ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry

(Case C-674/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 12(1) - System of strict protection of animal species - Annex IV - Canis lupus (wolf) - Article 16(1)(e) - Derogation allowing the taking of certain specimens in limited numbers - Hunting for population management purposes - Evaluation of the conservation status of populations of the species concerned)

(2019/C 423/02)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry

Other interested parties: Risto Mustonen, Kai Ruhanen, Suomen riistakeskus

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1)(e) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as precluding the adoption of decisions granting derogations from the prohibition on the deliberate killing of wolves laid down in Article 12(1)(a), read in conjunction with Annex IV(a) to that directive, by way of hunting for population management purposes, the objective of which is to combat poaching, where:

— the objective pursued by such derogations is not stated in a clear and precise manner and where, in the light of rigorous scientific data, the national authority is unable to establish that the derogations are appropriate with a view to achieving that objective,

— it is not duly established that their objective cannot be attained by means of a satisfactory alternative, the mere existence of an illegal activity or difficulties associated with its monitoring not constituting sufficient evidence in that regard,

— it is not guaranteed that the derogations will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range,

— the derogations have not been subject to an assessment of the conservation status of the populations of the species concerned and of the impact that the envisaged derogation may have on it, at the level of the territory of that Member State or, where applicable, at the level of the biogeographical region in question where the borders of that Member State straddle several biogeographical regions or where the natural range of the species so requires and, to the extent possible, at cross-border level, and

— not all conditions are satisfied in relation to the taking, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, under strictly supervised conditions, in limited and specified numbers, of specimens of the species listed in Annex IV to that directive, compliance with which must be established in particular by reference to the population level, its conservation status and its biological characteristics, are satisfied. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — ADR Center SpA v European Commission

(Case C-584/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Specific Programme ‘Civil Justice’ for the period 2007-2013 - Audit reports questioning the eligibility of certain costs - European Commission decision to recover unduly paid sums - Article 299 TFEU - Power of the Commission to adopt an enforceable decision within contractual relationships - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature - Effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 297/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ADR Center SpA (represented by: A. Guillerme and T. Bontinck, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ADR Center SpA to bear, in addition to two thirds of its own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to one third of its own costs, one third of the costs incurred by ADR Center SpA.

(1) OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
1.

Article 27 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council read in conjunction with Article 5(1) and (5) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted as not precluding a national law that provides that the owners of an apartment in a building in co-ownership connected to a district heating network are required to contribute to the costs of the consumption of thermal energy by the common parts and the internal installation of the building, even though they did not individually request the supply of that thermal energy and they do not use it in their apartment.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent — Belgium) — Ronny Rohart v Federale Pensioendienst

(Case C-179/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Pension rights under the national pension scheme for employed persons - Refusal to take into account the period of compulsory military service completed by an official of the European Union after taking up his post - Principle of sincere cooperation)

(2019/C 131/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ronny Rohart

Defendant: Federale Pensioendienst

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, established by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, when determining the pension entitlement of a worker who occupied a position as an employed person in that Member State before becoming an EU official and completed, after becoming an EU official, his compulsory military service in that Member State, that worker is not entitled to have his period of military service treated as equivalent to a period of actual work as an employed person — treatment to which he would have been entitled if, at the time he was called up for military service or for at least one year during the three years following the end of his military service, he had been employed in a position covered by the national pension scheme.

(1) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Full Chamber) of 10 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — United Kingdom) — Andy Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

(Case C-621/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 50 TEU - Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union - Consequences of the notification - Right of unilateral revocation of the notification - Conditions))

(2019/C 65/24)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Andy Wightman, Ross Greer, Alyn Smith, David Martin, Catherine Stihler, Jolyon Maugham, Joanna Cherry

Defendant: Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Interveners: Chris Leslie, Tom Brake

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.

(1) OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Mediterranean Shipping Company (Portugal) — Agentes de Navegação SA v Banco Comercial Português SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA

(Case C-295/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Payment services in the internal market - Directive 2007/64/EC - Articles 2 and 58 - Scope - Payment service user - Meaning - Execution of a direct-debit payment order issued by a third party in respect of an account of which that party is not the holder - No authorisation from the holder of the debited account - Unauthorised payment transactions)

(2019/C 206/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mediterranean Shipping Company (Portugal) — Agentes de Navegação SA

Defendants: Banco Comercial Português SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, must be interpreted to the effect that the notion of ‘payment services’, for the purposes of that provision, includes the execution of direct debits, initiated by the payee, on a payment account of which it is not the holder, where the holder of the account thus debited does not consent to those direct debits.

2. Article 58 of Directive 2007/64 must be interpreted to the effect that the notion of ‘payment service user’, for the purposes of that article, includes the holder of a payment account on which direct debits were executed without its consent.

(1) OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against B. S.

(Case C-195/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Directive 92/83/EEC - Article 2 - Definition of ‘beer’ - Beverage produced from wort obtained from a mixture containing more glucose than malt - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 2203 (beer made from malt) or 2206 (other fermented beverages))

(2019/C 155/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim

Party to the main proceedings

B. S.

Other parties: Prokuratura Okręgowa w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim, Łódzki Urząd Celno-Skarbowy w Łodzi, Urząd Celno-Skarbowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that an intermediate product intended to be mixed with non-alcoholic beverages, obtained from a wort containing less malt ingredients than non-malt ingredients and to which glucose syrup is added before the fermentation process, may be classified as ‘beer made from malt’ within heading 2203 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff in the version of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991, provided that the organoleptic characteristics of the product correspond to those of beer, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
2.

Article 2(a), Article 3(1), and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comprising basic legislation and implementing legislation, which revises upwards the capacity of existing waste incineration facilities and which provides for the construction of new installations of that kind, comes under the notion of ‘plans and programmes’, within the meaning of that directive, where it is likely to have significant environmental effects and must, consequently, be subject to a prior environmental assessment.
1.

Declares that, by failing to consider that the stone aggregate deposited in Biljane Donje (Croatia) is waste, rather than a by-product, and must be treated as waste, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives; By failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure that management of the waste deposited in Biljane Donje is carried out without endangering human health or harming the environment, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98; By failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that the holder of the waste deposited in Biljane Donje treats the waste himself or has the treatment handled by a dealer or an establishment or undertaking that carries out waste treatment operations or by a private or public waste collector, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98;
1.

Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, in particular Article 2(1)(d), must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has entered into a contract for a position of trust, within the meaning of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, with the transferor may be regarded as an ‘employee’ and thus benefit from the protection which that directive affords, provided, however, that that person is protected as an employee by that legislation and has a contract of employment at the date of transfer, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — pobočka v Olomouci — Czech Republic) — KORADO a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel

(Case C-306/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Welded steel parts - Radiators for central heating, not electrically heated - Headings 7307 and 7322 - Concepts of radiator ‘parts’ and ‘tube or pipe fittings’ - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/23 - Validity)

(2019/C 255/18)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě — pobočka v Olomouci

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KORADO a.s.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that welded steel parts such as those at issue in the main proceedings must, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all the factual information available to it, be classified under CN heading 7307, as ‘tube or pipe fittings’.

(1) OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.
1.

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in the light of recitals 14 and 25 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the presence of petrol on a runway of an airport which led to its closure and, consequently, the long delay of a flight to or from that airport, falls within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, when the petrol in question does not originate from an aircraft of the carrier that operated that flight.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Oro Efectivo SL v Diputación Foral de Bizkaia

(Case C-185/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 401 - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Acquisition by an undertaking, from private individuals, of objects with a high gold or other precious metal content with a view to resale - Duty on transfers of assets)

(2019/C 263/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oro Efectivo SL

Defendant: Diputación Foral de Bizkaia

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule of law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which subjects to an indirect tax on asset transfers, other than value added tax, the acquisition by an undertaking, from private individuals, of objects with a high gold or other precious metal content, where those assets are intended for use in the economic activities of that undertaking, which, with a view to their being processed and placed back on the market, resells them to undertakings specialising in the manufacture of ingots or a variety of items made from precious metals.

(1) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — CS and Others v České aerolinie a.s.

(Case C-502/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(1)(c) - Article 7(1) - Right to compensation - Connecting flights - Flights consisting of two flights operated by different air carriers - Long delay in relation to the second flight with points of departure and arrival outside the European Union and operated by a carrier established in a non-Member State)

(2019/C 305/32)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CS, DR, EQ, FP, GO, HN, IM, JL, KK, LJ, MI

Defendant: České aerolinie a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read together with Article 3(5) of Regulation No 261/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of connecting flights, where there are two flights that are the subject of a single reservation, departing from an airport located within the territory of a Member State and travelling to an airport located in a non-Member State via the airport of another non-Member State, a passenger who suffers a delay in reaching his or her destination of 3 hours or more, the cause of that delay arising in the second flight, operated, under a code-share agreement, by a carrier established in a non-Member State, may bring his or her action for compensation under that regulation against the Community air carrier that performed the first flight.

(1) OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge

(Case C-316/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Deduction of input tax - Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions - Overheads)

(2019/C 305/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondent: The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) 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 taxable person that (i) is carrying out both taxable and exempt activities, (ii) invests the donations and endowments that it receives by placing them in a fund and (iii) uses the income generated by that fund to cover the costs of all of those activities is not entitled to deduct, as an overhead, input value added tax paid in respect of the costs associated with that investment.

(1) OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
4.

Orders Mr Joaquín Nadal Esteban and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay, in equal parts, the costs incurred by Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ both of the proceedings at first instance in Case T-687/16 and of the appeal.