the former, a national court must, having regard to all the circumstances of the case before it, rely on an interpretation of those provisions which, whilst consistent with their wording and safeguarding their effectiveness, fully adheres to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Tronex BV

(Case C-624/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Shipments - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Article 2(1) - Directive 2008/98/EC - Article 3(1) - Concepts of ‘shipment of waste’ and ‘waste’ - Consignment of goods initially intended for retail sale, returned by consumers or become redundant in the seller’s product range)

(2019/C 305/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag

Party in the main proceedings

Tronex BV

Operative part of the judgment

The shipment to a third country of a consignment of electrical and electronic appliances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which had been initially intended for retail sale but which were returned by the consumer or which, for various reasons, were sent back by the retailer to its supplier, is to be regarded as a ‘shipment of waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, read in conjunction with Article 2(1) thereof, and Article 3(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, where that consignment contains appliances the good working condition of which has not been previously ascertained or which are not adequately protected from transport damage. Such goods which have become redundant in the seller’s product range and which are in their unopened original packaging, on the other hand, must not, without indications to the contrary, be regarded as waste.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Foix — France) — Criminal proceedings against Mathieu Blaise and Others

(Case C-616/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Validity - Precautionary principle - Definition of the concept of ‘active substance’ - Combination of active substances - Reliability of the assessment procedure - Public access to the dossier - Tests of long-term toxicity - Pesticides - Glyphosate)

(2019/C 413/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal correctionnel de Foix

Parties in the main proceedings

Mathieu Blaise, Sabrina Dauzet, Alain Feliu, Marie Foray, Sylvestre Ganter, Dominique Masset, Ambroise Monsarrat, Sandrine Muscat, Jean-Charles Sutra, Blanche Yon, Kevin Leo-Pol Fred Perrin, Germain Yves Dedieu, Olivier Godard, Kevin Pao Donovan Schachner, Laura Dominique Chantal Escande, Nicolas Benoit Rey, Eric Malek Benromdan, Olivier Eric Labrunie, Simon Joseph Jeremie Boucard, Alexis Ganter, Pierre André Garcia

intervener: Espace Émeraude

Operative part of the judgment

An examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
2.

The concept of ‘ability to determine the general policy or programme’ of a non-profit institution (NPI), within the meaning of the first sentence of Paragraph 20.15 of Annex A to Regulation No 549/2013, must be understood as the ability of a public administration to exercise a real and substantial influence, on a lasting and permanent basis, on the very definition and achievement of the NPI’s objectives, activities and operational aspects, as well as the strategic orientations and guidelines that the NPI intends to pursue in the exercise of those activities. In cases such as those at issue in the main proceedings, it is for the national court, in the light of the indicators of control referred to in paragraphs 2.39(a) to (e) and 20.15(a) to (e) of Annex A to Regulation No 549/2013 and the corresponding indicators of control applicable to NPIs, referred to in paragraph 20 309 of Annex A to that regulation, to verify whether a public administration, such as the National Olympic Committee at issue in the main proceedings, exercises public control over national sports federations constituted in the form of NPIs, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, by carrying out, for that purpose, an overall assessment involving, by its nature, some judgment, in accordance with the last sentence of paragraph 2.39, the fifth to eighth sentences of paragraph 20.15 and paragraph 20 310 of Annex A to that regulation.
1.

Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that a product is protected by a basic patent in force, within the meaning of that provision, if it corresponds to a general functional definition used by one of the claims of the basic patent and necessarily comes within the scope of the invention covered by that patent, but is not otherwise indicated in individualised form as a specific embodiment of the method of that patent, provided that it is specifically identifiable, in the light of all the information disclosed by that patent, by a person skilled in the art, based on that person’s general knowledge in the relevant field at the filing date or priority date of the basic patent and on the prior art at that date.