ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden, Republic of Poland

(Case C-560/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), third indent - Exceptions to the right of access - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations - Documents concerning pending infringement proceedings - Detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC - Request for access - Refusal - Disclosure of documents requested in the course of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Disclosure - Inadmissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Continuation)

(2020/C 240/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (represented by: P. Hoffman, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and A. Spina, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, H. Shev, J. Lundberg and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: D. Lutostańska and M. Kamejsza-Kozłowska, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Société Générale S.A. v Agenzia delle Enrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

(Case C-565/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Financial transaction tax - Transactions in derivative financial instruments having as an underlying security a security issued by a company resident in the Member State of taxation - Tax due regardless of the place of conclusion of the transaction - Administrative and declaratory obligations)

(2020/C 240/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Générale S.A.

Defendant: Agenzia delle Enrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which imposes a tax on financial transactions involving derivative financial instruments to be paid by the parties to the transaction, regardless of the place where the transaction took place or of the State of residence of those parties and of any intermediary involved in the execution of that transaction, provided that those instruments have as an underlying security a security issued by a company incorporated in that Member State. The administrative and declaratory obligations accompanying that tax incumbent upon non-resident entities, however, must not go beyond what is necessary to recover that tax.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — ratiopharm GmbH v Novartis Consumer Health GmbH

(Case C-786/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of public health - Internal market - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Advertising - Article 96 - Distribution of free samples of medicinal products to persons qualified to prescribe them - Pharmacists excluded from the distribution of free samples of medicinal products - Inapplicability to distribution of free samples of non-prescription medicinal products - Consequences for the Member States)

(2020/C 271/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ratiopharm GmbH

Defendant: Novartis Consumer Health GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 96(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as precluding pharmaceutical companies from distributing free samples of medicinal products to pharmacists. On the other hand, that provision does not preclude distributing free samples of non-prescription medicinal products to pharmacists.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
1.

Article 5(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 meaning that possession of the permanent residence card referred to in Article 20 of that directive exempts a person who is not a national of a Member State, but who is a family member of a Union citizen and who holds such a card, from the requirement to obtain a visa in order to enter the territory of the Member States;
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — ACTC GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Taiga AB

(Case C-714/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application for registration of EU word mark tigha - Opposition filed by the proprietor of the earlier EU trade mark TAIGA - Partial dismissal of the application for registration - Article 8(1)(b) - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs at issue - Article 42(2) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Proof of use ‘in relation to part … of the goods or services’ - Determination of an independent subcategory of goods)

(2020/C 297/12)

Language of the case: English.

Parties

Appellant: ACTC GmbH (represented by: V. Hoene, S. Gantenbrink and D. Eickemeier, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent), Taiga AB, represented by C. Eckhartt, A. von Mühlendahl, K. Thanbichler-Brandl and C. Fluhme, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ACTC GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — CT v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Caraş-Severin — Serviciul Inspecţie Persoane Fizice, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1

(Case C-716/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Point 4 of the first paragraph of Article 288 - Special scheme for small enterprises - Method of calculating annual turnover which serves as a reference for the application of the special scheme for small enterprises - Concept of ‘ancillary real estate transaction’ - Letting of immovable property by a natural person who exercises several liberal professions)

(2020/C 287/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timişoara

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CT

Defendant: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Caraş-Severin — Serviciul Inspecţie Persoane Fizice, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1

Operative part of the judgment

Point 4 of the first paragraph of Article 288 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, with respect to a taxable person who is a natural person and whose economic activity consists of the exercise of several liberal professions and the letting of immovable property, such a letting does not constitute an ‘ancillary transaction’ under that provision where that transaction is carried out in the context of a usual business activity of the taxable person.

(1) OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stichting Schoonzicht v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-791/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Immovable property acquired as capital goods - Deduction of input tax paid - Adjustment of the initial deduction - Single adjustment of that deduction in full after the goods in question are first used - Adjustment period)

(2020/C 423/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Schoonzicht

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 184 to 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a capital goods adjustment scheme, laid down in national rules in which the adjustment is to be spread over several years, from providing that, in the year the goods in question are first used, where that year is also the first adjustment year, the total amount of the initial deduction for those capital goods is adjusted in a single step, if, when first used, it becomes apparent that that deduction deviates from the deduction which the taxable person was entitled to apply on the basis of the actual use of those goods.

(1) OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
4.

Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation introducing a scheme which makes the exercise of certain activities consisting in the letting, for remuneration, of furnished accommodation subject to prior authorisation, which is based on criteria relating to the fact that the premises in question are let ‘repeatedly for short periods to a transient clientele which does not take up residence there’ and which gives the local authorities the power to specify, within the framework laid down by that legislation, the conditions for granting the authorisations provided for by that scheme in the light of social diversity objectives and according to the characteristics of the local housing markets and the need to avoid exacerbating the housing shortage, making those authorisations subject, if necessary, to an offset requirement in the form of the concurrent conversion of non-residential premises into housing, provided that those granting conditions are in line with the requirements laid down by that provision and that that requirement can be met under conditions that are transparent and accessible.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel d’Aix-en-Provence — France) — Criminal proceedings against BS, CA

(Case C-663/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Common organisation of the markets in the flax and hemp sector - Exceptions - Protection of public health - National legislation limiting the industrialisation and marketing of hemp solely to fibre and seeds - Cannabidiol (CBD))

(2021/C 28/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel d’Aix-en-Provence

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

BS, CA

Intervening parties: Ministère public, Conseil national de l’ordre des pharmaciens

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prohibits the marketing of cannabidiol (CBD) lawfully produced in another Member State when it is extracted from the Cannabis sativa plant in its entirety and not solely from its fibre and seeds, unless that legislation is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective of protecting public health and does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose. Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 must be interpreted as not applying to such legislation.

(1) OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
1.

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of a video-sharing platform or a file-hosting and -sharing platform, on which users can illegally make protected content available to the public, does not make a ‘communication to the public’ of that content, within the meaning of that provision, unless it contributes, beyond merely making that platform available, to giving access to such content to the public in breach of copyright. That is the case, inter alia, where that operator has specific knowledge that protected content is available illegally on its platform and refrains from expeditiously deleting it or blocking access to it, or where that operator, despite the fact that it knows or ought to know, in a general sense, that users of its platform are making protected content available to the public illegally via its platform, refrains from putting in place the appropriate technological measures that can be expected from a reasonably diligent operator in its situation in order to counter credibly and effectively copyright infringements on that platform, or where that operator participates in selecting protected content illegally communicated to the public, provides tools on its platform specifically intended for the illegal sharing of such content or knowingly promotes such sharing, which may be attested by the fact that that operator has adopted a financial model that encourages users of its platform illegally to communicate protected content to the public via that platform.
1.

Where amendments are made to the national legal system which, first, deprive a national court of its jurisdiction to rule in the first and last instance on appeals lodged by candidates for positions as judges at a court such as the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) against decisions of a body such as the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary, Poland) not to put forward their application, but to put forward that of other candidates to the President of the Republic of Poland for appointment to such positions, which, secondly, declare such appeals to be discontinued by operation of law while they are still pending, ruling out the possibility of their being continued or lodged again, and which, thirdly, in so doing, deprive such a national court of the possibility of obtaining an answer to the questions that it has referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling: — Article 267 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as precluding such amendments where it is apparent — a matter which it is for the referring court to assess on the basis of all the relevant factors — that those amendments have had the specific effects of preventing the Court from ruling on questions referred for a preliminary ruling such as those put to it by that court and of precluding any possibility of a national court repeating in the future questions similar to those questions; — the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as precluding such amendments where it is apparent — a matter which it is for the referring court to assess on the basis of all the relevant factors — that those amendments are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of the judges appointed, by the President of the Republic of Poland, on the basis of those decisions of the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), to external factors, in particular, to the direct or indirect influence of the legislature and the executive, and as to their neutrality with respect to the interests before them and, thus, may lead to those judges not being seen to be independent or impartial with the consequence of prejudicing the trust which justice in a democratic society governed by the rule of law must inspire in subjects of the law. Where it is proved that those articles have been infringed, the principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring the referring court to disapply the amendments at issue, whether they are of a legislative or constitutional origin, and, consequently, to continue to assume the jurisdiction previously vested in it to hear disputes referred to it before those amendments were made.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Criminal procedure against A.P.

(Case C-2/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA - Mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions - Scope - Judgment imposing a suspended custodial sentence - Probation measure - Obligation not to commit a new criminal offence - Obligation prescribed by law)

(2020/C 215/19)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Party to the criminal procedure in the main proceedings

A.P.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions, read in conjunction with Article 4(1)(d) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that recognition of a judgment that has imposed a custodial sentence whose execution is suspended subject to the sole condition that a legal obligation not to commit a new criminal offence during a probation period be complied with falls within the scope of that framework decision, provided that that legal obligation results from that judgment or from a probation decision taken on the basis of that judgment, a matter which is for the referring court to establish.

(1) OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Corporis sp. z o.o. v Gefion Insurance A/S

(Case C-25/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/138/EC - Representation of a non-life insurance undertaking - Representative permanently resident in national territory - Service of documents - Receipt of the document initiating proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Non-applicability)

(2020/C 137/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corporis sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Gefion Insurance A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 152(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), read in conjunction with Article 151 of that directive and recital 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the appointment by a non-life insurance undertaking of a representative in the host Member State also includes the authorisation for that representative to receive a document initiating court proceedings for damages in respect of a road traffic accident.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Criminal proceedings against Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures

(Case C-17/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Legislation applicable - Article 14(1)(a) and (2)(b) - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 12(1) - Article 13(1)(a) - Posted workers - Workers employed in two or more Member States - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 11(1)(a) - Article 12a(2)(a) and(4)(a) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 19(2) - E 101 and A 1 Certificates - Binding effect - Consequences - Social security - Employment law)

(2020/C 240/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(a), Article 12a(2)(a) and (4)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, and Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, must be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 Certificate, issued by the competent institution of a Member State, under Article 14(1)(a) or Article 14(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, to workers employed in the territory of another Member State, and an A 1 Certificate, issued by that institution, under Article 12(1) or Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, to such workers, are binding on the courts or tribunals of the latter Member State solely in the area of social security.

(1) OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
1.

Declares that, by authorising the spring hunting of male Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) in Lower Austria (Austria), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds.
3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the present appeal and half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance;