ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 12(1) and Article 13 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark registered in respect of a category of goods and replacement parts thereof must be regarded as having been put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 12(1), in connection with all the goods in that category and the replacement parts thereof, if it has been so used only in respect of some of those goods, such as high-priced luxury sports cars, or only in respect of replacement parts or accessories of some of those goods, unless it is apparent from the relevant facts and evidence that a consumer who wishes to purchase those goods will perceive them as an independent subcategory of the category of goods in respect of which the mark concerned was registered;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2021 — The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v European Commission, Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl

(Case C-595/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Attributability of unlawful conduct of one company to another company - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence - Entity controlling 100 % of the voting rights associated with the shares of another company)

(2021/C 88/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (represented by: A. Mangiaracina, avvocatessa, and J. Koponen, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, C. Sjödin, T. Vecchi and J. Norris, acting as Agents), Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (represented by: C. Tesauro and L. Armati, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

3. Orders Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 December 2020 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-626/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Directive (EU) 2018/957 - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Terms and conditions of employment - Remuneration - Duration of posting - Determination of the legal basis - Articles 53 and 62 TFEU - Amendment of an existing directive - Article 9 TFEU - Principle of non-discrimination - Necessity - Principle of proportionality - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Scope - Road transport - Article 58 TFEU)

(2021/C 44/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and D. Lutostańska, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented: initially by M. Martínez Iglesias, K. Wójcik, A. Pospíšilová Padowska and L. Visaggio, then by M. Martínez Iglesias, K. Wójcik, L. Visaggio and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented: initially by E. Ambrosini, K. Adamczyk Delamarre and A. Norberg, then by E. Ambrosini, A. Sikora-Kalėda, Zs. Bodnar and A. Norberg, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the European Parliament: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by J. Möller and T. Henze, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier, A.-L. Desjonquères and R. Coesme, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, C. Schillemans and J. Langer, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, B. R. Killmann and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the Council of the European Union: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by J. Möller and T. Henze, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier, A.-L Desjonquères and R. Coesme, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, C. Schillemans and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented: initially by C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, H. Shev, J. Lundberg and H. Eklinder, then by C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, B. R. Killmann and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — PJ v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (C-529/18 P), PC v PJ, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (C-531/18 P)

(Joined Cases C-529/18 P and C-531/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Principles of EU law - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation of parties in direct actions before the Courts of the European Union - Lawyer representing the applicant as a third party - Requirement of independence - Lawyer working as an associate in a law firm - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2022/C 198/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Case C-529/18 P)

Appellant: PJ (represented by: J. Lipinsky and C. von Donat, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Söder, agents), Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwälte)

(Case C-531/18 P)

Appellant: PC (represented by: J. Lipinsky and C. von Donat, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: PJ (represented by: J. Lipinsky and C. von Donat, Rechtsanwälte), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Söder, agents), Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders PJ to pay the costs incurred in Case C-529/18 P in both the present appeal and the proceedings before the General Court;

3. Orders PC is to pay the costs incurred in Case C-531/18 P in both the present appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

(1) OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 — Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-143/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 15 and 66 - Genuine use of an EU collective trade mark - Mark concerning a system of collection and recovery of packaging waste - Affixing to the packaging of goods for which the mark is registered)

(2020/C 54/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 September 2018, Der Grüne Punkt v EUIPO — Halston Properties (Representation of a circle with two arrows) (T-253/17, EU:T:2018:909);

2. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 February 2017 (Case R 1357/2015-5);

3. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH relating to both this appeal and the proceedings at first instance.

(1) OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 23 April 2015 in Commission v Greece (C-149/14, not published, EU:C:2015:264), by the expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice sent by the European Commission, namely 5 December 2017, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.
1.

Article 62(1) and (2) 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 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, while providing that the calculation of unemployment benefits is to be based on the amount of the previous salary, does not allow — where the period during which the person concerned was in receipt of a salary in respect of his or her last activity as an employed person pursued under that legislation is shorter than the reference period laid down by that legislation for determining the salary to be used as the basis for calculating unemployment benefits — for account to be taken of the salary received by the person concerned in respect of that activity.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — EIS GmbH v TO

(Case C-266/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 6(1)(c) and (h), and Article 6(4) - Annex I.A - Right of withdrawal - Information to be provided by traders in relation to the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising the right of withdrawal - Obligation for traders to provide a telephone number ‘where available’ - Scope)

(2020/C 240/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties in the main proceedings

Applicant: EIS GmbH

Defendant: TO

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(c) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where a trader’s telephone number appears on his or her website, in such a way that it suggests, in the eyes of the average consumer, namely a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer, that that trader uses that telephone number in his or her contacts with consumers, that telephone number must be regarded as being ‘available’, within the meaning of that provision. In such a case, Article 6 (1)(c) and (h), as well as Article 6(4) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex I.A thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that a trader who provides the consumer, before the latter is bound by a distance or off-premises contract, with the information relating to the procedures for exercising the right of withdrawal using the model instructions set out in Annex I.A, is required to mention the same telephone number so as to allow that consumer to communicate to the trader any decision to exercise that right using that telephone number.

(1) OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.
1.

Declares that, by recurrently granting authorisations for spring hunting of male common eiders (Somateria mollissima) in the province of Åland since 2011 and up to and including 2019, the Republic of Finland failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) and Article 9(l)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds;
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Asmel societá consortile a r.l. v A.N.A.C. — Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione

(Case C-3/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Central purchasing bodies - Small municipalities - Restriction to only two organisational models for the central purchasing bodies - Prohibition of use of a central purchasing body under private law and with the participation of private entities - Territorial restriction of the activity of central purchasing bodies)

(2020/C 262/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asmel societá consortile a r.l.

Defendant: A.N.A.C. — Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione

Intervener: Associazione Nazionale Aziende Concessionarie Servizi entrate (Anacap)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 1(10) and 11 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1336/2013 of 13 December 2013, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which restricts the organisational autonomy of small local authorities to use a central purchasing body to only two exclusively public organisational models, without the participation of private persons or undertakings.

2. Articles 1(10) and 11 of Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1336/2013, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which limits the scope of action of central purchasing bodies set up by local authorities to the territory of those authorities.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Miskolci Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — UO v Készenléti Rendőrség

(Case C-211/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Scope - Derogation - Article 1(3) - Directive 89/391/EEC - Article 2(2) - Activities of rapid intervention police officers)

(2020/C 240/29)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Miskolci Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UO

Defendant: Készenléti Rendőrség

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that Article 2(1) and (2) of that directive applies to members of law enforcement agencies carrying out surveillance functions at the external borders of a Member State in the event of an influx of third-country nationals to those borders, except where it appears, having regard to all relevant circumstances, that the tasks carried out are being performed in the context of exceptional events, the gravity and scale of which require the adoption of measures indispensable for the protection of the life, health and safety of the community at large, measures the proper implementation of which would be jeopardised if all the rules laid down in that directive were to be observed, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2020 — European Union Satellite Centre v KF, Council of the European Union

(Case C-14/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Staff of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) - Member of SatCen’s contract staff - Complaints of psychological harassment - Administrative investigation - Request for assistance - Suspension of the staff member - Disciplinary proceedings - Removal of the staff member - SatCen’s Appeals Board - Conferral of exclusive jurisdiction in relation to SatCen staff disputes - Action for annulment - First and fifth paragraphs of Article 263 TFEU - Action for damages - Article 268 TFEU - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature - Admissibility - Acts open to challenge - Contractual nature of the dispute - Articles 272 and 274 TFEU - Effective judicial protection - Final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU - First paragraph of Article 275 TFEU - Principle of equal treatment - General Court’s obligation to state reasons - Distortion of the facts and evidence - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration)

(2020/C 279/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Satellite Centre (represented by: A. Guillerme, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: KF (represented by: N. Macaulay, Barrister, and A. Kunst, Rechtsanwältin), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by KF;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — WT v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara

(Case C-448/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 12 - Adoption of a decision to expel a long-term resident - Elements to be taken into consideration - National case-law - Failure to take those elements into consideration - Compatibility - Directive 2001/40/EC - Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals - Relevance)

(2020/C 271/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WT

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, as interpreted by national case-law with reference to Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 concerning the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals, provides for the expulsion of any third-country national who holds a long-term residence permit who has committed a criminal offence punishable by a custodial sentence of at least one year, without it being necessary to examine whether the third country national represents a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public order or public security or to take into account the duration of residence in the territory of that Member State, the age of the person concerned, the consequences of expulsion for the person concerned and family members and the links with the country of residence or the absence of links with the country of origin.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
1.

The concept of ‘normal management of sites, as defined in habitat records or target documents or as carried on previously by owners or operators’, in the second indent of the third paragraph of Annex I to Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, must be understood as covering, first, any administrative or organisational measure liable to have an effect on the protected species and natural habitats which are on a site, that measure being in the form resulting from the management documents adopted by the Member States on the basis of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds and interpreted, if need be, by reference to any domestic legal rule which transposes the latter two directives or, failing this, is compatible with the spirit and purpose of those directives, and second, any administrative or organisational measure that is regarded as usual, is generally recognised, is established and was carried out by the owners or operators for a sufficiently long period of time until the occurrence of damage caused by virtue of that measure to the protected species and natural habitats, all of those measures having, in addition, to be compatible with the objectives underlying Directive 92/43 and Directive 2009/147 and, inter alia, with commonly accepted agricultural practices.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya Yugozapadna Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’, the successor in law to Mitnitsa Aerogara Sofia v ‘Curtis Balkan’ EOOD

(Case C-76/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Community Customs Code - Article 32(1)(c) - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 157(2), Article 158(3), and Article 160 - Determining the customs value - Adjustment - Royalties relating to the goods being valued - Royalties constituting a ‘condition of sale’ of the goods being valued - Royalties paid by the buyer to its parent company for the supply of the know-how required for the manufacture of the finished products - Goods purchased from third parties, which constitute components to be incorporated in the licensed products)

(2020/C 287/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya Yugozapadna Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’, successor in law to Mitnitsa Aerogara Sofia

Defendant:‘Curtis Balkan’ EOOD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 32(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 157(2), Article 158(3) and Article 160 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, must be interpreted as meaning that a proportion of the royalties paid by a company to its parent company in consideration for the supply of know-how for the manufacture of finished products must be added to the price actually paid or payable for imported goods in circumstances where those goods are intended to be included, along with other component parts, in the composition of those finished products and are purchased by the former company from sellers separate from the parent company, where

— the royalties were not included in the price actually paid or payable for those goods;

— they relate to the imported goods, which presupposes that there is a sufficiently close link between the royalties and those goods;

— the payment of royalties is a condition of the sale of those goods, so that, had it not been for that payment, the contract of sale relating to the imported goods would not have been concluded and, consequently, they would not have been delivered; and

— it is possible to make an appropriate apportionment of the royalties based on objective and quantifiable data, which is for the referring court to ascertain, taking into account all the relevant facts, in particular the relationships of law and of fact between the buyer, the respective sellers and the licensor.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
1.

Point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that the date which should be referred to for the purpose of determining whether an unmarried third-country national or refugee is a minor child, within the meaning of that provision, is that of the submission of the application for entry and residence for the purpose of family reunification for minor children, and not that of the decision on that application by the competent authorities of that Member State, as the case may be, after an action brought against a decision rejecting such an application;