ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Zoran Maksimovic (C-64/18), Humbert Jörg Köfler (C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Leitner (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Joachim Schönbeck (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Semper (C-140/18 and C-148/18) v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

(Joined Cases C-64/18, C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Retention and translation of records of wages - Work permit - Penalties - Proportionality - Fines of a minimum predefined amount - Cumulative - No upper limit - Court costs - Custodial sentence in lieu of a fine)

(2019/C 383/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Zoran Maksimovic (C-64/18), Humbert Jörg Köfler (C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Leitner (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Joachim Schönbeck (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Semper (C-140/18 and C-148/18)

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

Intervener: Finanzpolizei

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides, in respect of non-compliance with labour law obligations in relation to obtaining administrative permits and keeping records on wages, for fines to be imposed:

— which may not be lower than a predefined minimum amount;

— which apply cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned and without an upper limit;

— to which is added a contribution to court costs of 20 % of the amount of the fines if the appeal against the decision imposing those fines is dismissed, and

— which are replaced by custodial sentences in the event of non-payment.

(1) OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2012/39/EU of 26 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/17/EC as regards certain technical requirements for the testing of human tissues and cells (OJ 2012 L 327, p. 24), and by failing to notify to the European Commission the provisions adopted to transpose Directive 2012/39, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v KPC Herning

(Case C-71/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Sale of land on which a building is located at the time of supply - Classification - Articles 12 and 135 - Concept of ‘building land’ - Concept of ‘building’ - Assessment of the economic and commercial reality - Evaluation of objective evidence - Intention of the parties)

(2019/C 383/17)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: KPC Herning

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(1)(a) and (b), (2) and (3) and Article 135(1)(j) and (k) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of land supporting a building at the date of that supply cannot be classified as a supply of ‘building land’ where that transaction is economically independent of other services and does not form a single transaction with them, even if the parties’ intention was that the building should be wholly or partly demolished to make room for a new building.

(1) OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-46/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Milk and milk products sector - Quotas - Additional levy - Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 - Article 2 - Collection of the levy by the purchaser - Deliveries exceeding the reference quantity available to producers - Amount from the price of the milk - Compulsory application of a deduction - Reimbursement of the amount of excess levy - Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 - Article 9 - Buyer - Failure to comply with obligation to collect additional levy - Producers - Failure to comply with the monthly payment obligation - Protection of legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 383/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl, S.s. Franco and Maurizio Artuso, Claudio Matteazzi, Roberto Tellatin, Sebastiano Bolzon

Defendants: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999, of 17 May 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that a finding that the national legislation governing the arrangements for the buyer to collect the additional levy from producers is incompatible with that provision does not mean that producers subject to that legislation are no longer liable to pay that levy.

2. Article 2(4) of Regulation No 3950/92, as amended by Regulation No 1256/1999, read in conjunction with Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the reimbursement of the overpayment of the additional levy must benefit, as a priority, producers who, pursuant to a provision of national law incompatible with Article 2(2) of Regulation No 3950/92, as amended by Regulation No 1256/1999, have fulfilled their monthly payment obligation.

3. The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, recalculation of the amount of the additional levy due by producers who have not fulfilled the obligation, provided for by the applicable national legislation, to pay that levy on a monthly basis.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud — Czech Republic) — Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Limited

(Case C-208/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 17(1) - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Notion of ‘consumer’ - Natural person carrying out transactions on the international exchange market through the intermediary of a brokerage company - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I) - Directive 2004/39/EC - Notion of ‘retail client’)

(2019/C 413/11)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jana Petruchová

Defendant: FIBO Group Holdings Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1) 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 a natural person who, under a contract such as a CfD concluded with a brokerage company, carries out transactions on the international FOREX (foreign exchange) market through that company, must be classified as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision if the conclusion of that contract does not fall within the scope of that person’s professional activity, which it is for the national court to ascertain. For the purpose of that classification, on the one hand, factors such as the value of transactions carried out under contracts such as financial contracts for differences, the extent of the risks of financial loss associated with the conclusion of such contracts, any knowledge or expertise that person has in the field of financial instruments or his or her active conduct in the context of such transactions are, as such, in principle irrelevant, and, on the other, the fact that the financial instruments do not fall within the scope of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) or that that person is a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(12) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC is, as such, in principle irrelevant.

(1) OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.
2.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Safeway Ltd v Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd

(Case C-171/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) - Male and female workers - Equal pay - Private occupational retirement pension scheme - Normal pension age differentiated by gender - Date of adoption of measures reinstating equal treatment - Retroactive equalisation of that age to the normal pension age of the persons previously disadvantaged)

(2019/C 423/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Safeway Ltd

Defendants: Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) must be interpreted as precluding, in the absence of an objective justification, a pension scheme from adopting, in order to end discrimination contrary to that provision resulting from the fixing of a normal pension age differentiated by gender, a measure which equalises, with retroactive effect, the normal pension age of members of that scheme to that of the persons within the previously disadvantaged category, in respect of the period between the announcement of that measure and its adoption, even where such a measure is authorised under national law and under the Trust Deed governing that pension scheme.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
2.

An institutional unit, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whose degree of independence from general government is limited by national legislation, under which the institutional unit does not have complete control over the management of its assets and liabilities, in so far as that government exercises control over its assets and assumes part of the risk arising from its liabilities, may be regarded as a ‘captive financial institution’ within the meaning of paragraphs 2.21 to 2.23 of Annex A to Regulation No 549/2013, provided that the control measures laid down by that national legislation may be interpreted by the national courts to the effect that the institutional unit concerned may not act independently from that government given that the latter imposes the conditions under which the institutional unit is required to act, without that unit having any margin to substantially modify those conditions on its own initiative.
1.

Article 6 of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from carrying out the procedures for public participation in decision-making that relate to a project at the level of the headquarters of the competent regional administrative authority, and not at the level of the municipal unit within which the site of the project falls, where the specific arrangements implemented do not ensure that the rights of the public concerned are actually complied with, a matter which is for the national court to establish.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

(Case C-515/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Public passenger transport services - Rail transport - Public service contracts - Direct award - Obligation to publish a prior information notice in relation to the direct award - Scope)

(2019/C 432/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sardegna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Defendant: Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

Intervener: Trenitalia SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that competent national authorities which intend directly to award a public service contract for the transport of passengers by rail are not required, first, to publish or communicate to any interested economic operators all the information necessary in order to enable them to submit a sufficiently detailed offer which may be subject to a comparative assessment and, second, to carry out such a comparative assessment of all bids that may have been received following publication of that information.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Infohos v Belgische Staat

(Case C-400/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 13A(1)(f) - Exemptions - Supply of services by independent groups of persons - Services supplied to members and non-members)

(2020/C 27/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Infohos

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of the of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes ‒ Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes exemption from value added tax (VAT) subject to the condition that independent groups of persons supply services exclusively to their members, which has the effect that groups which also supply services to non-members are fully subject to VAT, including for services which they supply to their members.

(1) OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
1.

Articles 1(1), 3(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of securing the payment of the debt arising under a consumer credit agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, makes it possible to stipulate in that contract an obligation on the borrower to issue a blank promissory note, and which makes the lawfulness of the issuance of such a note subject to the prior conclusion of a promissory note agreement determining the detailed rules in accordance with which that note may be completed, provided that that stipulation and that agreement comply with Articles 3 and 5 of that directive and Article 10 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, a matter which is for the referring court to verify.
1.

Article 43(1) 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 not precluding a procedure granting leave for further consideration of an appeal in which, first, a court of appeal rules on the grant of that leave on the basis of the judgment delivered at first instance, the appeal brought before it, any observations of the respondent and, if necessary, other information in the file and, second, leave for further consideration must be granted, in particular, if there are doubts as to the correctness of the judgment in question, if it is not possible to assess the correctness of that judgment without granting leave for further consideration or if there is another significant reason to grant leave for further consideration of the appeal;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo v Banca d’Italia

(Case C-414/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/59/EU - Banking Union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Annual contributions - Calculation - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 - Uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Administrative procedure involving national authorities and an EU body - Exclusive decision-making power of the Single Resolution Board - Procedure before the national courts - Failure to bring an action for annulment before the EU Courts in due time - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 - Exclusion of certain liabilities from the calculation of contributions - Interconnectedness of a number of banks)

(2020/C 36/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo

Defendant: Banca d’Italia

Operative part of the judgment

Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Article 5(1)(a) and (f) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements must be interpreted as meaning that liabilities that arise from transactions between a second-tier bank and the members of a grouping that comprises it and the cooperative banks to which it supplies various services, but where it does not control those banks, and that do not match loans granted on a non-competitive, not for profit basis, in order to promote the public policy objectives of central or regional governments in a Member State, are not excluded from the calculation of the contributions to a national resolution fund that are the subject of Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU.

(1) OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Cargill Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

(Case C-360/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013 - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar sector - Production levy - Effectiveness - Right to reimbursement of sums unduly paid - Applicability of national rules on limitation periods - Principle of effectiveness)

(2020/C 61/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cargill Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013 of 2 December 2013 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 marketing years, the coefficient required for calculating the additional levy for the 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 marketing years and the amount to be paid by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum levy and the levy to be charged for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 marketing years must be interpreted as:

— meaning that the sums unduly paid by economic operators by way of those production levies must be reimbursed under national law, in particular within the limitation periods provided for by that law, in compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness; and as

— precluding national rules which, as interpreted by the competent courts, provide that the applicable limitation period during which reimbursement of unduly paid sugar production levies may be requested expired before that regulation entered into force, making it practically impossible to exercise the right, conferred on those economic operators by the EU legal order, to obtain reimbursement of those levies for the marketing years covered by that regulation.

(1) OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.
1.

Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), which refers to Article 1(1)(b) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, must be interpreted as meaning that an intermediation service which, by means of an electronic platform, is intended to connect, for remuneration, potential guests with professional or non-professional hosts offering short-term accommodation, while also providing a certain number of services ancillary to that intermediation service, must be classified as an ‘information society service’ under Directive 2000/31;