ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2020 — MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet International BV v European Medicines Agency (EMA)

(Case C-178/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - First indent of Article 4(2) - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Article 4(3) - Protection of the decision-making process - Documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency in the context of a marketing authorisation application for a veterinary medicinal product - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - General presumption of confidentiality - No obligation for an EU institution, body, office or agency to apply a general presumption of confidentiality)

(2020/C 77/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet International BV (represented by: C. Thomas, Barrister, J. Stratford QC, B. Kelly, Solicitor, and P. Bogaert, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (initially represented by: T. Jabłoński, S. Marino, S. Drosos and A. Rusanov, subsequently by T. Jabłoński, S. Marino and S. Drosos, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet International BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Patrick Grégor Puppinck and Others v Republic of Poland, European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us

(Case C-418/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Institutional law - Citizens’ initiative ‘One of us’ - Communication from the European Commission setting out its conclusions and the reasons for not taking the action requested in the citizens’ initiative)

(2020/C 68/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Patrick Grégor Puppinck, Filippo Vari, Josephine Quintavalle, Edith Frivaldszky, Jakub Baltroszewicz, Alicia Latorre Canizares, Manfred Liebner (represented by: R. Kiska, Solicitor, P. Diamond, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us, European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent), Republic of Poland, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Patrick Grégor Puppinck, Mr Filippo Vari, Ms Josephine Quintavalle, Ms Edith Frivaldszky, Mr Jakub Baltroszewicz, Ms Alicia Latorre Canizares and Mr Manfred Liebner to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.
2.

The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from setting the starting point of a limitation period of two months for the bringing of a claim for compensation for the harm resulting from a measure constituting discrimination on grounds of age at the date of the delivery of a judgment of the Court finding that a similar measure is discriminatory, where there is a risk that the persons concerned may not be in a position to become aware, within that time limit, of the existence or extent of the discrimination of which they were the victims. That may be the case in particular where, in that Member State, there is controversy surrounding the possibility of transposing to the measure concerned the guidance provided by that judgment.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — OPR-Finance s. r. o. v GK

(Case C-679/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Credit agreements for consumers - Article 8 - Creditor’s obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness - National rules - Whether limitation may be invoked against the objection of nullity of the agreement raised by the consumer - Article 23 - Penalties - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature - National court - Examination by the court of its own motion as to whether that obligation has been complied with)

(2020/C 137/21)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OPR-Finance s. r. o.

Defendant: GK

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 8 and 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as imposing an obligation on a national court to examine, of its own motion, whether there has been a failure to comply with the creditor’s pre-contractual obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness, provided for in Article 8 of that directive, and to draw the consequences arising under national law of a failure to comply with that obligation, on condition that they satisfy the requirements of Article 23. Articles 8 and 23 of Directive 2008/48 must also be interpreted as precluding national rules under which a failure by the creditor to comply with its pre-contractual obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness is penalised by the nullity of the credit agreement, linked with an obligation on the consumer to return the principal sum to the creditor at a time appropriate to the consumer’s financial capacity, solely on condition that that consumer raises an objection of such nullity within a three-year limitation period.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — Buonotourist Srl v European Commission, Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV)

(Case C-586/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - State aid - Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) - Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) - European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market)

(2020/C 161/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Buonotourist Srl (represented by: M. D'Alberti and L. Visone, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, P.-J. Loewenthal and L. Armati, acting as Agents), Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (represented by: M. Malena, avvocato)

Operative part

The Court

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Buonotourist Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
3.

Directive 93/13, in particular Article 4(2) and Article 5 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, with a view to complying with the transparency requirement of a contractual term setting a variable interest rate under a mortgage loan agreement, that term not only must be formally and grammatically intelligible but also enable an average consumer, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to be in a position to understand the specific functioning of the method used for calculating that rate and thus evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the potentially significant economic consequences of such a term on his or her financial obligations. Information that is particularly relevant for the purposes of the assessment to be carried out by the national court in that regard includes (i) the fact that essential information relating to the calculation of that rate is easily accessible to anyone intending to take out a mortgage loan, on account of the publication of the method used for calculating that rate, and (ii) the provision of data relating to past fluctuations of the index on the basis of which that rate is calculated.
2.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an interbank agreement which fixes at the same amount the interchange fee payable, where a payment transaction by card takes place, to the banks issuing such cards offered by card payment services companies operating on the national market concerned cannot be classified as an agreement which has ‘as [its] object’ the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, within the meaning of that provision, unless that agreement, in the light of its wording, its objectives and its context, can be regarded as posing a sufficient degree of harm to competition to be classified thus, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Instrucción n. 4 de Badalona — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against VW

(Case C-659/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2013/48/EU - Article 3(2) - Right of access to a lawyer - Circumstances in which the right of access to a lawyer must be guaranteed - Non-appearance - Derogations from the right of access to a lawyer - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 215/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Instrucción n. 4 de Badalona

Party in the main proceedings

VW

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, and in particular Article 3(2) thereof, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by national case-law, according to which the exercise of the right of access to a lawyer may, at the pre-trial stage, be delayed because the suspect or accused person has failed to appear following a summons to appear before an investigating judge until the national arrest warrant issued against the person concerned has been executed.

(1) OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
1.

Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018, NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission (T-447/14, not published, EU:T:2018:443) to the extent that the General Court thereby dismissed the action brought by NKT Verwaltungs GmbH and NKT A/S for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as that decision finds those companies liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, and in so far as that infringement concerns, first, conduct related to sales in countries that are not members of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA); second, a collective refusal to supply accessories and technical assistance to competitors not participating in the cartel at issue; and, third, as regards the period from 3 July 2002 to 21 November 2002, the allocation of underground power cable projects in the EEA;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 — Gugler France v Alexander Gugler, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-736/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element GUGLER - Application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Gugler France SA - Economic link between the party seeking a declaration of invalidity and the proprietor of the contested mark - No likelihood of confusion)

(2020/C 230/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gugler France (represented by: S. Guerlain, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Alexander Gugler (represented by: M.-C. Simon, Rechtsanwältin), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Gugler France SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Alexander Gugler and by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in relation to the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Terna SpA v European Commission

(Case C-812/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Energy - Projects of common interest to the EU - EU financial assistance granted to two projects in the field of trans-European energy networks - Directive 2004/17/EC - Article 37 - Subcontracting - Article 40(3)(c) - Direct award - Technical specificity - Framework agreement - Reduction of the assistance originally granted following a financial audit - Reimbursement of amounts originally paid)

(2020/C 262/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Terna SpA (represented by: F. Covone, A. Police, L. Di Via, D. Carria and F. Degni, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, M. Ilkova, G. Gattinara and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Terna SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
2.

Articles 184 to 186 of the VAT Directive, read in the light of the EU law principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person who deducted VAT charged on the acquisition of goods and services used both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and for transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible, using the turnover-based method, is denied the opportunity, once the final proportion has been fixed pursuant to Article 175(3) of that directive, to correct those deductions, by using the actual use method in a situation where: — the Member State concerned authorises taxable persons to deduct VAT on the basis of the use made of all or part of the goods and services used both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and for transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible, pursuant to Article 173(2)(c) of that directive; — the taxable person was unaware, and acting in good faith, when choosing the deduction method, that a transaction which it regarded as exempt was in fact taxable; — the general limitation period fixed by the national law for the purposes of adjusting the deductions has not yet expired, and — the change in the deduction method makes it possible to establish more precisely the proportion of VAT relating to transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 June 2020 — Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-731/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the Russian Federation’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Appellant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of power - Right to property - Equal treatment)

(2020/C 279/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga and J. Iriarte Ángel, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by S. Pardo Quintillán, A. Tizzano and C. Zadra, and subsequently by S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against JI

(Case C-634/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA - Minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties involving illicit drug trafficking - Article 2(1)(c) - Article 4(2)(a) - Concept of ‘large quantities of drugs’ - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Equal treatment - Articles 20 and 21 - Principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties - Article 49)

(2020/C 271/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku

Party in the main criminal proceedings

JI

Intervener: Prokuratura Rejonowa w Słupsku

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2)(a) of Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, and Articles 20, 21 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from classifying as a criminal offence the possession of a significant quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances both for personal consumption and for the purposes of illicit drug trafficking, while leaving the interpretation of the concept of ‘significant quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances’ to the discretion of the national courts, on a case-by-case basis, provided that that interpretation is reasonably foreseeable.

(1) OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — Autoritatea națională de reglementare în domeniul energiei (ANRE) v Societatea de Producere a Energiei Electrice în Hidrocentrale Hidroelectrica SA

(Case C-648/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in electricity - Free movement of goods - Article 35 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions on exports - Measures having equivalent effect - National measure requiring electricity producers to offer for sale all the electricity available to them exclusively on a centralised competitive market of the Member State concerned)

(2020/C 390/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autoritatea națională de reglementare în domeniul energiei (ANRE)

Defendant: Societatea de Producere a Energiei Electrice în Hidrocentrale Hidroelectrica SA

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 35 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, as interpreted by the authority responsible for applying it, which requires national electricity producers to offer for sale all the electricity available to them on the platforms managed by the only operator designated for national electricity market trading services, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports that cannot be justified on grounds of public security connected to the security of energy supply, in so far as such legislation is not proportionate to the objective pursued.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
4)

Clause 4(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide for an entitlement on the part of magistrates to 30 days’ paid annual leave, such as that provided for ordinary judges, where those magistrates fall within the concept of ‘fixed-term workers’ within the meaning of clause 2(1) of that framework agreement, and are in a situation comparable to that of ordinary judges, unless such a difference in treatment is justified by the differences in the qualifications required and the nature of the duties undertaken by those judges, which it is for the referring court to verify.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2020 — Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl v European Commission, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Pirelli & C. SpA

(Case C-601/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - European mark et for submarine and underground power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Single and continuous infringement - Succession of legal entities - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Principle of equal treatment - Distortion of evidence - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 20 - European Commission’s powers of inspection in cartel proceedings - Power to copy data without a prior examination and to examine the data subsequently at the Commission’s premises - Fines)

(2020/C 399/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (represented initially by: C. Tesauro and L. Armati, avvocati, and subsequently by C. Firth and C. Griesenbach, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, C. Sjödin, T. Vecchi and P. Rossi, acting as Agents), The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (represented by: J. Koponen, advokat, and A. Mangiaracina, avvocatessa), Pirelli & C. SpA (represented by: G. Rizza and M. Siragusa, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Declares that Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl shall bear their own costs and orders them to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Ayuntamiento de Pamplona v Orange España SAU

(Case C-764/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Authorisation of electronic communications networks and services - Municipal charge for the occupation or use of public land - Directive 2002/20/EC - Application to undertakings providing fixed telephony and Internet access services - Concepts of ‘electronic communications network’ and of ‘electronic communications services’ - Article 12 - Administrative charges - Article 13 - Fees for rights of use and rights to install facilities - Scope - Limitations on the Member States’ power to impose fees)

(2021/C 88/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Pamplona

Defendant: Orange España SAU

Operative part of the judgment

1. Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as applying also to undertakings providing fixed telephony and Internet access services;

2. Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20, as amended by Directive 2009/140, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes, on undertakings which are the proprietors of infrastructure or networks necessary for electronic communications and which use them in order to provide fixed telephony and Internet access services, a charge the amount of which is determined exclusively on the basis of the annual gross income obtained by those undertakings on the territory of the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.