ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Holmen AB

(Case C-608/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Corporation tax - Group of companies - Freedom of establishment - Deduction of losses of a non-resident subsidiary - Concept of ‘final losses’ - Application to a sub-subsidiary - Legislation of the State of establishment of the parent company requiring direct ownership of the subsidiary - Legislation of the State of establishment of the subsidiary restricting the set-off of losses and prohibiting them from being set off in the year of liquidation)

(2019/C 270/06)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Holmen AB

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of final losses of a non-resident subsidiary, within the meaning of paragraph 55 of the judgment of 13 December 2005, Marks & Spencer (C-446/03, EU:C:2005:763), does not apply to a sub-subsidiary unless all the intermediate companies between the parent company applying for group relief and the sub-subsidiary sustaining losses that could be regarded as final are established in the same Member State;

2. For the purposes of the assessment of the finality of a non-resident subsidiary’s losses, within the meaning of paragraph 55 of the judgment of 13 December 2005, Marks & Spencer (C-446/03, EU:C:2005:763), the fact that the subsidiary’s Member State of establishment does not allow the losses of one company to be transferred to another company in the year of liquidation is not decisive, unless the parent company demonstrates that it is impossible for it to deduct those losses by ensuring, in particular by means of a sale, that they are taken into account by a third party for future periods;

3. If the fact referred to in paragraph 2 of the operative part of the present judgment becomes relevant, the extent to which the legislation of the State of establishment of the subsidiary sustaining the losses that could be regarded as final results in it not being possible to set off part of them against the current profits of the loss-making subsidiary or against those profits of another company in the same group is irrelevant.

(1) OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
4.

Articles 2(h) and 7(a) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the operator of a website embeds on that website a social plugin causing the browser of a visitor to that website to request content from the provider of that plugin and, to that end, to transmit to that provider personal data of the visitor, the consent referred to in those provisions must be obtained by that operator only with regard to the operation or set of operations involving the processing of personal data in respect of which that operator determines the purposes and means. In addition, Article 10 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that, in such a situation, the duty to inform laid down in that provision is incumbent also on that operator, but the information that the latter must provide to the data subject need relate only to the operation or set of operations involving the processing of personal data in respect of which that operator actually determines the purposes and means.
1.

The first indent of Article 1(2)(a), Article 2(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the restarting of industrial production of electricity for a period of almost 10 years at a nuclear power station that had previously been shut down, with the effect of deferring by 10 years the deadline initially set by the national legislature for deactivating and ceasing production at that power station, and deferral, also by 10 years, of the date initially set by the legislature for deactivating and ceasing industrial production of electricity at an active power station, measures which entail work to upgrade the power stations in question such as to alter the physical aspect of the sites, constitute a ‘project’, within the meaning of that directive, and subject to the findings that are for the referring court to make, an environmental impact assessment must, in principle, be carried out with respect to that project prior to the adoption of those measures. The fact that the implementation of those measures involves subsequent acts, such as the issue, for one of the power stations in question, of a new specific consent for the production of electricity for industrial purposes, is not decisive in that respect. Work that is inextricably linked to those measures must also be made subject to such an assessment before the adoption of those measures if its nature and potential impact on the environment are sufficiently identifiable at that stage, a finding which it is for the referring court to make.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien - Austria) – Adelheid Krah v Universität Wien

(Case C-703/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of persons - Article 45 TFEU - Workers - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(1) - Postdoctoral senior lecturers - Limitation on the recognition of previous professionally-relevant periods of service completed in another Member State - System of pay linking a higher rate of pay to the duration of employment with the current employer)

(2019/C 423/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Adelheid Krah

Defendant: Universität Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a university of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of a worker’s salary grading as postdoctoral senior lecturer with that university, take into account only a maximum of four years of previous periods of service completed by that worker in another Member State, if that service was equivalent or indeed identical to that required of the worker in the performance of those duties of postdoctoral senior lecturer.

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as not precluding such rules if the service previously completed in another Member State was not equivalent, but merely beneficial to the performance of those duties of postdoctoral senior lecturer.

(1) OJ C 13, 9.4.2018.
3.

The general prohibition on misleading the consumer as regards the country of origin of foodstuffs, laid down in Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC of the Commission and Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 of the Commission, does not apply, in so far as concerns fresh fruit and vegetables, to the indication of origin required under Article 113a(1) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1308/2013;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal — London — United Kingdom) — Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Secretary of State for the Home Department, Government Communications Headquarters, Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service

(Case C-623/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector - Providers of electronic communications services - General and indiscriminate transmission of traffic data and location data - Safeguarding of national security - Directive 2002/58/EC - Scope - Article 1(3) and Article 3 - Confidentiality of electronic communications - Protection - Article 5 and Article 15(1) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) - Article 4(2) TEU)

(2020/C 433/02)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Investigatory Powers Tribunal — London

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Privacy International

Defendants: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Secretary of State for the Home Department, Government Communications Headquarters, Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(3), Article 3 and Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Article 4(2) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation enabling a State authority to require providers of electronic communications services to forward traffic data and location data to the security and intelligence agencies for the purpose of safeguarding national security falls within the scope of that directive.

2. Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Article 4(2) TEU and Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation enabling a State authority to require providers of electronic communications services to carry out the general and indiscriminate transmission of traffic data and location data to the security and intelligence agencies for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 December 2019 — Czech Republic v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-482/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Approximation of laws - Directive (EU) 2017/853 - Control of the acquisition and possession of weapons - Validity - Legal basis - Article 114 TFEU - Amendment of an existing directive - Principle of proportionality - Absence of impact assessment - Interference with the right to property - Proportionality of the measures adopted - Measures creating barriers in the internal market - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Measures obliging Member States to adopt legislation with retroactive effect - Principle of non-discrimination - Derogation for the Swiss Confederation - Discrimination affecting Member States of the European Union or Member States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) other than that State)

(2020/C 36/02)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, O. Serdula and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and G. Tornyai, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Wiącek and D. Lutostańska, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: O. Hrstková Šolcová and R. van de Westelaken, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by A. Westerhof Löfflerová, E. Moro and M. Chavrier, subsequently by A. Westerhof Löfflerová and M. Chavrier, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: French Republic (represented by: A. Daly, E. de Moustier, R. Coesme and D. Colas, acting as Agents), European Commission, (represented by: M. Šimerdová, Y.G. Marinova and E. Kružíková, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Czech Republic 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 French Republic, Hungary, the Republic of Poland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland — Netherlands) — criminal proceedings against ET

(Case C-97/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Principle of mutual recognition of confiscation orders - Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA - Article 12(1) and (4) - Law governing the execution - Law of the executing State authorising recourse to imprisonment for the non-execution of the confiscation order - Conformity - Law of the issuing State also authorising recourse to a term of imprisonment - Lack of effect))

(2019/C 72/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland

Party to the main, criminal proceedings

ET

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 12(1) and (4) of Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders must be interpreted as not precluding the application of the legislation of an executing State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of enforcing a confiscation order adopted in an issuing State, authorises, where necessary, a term of imprisonment to be imposed.

2. The fact that the legislation of the issuing State also authorises possible recourse to a term of imprisonment has no bearing on the application of such a measure in the executing State.

(1) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against LM

(Case C-216/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(3) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal))

(2018/C 328/28)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

LM

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing judicial authority, called upon to decide whether a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution is to be surrendered, has material, such as that set out in a reasoned proposal of the European Commission adopted pursuant to Article 7(1) TEU, indicating that there is a real risk of breach of the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on account of systemic or generalised deficiencies so far as concerns the independence of the issuing Member State’s judiciary, that authority must determine, specifically and precisely, whether, having regard to his personal situation, as well as to the nature of the offence for which he is being prosecuted and the factual context that form the basis of the European arrest warrant, and in the light of the information provided by the issuing Member State pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, there are substantial grounds for believing that that person will run such a risk if he is surrendered to that State.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Milan Vinš v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-275/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 131 and Article 146(1)(a) - Exemption for supplies of goods dispatched or transported to a destination outside the European Union - Condition of exemption laid down by national law - Placing of goods under a particular customs procedure - Proof of placing of goods under the export procedure)

(2019/C 187/33)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Milan Vinš

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 146(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 131 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national legislative provision from making the exemption from value added tax for goods intended to be exported outside the European Union conditional on the goods being placed under the export customs procedure, in a situation in which it is established that the substantive conditions of exemption, in particular the condition that the goods concerned actually leave the territory of the European Union, are satisfied

(1) OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court — Ireland) — Tomás Horgan, Claire Keegan v Minister for Education & Skills, Minister for Finance, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-154/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(2)(b) - Indirect discrimination on grounds of age - Newly recruited teachers - Date of recruitment - Salary scale and classification on that scale upon recruitment less advantageous than that applicable to teachers already employed as such)

(2019/C 131/16)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Labour Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tomás Horgan, Claire Keegan

Defendants: Minister for Education & Skills, Minister for Finance, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted to the effect that a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, as of a specific date, provides for the application on the recruitment of new teachers of a salary scale and classification on that scale which are less advantageous than that applied, under the rules previous to that measure, to teachers recruited before that date does not constitute indirect discrimination on the grounds of age within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico, Comune di Supino, Comune di Sgurgola, Comune di Trivigliano

(Case C-309/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Labour costs - Automatic exclusion of a tenderer who has failed to state those costs separately in the tender - Principle of proportionality)

(2019/C 220/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lavorgna Srl

Defendants: Comune di Montelanico, Comune di Supino, Comune di Sgurgola, Comune di Trivigliano

Intervener: Gea Srl

Operative part of the judgment

The principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and transparency, as referred to in Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the failure to state labour costs separately, in a financial tender submitted in a public contract award procedure, entails the exclusion of that tender without the possibility of supplementing or amending the tendering documentation, including in a situation where the obligation to state those costs separately is not specified in the tender specifications, in so far as that condition and that possibility of excluding tenders are clearly provided for by national legislation on public procurement procedures in which explicit reference was made to that legislation. However, if the provisions of the call for tenders do not allow tenderers to state those costs in their financial tenders, the principles of transparency and proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding tenderers being allowed to rectify their situation and fulfil the obligations provided for by national legislation in the field within a time limit set by the contracting authority.

(1) OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat des cadres de la sécurité intérieure v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-254/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Maximum weekly working time - Reference period - Rolling or fixed nature - Derogation - Police officers)

(2019/C 206/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syndicat des cadres de la sécurité intérieure

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(b), Article 16(b) and the first paragraph of Article 19 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 not precluding national legislation which lays down, for the purpose of calculating the average weekly working time, reference periods which start and end on fixed calendar dates, provided that that legislation contains mechanisms which make it possible to ensure that the maximum average weekly working time of 48 hours is respected during each six-month period straddling two consecutive fixed reference periods.

(1) OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.