ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-519/17 P and C-522/17 P to C-525/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2018 — L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot SAS (Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for registration of the word marks MASTER PRECISE, MASTER SMOKY, MASTER SHAPE, MASTER DUO and MASTER DRAMA — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Rejection of the applications for registration — Inadequate statement of reasons — To be considered of the Court’s own motion)

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2018 — L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot SAS

(Joined Cases C-519/17 P and C-522/17 P to C-525/17 P) ( 1 )

‛(Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for registration of the word marks MASTER PRECISE, MASTER SMOKY, MASTER SHAPE, MASTER DUO and MASTER DRAMA — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Rejection of the applications for registration — Inadequate statement of reasons — To be considered of the Court’s own motion)’

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, avocat, P. Péters, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and D. Hanf, acting as Agents), Guinot (represented by: A. Sion, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE) (T-181/16, not published, EU:T:2017:447), L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY) (T-179/16, not published, EU:T:2017:445), L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE) (T-180/16, not published, EU:T:2017:451), L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO) (T-182/16, not published, EU:T:2017:448), and L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA) (T-183/16, not published, EU:T:2017:449);

2. Refers Cases T-181/16, T-179/16, T-180/16, T-182/16 and T-183/16 back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Wolfgang Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd

(Case C-532/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(b) - Scope - Definition of ‘operating air carrier’ - Lease of aircraft including crew ‘Wet lease’))

(2018/C 301/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Wolfgang Wirth, Theodor Mülder, Ruth Mülder, Gisela Wirth

Defendant: Thomson Airways Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of an ‘operating air carrier’ within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 and, in particular, of Article 2(b) thereof must be interpreted as not covering the case of an air carrier, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which leases to another air carrier an aircraft, including crew, under a wet lease, but does not bear the operational responsibility for the flights, even where the booking confirmation of a seat on a flight issued to passengers states that that flight is operated by the former air carrier.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Case C-1/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Torino — Italy) — Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA v Livio Guida (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — Article 20(2) — Employer sued before the courts of the Member State in which it is domiciled — Counter-claim by the employer — Determination of the court with jurisdiction)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Torino — Italy) — Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA v Livio Guida

(Case C-1/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — Article 20(2) — Employer sued before the courts of the Member State in which it is domiciled — Counter-claim by the employer — Determination of the court with jurisdiction)’

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA

Defendant: Livio Guida

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(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, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it gives an employer the right to bring, before the court properly seised of the original proceedings brought by an employee, a counter-claim based on a claim-assignment agreement concluded, after the introduction of the original proceedings, between the employer and the original holder of that claim.

( 1 ) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-84/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-85/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-95/17 P)

(Joined Cases C-84/17 P, C-85/17 P and C-95/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a four-fingered chocolate bar - Appeal directed against the grounds - Inadmissibility - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) - Evidence of distinctive character acquired through use))

(2018/C 328/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat, and S. Malynicz QC) (C-84/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC and J. Lane Heald, Barrister, instructed by P. Walsh, J. Blum and C. MacLeod, Solicitors) (C-85/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent) (C-95/17 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC and J. Lane Heald, Barrister, instructed by P. Walsh and J. Blum, Solicitors), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent) (C-84/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Société des produits Nestlé SA, (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat, and S. Malynicz QC) (C-85/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC and J. Lane Heald, Barrister, instructed by P. Walsh and J. Blum, Solicitors), Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat, and S. Malynicz QC) (C-95/17 P)

Interveners in support of the appelant in Case C-84/17 P: European Association of Trade Mark Owners (MARQUES) (represented by: M. Viefhues, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Société des produits Nestlé SA, European Association of Trade Mark Owners (MARQUES), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017, p. 4.

OJ C 161, 22.5.2017, p. 9.
5.

In order to assess the consequences of a violation, as defined in Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, all the evidence to establish that damage has been caused or that there is a threat of damage to the resources and related interests of the coastal State and to evaluate the extent of the damage caused or threatened to those resources or related interests, taking account inter alia of — the cumulative nature of the damage on several or all of those resources and related interests and the difference in sensitivity of the coastal State with regard to damage to its various resources and related interests; — the foreseeable harmful consequences of discharge on those resources and related interests, not only on the basis of the available scientific data, but also with regard to the nature of the harmful substance(s) contained in the discharge concerned and the volume, direction, speed and the period of time over which the oil spill spreads
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV v Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH

(Case C-485/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 2(9) - Concept of ‘business premises’ - Criteria - Sales contract concluded on a stand run by a trader at a trade fair))

(2018/C 352/18)

Language of the case: Germany

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV

Defendant: Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(9) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that a stand, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, run by a trader at a trade fair, at which he carries out his activity for a few days each year, constitutes ‘business premises’ within the meaning of that provision if, in the light of all the factual circumstances surrounding that activity, in particular the appearance of the stand and the information relayed on the premises of the fair itself, a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer could reasonably assume that the trader is carrying out his activity there and will solicit him in order to conclude a contract, which is for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.
2.

Orders that, if the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Kingdom of Spain must pay the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 10 950 000 for each six-month period of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion that the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations whose urban waste water treatment and/or collection systems have been rendered compliant with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260) at the end of the period in question bears to the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations not having such systems on the day of delivery of the present judgment;
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich — Poland) — Profi Credit Polska S.A. w Bielsku Białej v Mariusz Wawrzosek

(Case C-176/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 2008/48/EC - Order for payment procedure founded on a promissory note that secures the obligations arising from a consumer credit agreement))

(2018/C 408/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Profi Credit Polska S.A. w Bielsku Białej

Defendant: Mariusz Wawrzosek

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits issue of an order for payment founded on a valid promissory note that secures a claim arising from a consumer credit agreement, where the court dealing with an application for an order for payment does not have the power to examine whether the terms of that agreement are unfair, if the detailed rules for exercising the right to lodge an objection against such an order do not enable observance of the rights which the consumer derives from that directive to be ensured.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Grenville Hampshire v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund

(Case C-17/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Article 8 - Supplementary pension schemes - Protection of entitlement to old-age benefits - Minimum level of protection guaranteed))

(2018/C 399/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Grenville Hampshire

Respondent: The Board of the Pension Protection Fund

Interested party: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that every individual employee must receive old-age benefits corresponding to at least 50 % of the value of his accrued entitlement under a supplementary occupational pension scheme in the event of his employer’s insolvency.

2. In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 has direct effect and may, therefore, be invoked before a national court by an individual employee in order to challenge a decision of a body such as the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.

(1) OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
2.

Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that in the main proceedings, which, although providing, at the stage at which the order for payment is made against the consumer, for an assessment of the unfair nature of the terms in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, first, entrusts the power to grant that order to an administrative officer of a court who is not a magistrate and, second, provides for a period of 15 days within which to lodge a statement of opposition and requires that the latter contain reasons on the substance, where there is no provision for such an assessment by the court of its own motion at the stage of enforcement of that order, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Dirk Harms and Others v Vueling Airlines SA

(Case C-601/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 8(1) - Reimbursement of the price of a ticket in the event of cancellation of a flight - Commission collected by a person acting as an intermediary between the passenger and the air carrier when the ticket was bought - Included))

(2018/C 408/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dirk Harms, Ann-Kathrin Harms, Nick-Julius Harms, Tom-Lukas Harms, Lilly-Karlotta Harms, Emma-Matilda Harms

Defendant: Vueling Airlines SA

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, and in particular Article 8(1)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the price of the ticket to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the reimbursement owed by the air carrier to a passenger in the event of cancellation of a flight includes the difference between the amount paid by that passenger and the amount received by the air carrier, which corresponds to a commission collected by a person acting as an intermediary between those two parties, unless that commission was set without the knowledge of the air carrier, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
3.

Article 10(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for international protection who claims, in support of his application, that he is at risk of persecution for reasons based on religion does not have to, in order to substantiate his claims concerning his religious beliefs, submit statements or produce documents concerning all the aspects of the concept of ‘religion’, referred to in that provision. The onus is, however, on the applicant to substantiate those claims in a credible manner by submitting evidence which permits the competent authority to satisfy itself that those claims are true.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

(Case C-384/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Road transport - Tax provisions - Directive 1999/62/EC - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Toll - Obligation of the Member States to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties - Flat-rate fine - Principle of proportionality - Direct applicability of the directive))

(2018/C 436/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N

Defendant: Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

Operative part of the judgment

The requirement of proportionality in Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011, cannot be regarded as having direct effect.

The national court must, by virtue of its duty to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the implementation of that provision, interpret national law in conformity with that provision or, if such an interpretation is not possible, disapply any national provision in so far as its application would, in the circumstances of the case, lead to a result contrary to EU law.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Benoît Sauvage, Kristel Lejeune v État belge

(Case C-602/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Income received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence - Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Allocation of powers of taxation - Member State of residence’s power to tax - Connecting factors)

(2019/C 4/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Benoît Sauvage, Kristel Lejeune

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a tax scheme of a Member State under a tax convention for the avoidance of double taxation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the exemption of the income of a resident which arises in another Member State and relates to employment in that State subject to the condition that the activity in respect of which the income is paid is actually performed in that State.

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Günter Hartmann Tabakvertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Kempten,

(Case C-425/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Directive 2014/40/EU - Ban on placing tobacco for oral use on the market - Definitions of ‘chewing tobacco’ and ‘tobacco for oral use’ - Paste composed of finely ground tobacco (Thunder Chewing Tobacco) and porous cellulose sachet portions filled with finely ground tobacco (Thunder Frosted Chewing Bags)))

(2018/C 455/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Günter Hartmann Tabakvertrieb GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Stadt Kempten

Intervener: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(6) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that only tobacco products which can be consumed in the proper sense only by chewing constitute tobacco products intended to be chewed within the meaning of those provisions, which it is for the national court to determine on the basis of all the relevant objective characteristics of the products concerned, such as their composition, their consistency, their method of dispensation and, where appropriate, their actual use by consumers.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.