ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — criminal procedure against HV

(Case C-266/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common transport policy - Directive 2006/126/EC - Article 11(2) and (4) - Suspension of the right to drive a motor vehicle - Driving licence issued by the Member State of normal residence in exchange for a driving licence issued by another Member State - Refusal by the first Member State to enforce a decision suspending the right to drive adopted by the second Member State - Obligation for the second Member State not to recognise, in its territory, the validity of the driving licence that has been suspended)

(2022/C 451/04)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

HV

Intervening party: Sofiyska gradska prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

The combined provisions of Article 11(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences,

must be interpreted as authorising the Member State of normal residence of the holder of a driving licence issued by that Member State not to recognise and enforce in its territory a decision suspending that holder’s right to drive a motor vehicle adopted by another Member State on account of a road traffic offence committed in that Member State’s territory, including where that driving licence was issued in exchange for a driving licence previously issued by the Member State in which the road traffic offence was committed.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.
1.

Article 12(4) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that Member States may exclude from the scope of that directive a contractual practice relating to the payment of interest for late payment and compensation for recovery costs, if that practice falls under a contract concluded before 16 March 2013, pursuant to the applicable national law. Individual orders on the basis of which interest for late payment and such compensation are claimed, which were placed on or after that date, may be excluded from the scope of Directive 2011/7 provided that they constitute only the performance of a contract concluded prior to 16 March 2013, pursuant to the applicable national law. By contrast, if, pursuant to that law, those individual orders constitute independent contracts concluded on or after that date, they may not be excluded from the scope of that directive.
1.

Articles 61 and 63 of Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 and repealing Directive 2007/46/EC, read in conjunction with Article 86(1)(4) and Article 86(2) of, and point 1 of Annex XI to, that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that they apply to vehicle models which were approved under Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Porr Bau GmbH v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Graz-Umgebung

(Case C-238/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 2008/98/EC - Point 1 of Article 3 - Article 5(1) - Article 6(1) - Excavated materials - Concepts of ‘waste’ and of ‘by-product’ - Cessation of waste status)

(2023/C 15/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Porr Bau GmbH

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Graz-Umgebung

Operative part of the judgment

Point 1 of Article 3 and Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives,

must be interpreted as

precluding national legislation under which uncontaminated excavated materials, which, pursuant to national law, are in the highest quality class,

— must be classified as ‘waste’ where their holder neither intends nor is required to discard them and those materials meet the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive for being classified as ‘by-products’, and

— only lose that waste status when they are used directly as a substitute and their holder has satisfied the formal criteria which are irrelevant for the purposes of environmental protection, if those criteria have the effect of undermining the attainment of the objectives of that directive.

(1) OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 7 de Barcelona — Spain) — AD and Others v PACCAR Inc, DAF TRUCKS NV, DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-163/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU - Collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases for trucks in the European Economic Area (EEA) - Directive 2014/104/EU - Rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union - Article 22(2) - Applicability ratione temporis - First subparagraph of Article 5(1) - Concept of relevant evidence which lies in the control of the defendant or a third party - Article 5(2) - Disclosure of specified items of evidence or relevant categories of evidence on the basis of reasonably available facts - Article 5(3) - Review of the proportionality of the request to disclose evidence - Balancing the legitimate interests of the parties and third parties - Scope of the obligations resulting from those provisions)

(2023/C 7/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 7 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AD and Others

Defendants: PACCAR Inc, DAF TRUCKS NV, DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union

must be interpreted as meaning that the reference therein to the disclosure of relevant evidence in the control of the defendant or a third party also covers those documents which the party to whom the request to disclose evidence is addressed must create ex novo by compiling or classifying information, knowledge or data in its possession, subject to strict compliance with Article 5(2) and (3) of that directive, which requires the national courts seised to restrict the disclosure of evidence to that which is relevant, proportionate and necessary, taking into account the legitimate interests and fundamental rights of that party.

(1) OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — DELID EOOD v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

(Case C-409/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy (CAP) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding - Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 - Investment support - National legislation making the grant of the support conditional upon the person applying for support submitting a certificate of registration of a livestock facility in that person’s name and showing that, on the date of submission of the application, the output of that person’s agricultural holding is equivalent to at least EUR 8 000)

(2023/C 35/12)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: DELID EOOD

Respondent in cassation: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, 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 a piece of national legislation which makes the grant of the support referred to in that provision conditional upon the person applying for support submitting a certificate of registration of a livestock facility in that person’s name.

2. Article 17 of Regulation No 1305/2013, as amended by Regulation 2017/2393, must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation which makes the grant of the support referred to in that provision conditional upon the person applying for support showing that, on the date of submission of the application for support, the output of that person’s agricultural holding is equivalent to at least EUR 8 000.

(1) OJ C 401, 4.10.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — IG v Varhoven administrativen sad

(Case C-289/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial protection - National procedural rule providing that an action seeking to dispute the compatibility of a national provision with EU law is devoid of purpose where the provision is repealed in the course of proceedings)

(2023/C 24/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IG

Defendant: Varhoven administrativen sad

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effectiveness as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding a procedural rule of a Member State according to which, where a provision of domestic law challenged by an action for annulment on the ground that it is contrary to EU law is repealed and therefore ceases to have any effect for the future, the dispute is deemed to have become devoid of purpose with the result that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it, without the parties having first been able to assert any interest they may have in the continuation of the proceedings and without any account having been taken of any such interest.

(1) OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/26

Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht, Germany) — Grete Schlepps v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Oberbayern

(Case C-60/06) (1)

(2008/C 128/47)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/28

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2007 — Miguel Torres SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bodegas Muga SA

(Case C-405/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for the figurative mark ‘Torre Muga’ - Opposition proceedings - Earlier international and national word mark ‘TORRES’ - Likelihood of confusion - Opposition rejected)

(2008/C 51/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Miguel Torres SA (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent), Bodegas Muga SA (represented by: F. Porcuna de la Rosa, abogado)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2006 in Case T-247/03 Torres v OHIM and Bodegas Muga, by which the Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 April 2003 (Case R 998/2001-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres SA and Bodegas Muga SA

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Miguel Torres SA is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/21

Order of the President of the Court of 5 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Colasfalti S.r.l. v Provincia di Milano, ATI Legrenzi Srl, Impresa Costruzioni Edili e Stradali dei F. 11i Paccani Snc

(Case C-214/06) (1)

(2008/C 313/33)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/15

Order of the Court of 20 February 2008 — Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-363/06) (1)

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice - Representation by a lawyer - Compliance with the essential procedural requirements of the Rules of Procedure - Principle of non-discrimination - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2008/C 128/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, M.J. Rodríguez Blasco, abogados, and J.V. Sánchez-Tarazaga Marcelino)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and L. Escobar Guerrero, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Días Abad)

Intervener in support of the other party to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by:I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 5 July January 2006 in Case T-357/05 Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the appellant's application to annul Commission Decision C(2005) 1867 final of 27 June 2005 concerning the reduction of the financial assistance initially granted from the Cohesion Fund to Project Group No 97/11/61/028, concerning the collection and treatment of waste waters on the Mediterranean coast of the Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia (Spain) — Representation by a lawyer — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/38

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 27 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

(Case C-30/07) (1)

(2008/C 51/65)

Language of the case: Hungarian

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/39

Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-223/07) (1)

(2008/C 22/71)

Language of the case: Swedish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/25

Order of the President of the Court of 14 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-267/07) (1)

(2008/C 92/50)

Language of the case: Slovenian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/32

Order of the President of the Court of 12 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-345/07) (1)

(2008/C 64/49)

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.7.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/27

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 20 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-62/07) (1)

(2008/C 128/51)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/28

Order of the President of the Court of 6 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-412/07) (1)

(2008/C 128/59)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/38

Order of the President of the Court of 23 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — SAVA e C. Srl, SIEME Srl, GRADED SpA v Mostra d'Oltremare SpA, Cofathec Servizi SpA and Others

(Case C-194/07) (1)

(2008/C 209/61)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/30

Order of the President of the Court of 27 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-235/07) (1)

(2008/C 171/51)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/23

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Deniz Sahin v Bundesminister für Inneres

(Case C-551/07) (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2004/38/EC - Articles 18 EC and 39 EC - Right to respect for family life - Right of residence of a national of a non-member country who entered the territory of a Member State as an asylum seeker and subsequently married a national of another Member State)

(2009/C 44/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deniz Sahin

Defendant: Bundesminister für Inneres

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Articles 18 EC and 39 EC, as well as Articles 3(1), 6(2), 7(1)(d) and (2), 9(1) and 10(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Right of residence of a national of a non-member country who entered the territory of a Member State as an asylum seeker and subsequently married a national of another Member State

Operative part of the order

1. Articles 3(1), 6(2) and 7(1)(d) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as applying also to family members who arrived in the host Member State independently of the Union citizen and acquired the status of family member or started to lead a family life with that Union citizen only after arriving in that State. In that regard, the fact that, at the time the family member acquires that status or starts to lead a family life, he resides temporarily in the host Member State pursuant to that State's asylum laws has no bearing.

2. Articles 9(1) and 10 of Directive 2004/38 preclude a national provision under which family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State and who, in accordance with Community law, and in particular Article 7(2) of the directive, have a right of residence, cannot be issued with a residence card of a family member of a Union citizen solely because they are entitled temporarily to reside in the host Member State under that State's asylum laws.

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/11

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2008 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Landau/Isar (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Rainer Günther Möginger

(Case C-225/07) (1)

(First paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of driving licence - Temporary ban on obtaining a new right to drive - Validity of a permit obtained in another Member State during the period of the ban)

(2008/C 285/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Landau/Isar (Germany)

Criminal proceedings against

Rainer Günther Möginger

Action

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Landau/Isar — Interpretation of Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Non-recognition by the Member State of residence, on its territory, of a driving licence obtained in another Member State during the period of a temporary ban on applying for a new licence in the Member State of residence

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State where the holder of that licence was, on the date the licence was issued, subject to a temporary ban on obtaining a new right to drive in the first Member State. In this respect, the fact that the question of validity arises after the date that marked the end of the period of the ban is irrelevant.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007