ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — European Commission v Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa a.s., Slovak Republic, Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s.

(Joined Cases C-262/18 P and C-271/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Social security system - Health insurance bodies - Concepts of ‘undertaking’ and ‘economic activity’ - Social objective - Principle of solidarity - State supervision - Overall assessment - Possibility of seeking profits - Residual competition on quality and on health insurance services offered)

(2020/C 271/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-262/18)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa a.s. (represented by: F. Roscam Abbing, A. Pliego Selie and O.W. Brouwer, advocaten), Slovak Republic (represented by: M. Kianička, D. Kaiserová and B. Ricziová, acting as Agents), Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s. (represented by A.M. ter Haar, A. Kleinhout and J.K. de Pree, advocaten)

(Case C-271/18)

Appellant: Slovak Republic (represented by: M. Kianička, D. Kaiserová and B. Ricziová, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa a.s. (represented by: F. Roscam Abbing, A. Pliego Selie and O.W. Brouwer, advocaten), European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s. (represented by: A.M. ter Haar, A. Kleinhout and J.K. de Pree, advocaten)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 February 2018, Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa v Commission (T-216/15, not published, EU:T:2018:64);

2. Dismisses the action brought by Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa a.s. in Case T-216/15;

3. Orders Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa a.s., to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present appeals and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union; to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union; and to pay the costs incurred by the Slovak Republic in the context of the present appeals;

4. Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union;

5. Orders Union zdravotná poisťovňa a.s. to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union;

6. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs incurred in the context of the present appeals.

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris — France) — Trendsetteuse SARL v DCA SARL

(Case C-828/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Concept of ‘commercial agent’ - Negotiation of the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of the principal - Intermediary lacking the power to change the conditions of sale and the prices of the goods that intermediary sells)

(2020/C 262/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trendsetteuse SARL

Defendant: DCA SARL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that a person does not need to have the power to change the prices of the goods which he or she sells on behalf of the principal in order to be classified as a commercial agent within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
1.

Declares that, by failing to safeguard the right to an effective remedy against the rules of the national regulatory authority setting the charges for network access, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 37(17) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, and Article 41(17) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC;
2.

Article 2(b), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of the national rule according to which the legal action for reimbursement of amounts unduly paid on the basis of an unfair term in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier is subject to a three-year limitation period which runs from the date of full performance of the contract, where it is assumed, without need for verification, that, on that date the consumer should have known about the unfair nature of the term in question or where for similar actions, based on certain provisions of national law, that same period starts to run only from the time when a court finds there to be a cause of those actions;
2.

Declares that, by adopting the measure provided for in Article 76(1)(b) of Nemzeti felsőoktatásról szóló 2011. évi CCIV. törvény (Law No CCIV of 2011 on national higher education), as amended by Nemzeti felsőoktatásról szóló 2011. évi CCIV. törvény módosításáról szóló 2017. évi XXV. törvény (Law No XXV of 2017 amending Law No CCIV of 2011 on national higher education), which makes the exercise, in Hungary, of the activities of foreign higher education institutions subject to the condition that they offer higher education in the State in which they have their seat, Hungary has failed, in so far as that provision applies to higher education institutions which have their seat in a third country member of the World Trade Organisation, to fulfil its obligations under Article XVII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, in Annex 1B to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, signed in Marrakesh and approved by Decision 94/800, and, in so far as the provision applies to higher education institutions having their seat in another Member State, to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU and Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 September 2020 — Republic of Austria v European Commission and Others

(Case C-594/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Articles 11 and 194 TFEU - Article 1, Article 2(c) and Article 106a(3) of the Euratom Treaty - Planned aid for Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (United Kingdom) - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Objective of common interest - Environmental objectives of the European Union - Principle of protection of the environment, ‘polluter pays’ principle, precautionary principle and principle of sustainability - Determination of the economic activity concerned - Market failure - Proportionality of the aid - Operating or investment aid - Determination of the aid elements - Guarantee Notice)

(2020/C 390/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Austria (represented initially by G. Hesse, and subsequently by F. Koppensteiner and M. Klamert, acting as Agents, and by H. Kristoferitsch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by É. Gippini Fournier, T. Maxian Rusche, P. Němečková and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents), Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, T. Müller and I. Gavrilová, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented initially by D. Colas and P. Dodeller, and subsequently by P. Dodeller and T. Stehelin, acting as Agents), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented initially by D. Holderer, and subsequently by T. Uri, acting as Agents, and by P. Kinsch, avocat), Hungary (represented by M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agent, and P. Nagy, ügyvéd), Republic of Poland (represented by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Slovak Republic (represented by B. Ricziová, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by Z. Lavery and S. Brandon, acting as Agents, A. Robertson QC and T. Johnston, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
4.

Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that a defeat device, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which systematically improves the performance of the vehicle emission control system during type-approval procedures in order to comply with the emission limits laid down by that regulation, and thus obtain the approval of those vehicles, cannot fall within the scope of the exception to the prohibition on such devices laid down in that provision, which relates to the protection of the engine against damage or accident and the safe operation of the vehicle, even if such a device helps to prevent the ageing or clogging up of the engine
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd v Pirelli Tyre SpA (C-818/18 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Pirelli Tyre SpA (C-6/19 P)

(Joined Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity of registration - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) - Sign consisting of a shape which does not represent a significant part of the goods)

(2021/C 289/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-818/18 P)

Appellant: The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (represented by: D. Martucci and F. Boscariol de Roberto, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pirelli Tyre SpA (represented by: T.M. Müller and F. Togo, Rechtsanwälte), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Association of Trade Mark Owners (Marques) (represented by: M. Viefhues, Rechtsanwalt)

(Case C-6/19 P)

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pirelli Tyre SpA (represented by: T.M. Müller and F. Togo, Rechtsanwälte), The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (represented by: D. Martucci and F. Boscariol de Roberto, avvocati)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Association of Trade Mark Owners (Marques) (represented by: M. Viefhues, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P;

2. Orders The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings in Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P and to pay, in equal parts, the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in relation to those proceedings;

3. Orders the European Association of Trade Mark Owners (Marques) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
1.

Declares that: — by systematically and persistently exceeding the daily limit value for concentrations of particulate matter PM10, first, from 1 January 2005 up to and including 2017, in the zone HU0001 — Budapest region and in the zone HU0008 — Sajó valley and, secondly, from 11 June 2011 up to and including 2017 (with the exception of 2014), in the zone HU0006 — Pécs, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligation under the provisions of Article 13 of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, 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, and — by failing to adopt as from 11 June 2010 appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the daily limit value for concentrations of particulate matter PM10 in those zones, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, on its own and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, to ensure that the period of exceedance of the limit values is kept as short as possible;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Pfizer Consumer Healthcare Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-182/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 3005 and heading 3824 - Self-heating patches and belts to relieve pain - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1140 - Invalidity)

(2020/C 215/22)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfizer Consumer Healthcare Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1140 of 8 July 2016 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature is invalid.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Viasat UK Ltd and Viasat Inc. v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

(Case C-100/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Telecommunications sector - Harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 2 GHz frequency bands for the implementation of systems providing mobile satellite services - Decision No 626/2008/EC - Article 4(1)(c), Article 7(1), and Article 8(1) - Complementary ground components - Authorisations issued by Member States - Requirement for operators to provide service coverage for a certain percentage of the population and the territory - Non-compliance - Effect)

(2020/C 137/31)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Viasat UK Ltd and Viasat Inc.

Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

Other parties to the proceedings: Inmarsat Ventures Ltd c.o. and Eutelsat SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS), read in conjunction with Article 7(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is established that an operator selected in accordance with Title II of that decision and authorised to use the radio spectrum pursuant to Article 7 thereof has failed to provide mobile satellite services by means of a mobile satellite system by the deadline set in Article 4(1)(c)(ii) of Decision No 626/2008, the competent authorities of the Member States are not entitled to refuse to grant the authorisations necessary for the provision of complementary ground components of mobile satellite systems to that operator on the ground that that operator has failed to honour the commitment given in its application.

(1) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — PARKING d.o.o. v SAWAL d.o.o. (C-267/19), Interplastics s. r. o. v Letifico d.o.o. (C-323/19)

(Joined Cases C-267/19 and C-323/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Notaries acting in enforcement proceedings based on an authentic document - Non adversarial proceedings - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 18 TFEU - Right to a fair trial - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2020/C 240/33)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Trgovački sud u Zagrebu

Parties in the main proceedings

Applicants: PARKING d.o.o. (C-267/19), Interplastics s. r. o. (C-323/19)

Defendants: SAWAL d.o.o. . (C-267/19), Letifico d.o.o. (C-323/19)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation authorising notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, to issue writs of execution which, as is clear from the judgment of 9 March 2017, Pula Parking (C-551/15, EU:C:2017:193), cannot be recognised and enforced in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — kunsthaus muerz gmbh v Zürich Versicherungs AG

(Case C-20/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Direct life assurance - Directive 2002/83/EC - Articles 35 and 36 - Right of cancellation and cancellation period - Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation - Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation - Lapse of the right of cancellation - Relevance of the policy holder’s status as ‘consumer’)

(2020/C 230/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: kunsthaus muerz gmbh

Defendant: Zürich Versicherungs AG

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 35 and 36 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance must be interpreted as meaning that they are also applicable to a policy holder who does not have the status of consumer and that that they do not preclude national legislation under which the period for exercising the right to cancel the effects of a life assurance contract starts to run from the date on which that contract was concluded, even though the information concerning the detailed rules for exercising that right of cancellation provided by the insurance company to that policy holder indicates formal requirements which are in fact not required by the national law applicable to that contract, provided that such information does not deprive that policy holder of the option of exercising that right, in essence under the same conditions as those which would have prevailed if the information had been correct. It is for the referring court to assess, on the basis of an overall assessment taking into account, inter alia, the national legislative context and the facts in the main proceedings, including that the policy holder may be a consumer, whether the error contained in the information provided to the policy holder deprived him of that option.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Remondis GmbH v Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel

(Case C-429/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 12(4) - Scope - Public contracts between entities within the public sector - Definition of ‘cooperation’ - None)

(2020/C 262/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Remondis GmbH

Defendant: Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(4)(a) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as meaning that cooperation between contracting authorities cannot be said to exist where a contracting authority which is responsible for a task in the public interest within its territory does not itself perform the entirety of that task — which is incumbent on it alone under national law and for the performance of which a number of operations are required — but rather commissions another contracting authority that is independent of it and is likewise responsible for that public interest task within its own territory to carry out one of the operations required in return for consideration.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
3.

Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of sincere cooperation arising under Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, when an application for asylum has been the subject of a rejection decision that was confirmed by a judicial decision that became final before the incompatibility of that rejection decision with EU law was found, the determining authority, within the meaning of Article 2(f) of Directive 2013/32, is not required to re-examine that application of its own motion. Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a judgment of the Court finding that national legislation which allows an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member State concerned via a State in which he or she is not exposed to persecution or to a risk of serious harm or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed is incompatible with EU law constitutes a new element relating to the examination of an application for international protection, within the meaning of that provision. Furthermore, that provision is not applicable to a subsequent application, within the meaning of Article 2(q) of that directive, where the determining authority finds that the definitive rejection of the earlier application is contrary to EU law. Such a finding must necessarily be made by that authority when that incompatibility arises from a judgment of the Court or was established, as an ancillary finding, by a national court;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 June 2020 — European Commission v CX

(Case C-131/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Disciplinary proceedings - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 4 - Opportunity for the official who cannot be heard to comment in writing or to be represented - Article 22 - Hearing of the official by the Appointing Authority prior to the adoption of the disciplinary penalty - Alleged inability of the official to be heard and to make written submissions or to be represented - Assessment of medical evidence - Failure of the General Court of the European Union to reply to arguments raised at first instance)

(2020/C 279/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, T. S. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, CX v Commission (T-743/16 RENV, not published, EU:T:2018:937);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.