ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw v Johannes Huijbrechts

(Case C-679/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Inheritance tax - Sustainably managed woodland - Exemption - Protection of wooded areas))

(2019/C 25/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw

Defendant: Johannes Huijbrechts

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which grants a tax advantage for inherited woodland on condition that it is the subject of sustainable management as defined by national law, but restricts that advantage to woodland situated in the territory of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Francesca Cadeddu v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Cagliari, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Regione autonoma della Sardegna — Agenzia regionale per il lavoro

(Case C-667/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Article 2(4) - Concept of beneficiary - Article 80 - Prohibition on making a deduction or withholding sums paid - Other specific charge or charge with equivalent effect - Concept - Study grant co-financed by the European Social Fund - Treatment as income from employment - Retention on account of income tax increased by additional regional and municipal taxes))

(2019/C 65/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francesca Cadeddu

Defendants: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Cagliari, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Regione autonoma della Sardegna — Agenzia regionale per il lavoro

Operative part of the judgment

Article 80 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) of that regulation, must be interpreted as not precluding national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which applies personal income tax to the amounts awarded to natural persons in the form of study grants by the public body responsible for implementing the project selected by the managing authority for the operational programme at issue, for the purposes of Article 2(3) of that regulation, and financed through the European structural funds.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Tratave — Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-672/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Taxable amount - Reduction - Principle of fiscal neutrality))

(2019/C 44/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tratave — Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of neutrality as well as Articles 90 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the reduction of the taxable amount for value added tax (VAT), in the event of non-payment, cannot be made by the taxable person until it has given prior notice of its intention to cancel all or part of the VAT to the purchaser of goods or services, if that purchaser is a taxable person, for the purposes of correcting the deduction of VAT that the latter has made.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2019 — European Commission v United Parcel Service, Inc., FedEx Corp.

(Case C-265/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Merger control - Acquisition of TNT Express by UPS - Commission Decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement - Econometric model developed by the Commission - Failure to disclose amendments made to the econometric model - Infringement of the rights of the defence))

(2019/C 93/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, N. Khan, H. Leupold and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: United Parcel Service, Inc. (represented by: A. Ryan, Solicitor, F. Hoseinian, advokat, W. Knibbeler, S.A. Pliego and P. van den Berg, advocaten, and F. Roscam Abbing, advocate), FedEx Corp. (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, G. Bushell, Solicitor, and N. Niejahr, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2018 — European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union v Kendrion NV, European Commission

(Case C-150/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Actions for damages - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Excessive duration of the proceedings in a case before the General Court of the European Union - Compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant - Material damage - Bank guarantee charges - Causal link - Default interest - Non-material damage))

(2019/C 65/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and E. Beysen, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kendrion NV (represented by: Y. de Vries, T. Ottervanger and E. Besselink, advocaten), European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes, S. Noë and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 1 February 2017, Kendrion v European Union (T-479/14, EU:T:2017:48);

2. Dismisses the cross-appeal brought by Kendrion NV;

3. Dismisses the claim for damages brought by Kendrion NV, inasmuch as it seeks to obtain compensation for the material damage consisting in the payment of bank guarantee charges beyond a reasonable time for adjudicating in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 16 November 2011, Kendrion v Commission (T-54/06, not published, EU:T:2011:667);

4. Orders Kendrion NV to bear its own costs and to pay all the costs incurred by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in relation to the present appeal, and to bear its own costs at first instance;

5. Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to bear its own costs incurred at first instance;

6. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs of both the proceedings at first instance and of the present appeal.

(1) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
2.

Article 4(1) and Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of disputes concerning credit agreements featuring international elements which fall within the scope of that regulation, allows debtors to bring an action against non-authorised lenders either before the courts of the State in which they have their registered office or before the courts of the place where the debtors have their domicile or head office and restricts jurisdiction to hear actions brought by creditors against their debtors only to courts of the State on the territory of which those debtors have their domicile, whether they are consumers or professionals.
1.

Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a Member State, designated as ‘responsible’ within the meaning of that regulation, has notified its intention to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with Article 50 TEU does not oblige the determining Member State to itself examine, under the discretionary clause set out in Article 17(1), the application for protection at issue.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 — Meta Group Srl v European Commission

(Case C-428/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2002-2006) - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) - Amounts allegedly owed by the European Commission in relation to the performance of those agreements - Outstanding balance of the total amount of the financial contribution granted to the appellant - Contractual liability)

(2019/C 155/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Meta Group Srl (represented by: A. Formica, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the appeal;

2. orders Meta Group Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
2.

Article 27(1)(b) of Directive 92/83 must be interpreted as applying to ethyl alcohol that has been denatured in accordance with the requirements of a Member State and is contained in cosmetics or mouthwashes which, although not intended, as such, for human consumption, are nevertheless consumed as alcoholic beverages by certain individuals, when the person who imports those products from a Member State in order for them to be supplied to the end consumers in the Member State of destination by other persons, knowing that they are also consumed as alcoholic beverages, has them manufactured and labelled with that in mind in order to increase the sale of those products.
1.

Declares that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations: — under Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, and section A and footnote 1 of Annex I thereto by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste water and rainwater system are retained and conducted for treatment in compliance with the requirements of that directive, as amended, so far as concerns the agglomerations of Athlone, Cork City, Enniscorthy apart from the townland of Killagoley, Fermoy, Mallow, Midleton, Ringaskiddy and Roscommon Town; — under Article 4(1) and/or (3) of Directive 91/271 as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof and section B of Annex I thereto, by not putting in place secondary or equivalent treatment so far as concerns the agglomerations of Arklow, Athlone, Ballybofey/Stranorlar, Cobh, Cork City, Enfield, Enniscorthy, Fermoy, Killybegs, Mallow, Midleton, Passage/Monkstown, Rathcormac, Ringaskiddy, Ringsend, Roscommon Town, Shannon Town, Tubbercurry and Youghal; — under Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 91/271 as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof and section B of Annex I thereto, by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from the agglomerations of Athlone, Cork City, Dundalk, Enniscorthy apart from the townland of Killagoley, Fermoy, Killarney, Killybegs, Longford, Mallow, Midleton, Navan, Nenagh, Portarlington, Ringsend, Roscrea and Tralee be, before discharge into sensitive areas, made subject to treatment more stringent than that described in Article 4 of that directive, as amended, and in accordance with the requirements of section B of Annex I thereto; and — under Article 12 of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, by not ensuring that the disposal of waste water from urban waste water treatment plants of the agglomerations of Arklow and Castlebridge is subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorisation;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH v EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

(Case C-437/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality - Right to paid annual leave based on the seniority of the worker with the employer - Account taken only in part of previous periods of service completed with other employers - Social law - Disparity between the schemes and legislation of the Member States)

(2019/C 155/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

Defendant: EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

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 national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for the purposes of determining whether a worker with 25 years of professional experience is entitled to an increase in his paid annual leave from five to six weeks, the years of service completed with one or more employers prior to the start of the worker’s period of service with his current employer account for only a maximum of five years of professional experience, even if their actual number is more than five.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Repsol Butano SA (C-473/17), DISA Gas SAU (C-546/17) v Administración del Estado

(Joined Cases C-473/17 and C-546/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy - Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) sector - Consumer protection - Requirement of general economic interest - Maximum price of a bottle of gas - Home delivery obligation - Article 106 TFEU - Directives 2003/55/EC, 2009/73/EC and 2006/123/EC - Interpretation of the judgment of 20 April 2010, Federutility and Others (C-265/08, EU:C:2010:205) - Principle of proportionality)

(2019/C 206/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Repsol Butano SA (C-473/17), DISA Gas SAU (C-546/17)

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Interveners: Redexis Gas SL, Repsol Butano SA (C-546/17)

Operative part of the judgment

The condition of proportionality laid down in Article 15(3)(c) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as not precluding measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which set a maximum price for bottled liquefied petroleum gas and which require certain operators to carry out home delivery of that gas, provided that those measures are maintained only for a limited duration and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective of general economic interest pursued.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Mobit Soc. cons. arl v Regione Toscana (C-350/17), Autolinee Toscane SpA v Mobit Soc. cons. arl (C-351/17)

(Joined Cases C-350/17 and C-351/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Article 5 - Award of public service contracts - Article 5(2) - Direct award - Concept of ‘internal operator’ - Authority exercising similar control - Article 8(2) - Transitional arrangements - Deadline for the expiry of the direct award)

(2019/C 187/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-350/17)

Applicant: Mobit Soc. cons. arl

Defendant: Regione Toscana

Interveners: Autolinee Toscane SpA, Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens (RATP) (C-350/17)

(Case C-351/17)

Applicant: Autolinee Toscane SpA

Defendant: Mobit Soc. cons. arl

Interveners: Regione Toscana, Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens (RATP) (C-351/17)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that Article 5 of Regulation No 1370/2007 is not applicable to an award procedure which has been carried out before 3 December 2019, so that a competent authority which awards, by an award decision closing a competitive tendering procedure, before that date, a public service concession contract for the provision of local passenger transport by road, is not required to comply with Article 5 of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.
3.

In a situation where national provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner which is consistent with Directive 2000/78, the national court is obliged, within the scope of its powers, to guarantee the legal protection conferred on individuals by that directive and to guarantee that that protection is fully effective, by disapplying, if need be, any contrary provision of national law. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that where there has been a finding of discrimination which is contrary to EU law, and for as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, the reinstatement of equal treatment, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, involves granting civil servants disadvantaged by the previous remuneration and advancement system the same benefits as those enjoyed by the civil servants treated more favourably by that system, both as regards the recognition of periods of service completed before the age of 18 and advancement in the pay scale and, accordingly, the award of financial compensation to those civil servants discriminated against in the sum of the difference between the amount of remuneration that the civil servant concerned ought to have received had he not been treated in a discriminatory manner and the remuneration which he in fact received.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 April 2019 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union

(Case C-611/17) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Common fisheries policy - Conservation of resources - International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas - Total allowable catch (TAC) for Mediterranean swordfish - Regulation (EU) 2017/1398 - Fixing of fishing opportunities for 2017 - Exclusive competence of the European Union - Determination of the reference period - Reliability of the basic facts - Scope of judicial review - Article 17 TEU - Management of the EU’s interests within international bodies - Principle of relative stability - Conditions under which applicable - Principles of non-retroactivity, legal certainty, legitimate expectation and non-discrimination)

(2019/C 220/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and E. Moro, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: V. Ester Casas and subsequently by M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Moro and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.
1.

Article 3(u) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that an installation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which produces, within the framework of its activity of ‘combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 [megawatts (MW)]’, referred to in Annex I to that directive, electricity intended essentially to be used for its own needs, must be regarded as an ‘electricity generator’, within the meaning of that provision, where that installation, first, carries out simultaneously an activity for producing a product which does not fall within that annex and, second, continuously feeds, for consideration, even a small part of the electricity produced into the public electricity network, to which that installation must be permanently connected for technical reasons.