ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Are the costs of extending the credit included in the concept ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) 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, in circumstances such as those of the present case, if the clauses on extending the credit form part of the terms and conditions of the credit agreement agreed by the borrower and the lender?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 3 April 2019 by Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2019 in Case T-576/17, Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. v EUIPO — JESA (EL SEÑORITO)

(Case C-278/19 P)

(2019/C 406/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. (represented by: M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and José Estévez, S.A. (JESA)

By order of 25 September 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. to pay its own costs.
1.

Are Article 1, Article 2(2)(b) and Article 3 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, implemented by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is discriminatory, within the meaning of those provisions, where it enables an employer to decide that individuals who have reached the age of 65 may continue to perform their duties as tenured members of staff and retain the rights which they enjoyed prior to retirement only if they have doctoral supervisor status, thereby placing at a disadvantage other individuals in a similar situation who may do the same only if there are vacant posts and they meet certain requirements relating to professional performance, and to require individuals who do not have doctoral supervisor status to perform similar academic duties under successive fixed-term employment contracts under which they receive remuneration on an ‘hourly basis’ at a level below that paid to tenured members of a university’s staff?
3.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative and the branch may claim a deduction pursuant to Article 169(a), under what conditions may banking transactions carried out by the principal establishment established in a third country be regarded as giving rise to a right to deduct if they had been carried out in the Member State the expenditure subject to value added tax is incurred? If the first question is answered in the affirmative and the branch may claim a deduction pursuant to Article 169(c), under what conditions may the recipient of the services be regarded as being established outside the European Union where the branch is located in the European Union and forms part of one and the same legal entity as its principal establishment?
Α.

an order by the Court ordering the removal of the immunity of the European Commission under Article 1 of Protocol (No 7) (1) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union and authorising the service and execution of: 1) the interim garnishee order nisi dated 26 June 2019 which was handed down by the Eparchiako Dikastirio Ammochostou (District Court of Famagusta) in Cyprus, 2) whatever final order is made by that court, 3) any other related order.
2.

Should the information containing the meta tags that is shown in the defendant’s search engine be interpreted as falling within the definition of ‘extraction’ in Article 7(2)(a) of the Directive of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, more specifically, as the permanent or temporary transfer of all or a substantial part of the contents of a database to another medium by any means or in any form?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 5 April 2019 by Mr André Geske against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2019 in Case T-427/18, André Geske v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-285/19 P)

(2020/C 10/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: André Geske (represented by: S. Dahm, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 6 November 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
4.

Must national courts continue to apply the penalty of a fine as the main penalty and the penalty of expulsion in cases where there are aggravating circumstances or, conversely, are they strictly obliged to impose the penalty of expulsion in all cases, with the exception of the situations expressly excluded by Directive 2008/115?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 15 October 2019 — Ramada Storax SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-756/19)

(2020/C 19/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ramada Storax S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Can Articles 90 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 …, the principles of VAT neutrality and of proportionality and the fundamental economic freedoms be interpreted as permitting the Portuguese legislature, pursuant to Article 78(7)(b) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Valor Acrescentado (Value Added Tax Code), approved by Decree-Law No 394-B of 26 December 1984, to restrict adjustments of value added tax (VAT) for debts deemed irrecoverable in insolvency proceedings to the circumstances referred to in that article (that is, where the insolvency has been declared a simplified insolvency, once the ruling on the admission and ranking of claims referred to in the Código da Insolvência e da Recuperação de Empresas (Corporate Insolvency and Recovery Code), approved by Decree-Law No 53 of 18 March 2004, has become final, or following approval of the plan, where such plan exists, agreed under Article 156 of that code), with the result that rulings by courts of other Member States declaring debts claimed in insolvency proceedings irrecoverable are not recognised for that purpose?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
1.

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEG, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, (1) corrected by OJ 2004 L 229, OJ 2005 L 30, OJ 2005 L 197and OJ 2007 L 204) be interpreted as meaning that the decision to expel a Union citizen from the territory of the host Member State taken on the basis of that provision has been complied with and that that decision no longer has any legal effects once that Union citizen has demonstrably left the territory of that host Member State within the period for voluntary departure laid down in that decision?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 22 October 2019 — A.B. and B.B. v Personal Exchange International Limited

(Case C-774/19)

(2020/C 19/23)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A.B., B.B.

Defendant: Personal Exchange International Limited

Question referred

Must Article 15(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that an online poker playing contract, concluded remotely over the internet by an individual with a foreign operator of online games and subject to that operator’s general terms and conditions, can also be classified as a contract concluded by a consumer for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, where that individual has, for several years, lived on the income thus obtained or the winnings from playing poker, even though he has no formal registration for that type of activity and in any event does not offer that activity to third parties on the market as a paid service?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
2.

Is Article 59a(b) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Article 2 of Directive 2008/8, to be interpreted as meaning that the place of supply of telecommunications services as described in Question 1, which are outside the Community according to Article 59 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Article 2 of Directive 2008/8, may be transferred to the territory of a Member State even though neither the mobile telephone operator providing the services nor the end customer are established in Community territory and the end customer does not have his permanent address and does not usually reside in the Community, simply because the telecommunications services in the third country are not subject to a tax comparable to VAT under EU law?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 15 November 2019 — C.J. v Région wallonne

(Case C-830/19)

(2020/C 27/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C.J.

Defendant: Région wallonne

Question referred

Do Articles 2, 5 and 19 of Regulation (EU) No 135/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, (1) read in conjunction with Article 2 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 807/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and introducing transitional provisions, (2) preclude, in the implementation of those provisions, Member States from taking account of the entire holding and not only the share of the young farmer in it and/or of work units in order to determine the upper and lower thresholds where the agricultural holding is operated in the form of an unincorporated association in which the young farmer acquires an undivided share and exercises joint control over the holding?

(1) OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487.

(2) OJ 2014 L 227, p. 1.
Appeal brought on 24 September 2019 by Ramón Guiral Broto against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-773/17 Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)

(Case C-714/19 P)

(2020/C 45/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Ramón Guiral Broto (represented by: A. Sirimarco, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Café del Mar, SC, José Les Viamonte and Carlos Andrea González

By order of 12 December 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs.
1.

Is Article 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016‘on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC’ (the General Data Protection Regulation — GDPR), (1) read in conjunction with Article 2(2)(d) of that regulation, to be interpreted as applying to national legislation such as the Law of 25 December 2016‘on the processing of passenger data’, which transposes Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016‘on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime’, (2) as well as Council Directive 2004/82/EC of 29 April 2004‘on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data’ (3) and Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010‘on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC’? (4)
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Rennes (France) lodged on 27 November 2019 — Caisse de Crédit Mutuel Le Mans Pontlieue v OG

(Case C-865/19)

(2020/C 54/37)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Rennes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caisse de Crédit Mutuel Le Mans Pontlieue

Defendant: OG

Question referred

Where the annual percentage rate of charge for credit granted to a consumer is 5.364511%, does the rule laid down in Directives 98/7/EC of 16 February 1998, (1) 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008 (2) and 2014/17/EU of 4 February 2014, (3) according to which, in the [English] version, ‘The result of the calculation shall be expressed with an accuracy of at least one decimal place. If the figure at the following decimal place is greater than or equal to 5, the figure at this particular decimal place shall be increased by one’, allow it to be concluded that an agreement stating that the annual percentage rate of charge is 5.363% is accurate?

(1) Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17).

(2) 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 (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

(3) Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 60, p. 34).
4.

Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a national legal provision such as that of Article 306(1), point 1 of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) of the Republic of Bulgaria, which allows for the confiscation for the benefit of the State of a sum of money in respect of which it is claimed that it belongs to a person other than the person who committed the criminal offence, without that third party being able to take part in those proceedings in his or her own right and having direct access to the courts?
(b)

takes into account, in accordance with national law, non-contribution periods not exceeding one third of the aggregated contribution periods completed under national law and under the legislations of the other Member States only for the purpose of determining the theoretical amount (point (i)) but not for the purpose of establishing the actual amount (point (ii)) of the benefit; or
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 5 July 2019 — P. J. v (X) S.A.

(Case C-513/19)

(2020/C 77/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P.J.

Defendant: (X) S.A.

By order of 7 November 2019, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) ruled that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-181/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot

(Case C-588/19 P)

(2020/C 77/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by T. de Haan and P. Péters, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Guinot

By order of 7 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: (a) Is Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information to be interpreted as meaning that the yardstick for determining whether the need for a defeat device is justified in terms of protecting the engine against damage or accident and for safe operation of the vehicle is, in principle, the state of the art, in the sense of what is technically feasible at the time when the EC type approval is granted? (b) In addition to the state of the art, should account be taken of other circumstances which may lead to the permissibility of a defeat device, even though, according to the current state of the art alone, the ‘need’ for such a device would not be ‘justified’ within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 December 2019 — Alpha Trading SpA unipersonale v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others

(Case C-916/19)

(2020/C 95/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alpha Trading SpA unipersonale

Defendant: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Questions referred

In the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union — in the light of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) of 22 March 1999, as amended, Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (2) of 21 April 2004, and any further relevant provisions of [EU] law — does the definition of State aid, as such subject to an obligation of prior notification to the European Commission, cover a secondary regulatory instrument such as the regulation adopted by means of Ministerial Decree No 37/2015 — which is being challenged in these proceedings — which, in direct enforcement of judgments of the Council of State requiring the annulment in part of the previous regulations already notified to the Commission, has retroactively affected the procedures for application of the reduced excise duty on biodiesel by retroactively amending the criteria for distribution of the benefit thereof among the applicant companies without extending the duration of the programme of tax concessions?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 December 2019 — KA

(Case C-937/19)

(2020/C 95/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: KA

Interveners: Staatsanwaltschaft Köln, Bundesamt für Güterverkehr

Question referred

Is the first sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 to be interpreted as meaning that there is an incoming international carriage within the meaning of that provision also in the case where that carriage is carried out as part of a carriage in accordance with Article 1(5)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009?

(1) Regulation on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 72).
3.

Does clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC, preclude a rule such as that laid down in Article 15 of [Royal Decree 365/1995], which excludes posts held as a temporary civil servant or as a temporary staff member from being part of the posts which give entitlement to the status of on leave of absence by reason of employment in the public sector, when that status must be granted to those who take up a permanent post in the public sector and that status is more advantageous for a public servant than the other alternative administrative statuses which that public servant would have to request in order to be able to take up a new post to which he or she has been nominated?
1.

Are Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 325(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 2 and 4 of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (1) to be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a decision by a body outside the judiciary — the Curtea Constituțională a României (Constitutional Court of Romania) — which provides generally for the re-examination of every corruption case that was decided by the Criminal Chamber of the supreme court ruling at first instance within a given period (2003 to January 2019) and that is currently under appeal?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 20 December 2019 — J.Z. v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt. and Others

(Case C-932/19)

(2020/C 161/29)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.Z.

Defendants: OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt., OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt.

Question referred

Does Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts preclude a rule of national law which, in loan agreements concluded with consumers, states that terms — with the exception of contractual terms which have been individually negotiated — pursuant to which the financial institution stipulates that, for the purpose of paying out the amount of finance granted for the purchase of the subject of the loan or financial leasing, the buying rate is to apply, and that, for the purpose of repayment of the debt, the selling rate, or a different exchange rate from that set when the loan was paid out, is to apply, are to be void, and replaces the void terms with a provision which, in the case of both disbursement and repayment, applies the official exchange rate set by the National Bank of Hungary for the currency in question, without considering whether — in the light of all of the terms in the contract — that provision actually protects the consumer against particularly unfavourable consequences, and also without giving the consumer the opportunity to express a view as to whether he wishes to avail himself of the protection afforded by that legislative provision?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29, Special edition in Hungarian Chapter 15 Volume 002 P. 288 — 293.