do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-578/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Oy Hartwall Ab (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Articles 2 and 3(1)(b) — Refusal to register or invalidity — Assessment of distinctive character by reference to the actual situation — Classification of a trade mark — Effect — Colour mark or figurative mark — Graphic representation of a mark submitted as a figurative mark — Conditions for registration — Insufficiently clear and precise graphic representation)
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, goods and services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019187EN.01002001.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/20






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Oy Hartwall Ab
(Case C-578/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Articles 2 and 3(1)(b) - Refusal to register or invalidity - Assessment of distinctive character by reference to the actual situation - Classification of a trade mark - Effect - Colour mark or figurative mark - Graphic representation of a mark submitted as a figurative mark - Conditions for registration - Insufficiently clear and precise graphic representation)
(2019/C 187/22)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Oy Hartwall Ab

Interested party: Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 2 and 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the classification as a ‘colour mark’ or ‘figurative mark’ given to a sign by the applicant on registration is a relevant factor among others for the purpose of establishing whether that sign can constitute a trade mark within the meaning of Article 2 of the directive and, if so, whether it is distinctive within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of that directive, but does not release the competent trade mark authority from its obligation to carry out a global assessment of distinctive character by reference to the actual situation of the mark considered, which means that that authority cannot refuse registration of a sign as a mark on the sole ground that that sign has not acquired distinctive character through use in relation to the goods or services claimed.










2.


Article 2 of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the registration of a sign as a mark due to an inconsistency in the application for registration, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.






(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.
Case C-680/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel, Remedia d.o.o. v European Commission (Appeal — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 30(1) — Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use — Referral of a matter to the committee subject to the absence of a previous national decision — Active substance estradiol — Decision of the European Commission ordering the Member States to revoke or vary marketing authorisations for medicinal products with 0.01% estradiol by weight for topical use)
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, hormone, market approval, medicinal product








C_2019187EN.01000501.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/5






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel, Remedia d.o.o. v European Commission
(Case C-680/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 30(1) - Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use - Referral of a matter to the committee subject to the absence of a previous national decision - Active substance estradiol - Decision of the European Commission ordering the Member States to revoke or vary marketing authorisations for medicinal products with 0.01% estradiol by weight for topical use)
(2019/C 187/06)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel, Remedia d.o.o. (represented by: P. Klappich and C. Schmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and A. Sipos and by M. Šimerdová, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 October 2016, August Wolff and Remedia v Commission (T-672/14, not published, EU:T:2016:623);










2.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 6030 final of 19 August 2014 concerning the marketing authorisations for high concentration of estradiol containing human medicinal products for topical use in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in so far as that decision directs the Member States to comply with the requirements which it stipulated for the medicinal products, for which Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel and Remedia d.o.o. hold marketing authorisation, with 0.01% estradiol by weight for topical use referenced and non-referenced in Annex I thereto, excluding the restriction that the medicinal products with 0.01% estradiol by weight for topical use;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal, with the exception of the proceedings for interim measures, which are to be borne by Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel and Remedia d.o.o.






(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Case C-236/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Canadian Solar Emea GmbH and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 3(7) — Article 9(4) — Temporal scope of Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012)
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, photovoltaic cell, semi-metal








C_2019187EN.01000901.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/9






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Canadian Solar Emea GmbH and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-236/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 3(7) - Article 9(4) - Temporal scope of Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012)
(2019/C 187/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd, formerly Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. (represented by: J. Bourgeois and A. Willems, avocats, and by S. De Knop, M. Meulenbelt and B. Natens, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, avocată), European Commission (represented by: N. Kuplewatzky, J.-F. Brakeland and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals;










2.


Orders Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal;










4.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal;










5.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal.






(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
Case C-545/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Mariusz Pawlak v Prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market of postal services — Directives 97/67/EC and 2008/6/EC — Article 7(1) — Definition of ‘exclusive or special rights for the establishment and provision of postal services’ — Article 8 — Right of the Member States to organise the registered mail service used in the course of judicial proceedings — Time-limit for lodging a procedural document before a court — Interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law — Limits — Direct effect relied on by an emanation of a Member State in proceedings between it and an individual)
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: direct applicability, judicial proceedings, postal service, provision of services, single market








C_2019187EN.01001901.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/19






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Mariusz Pawlak v Prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego
(Case C-545/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market of postal services - Directives 97/67/EC and 2008/6/EC - Article 7(1) - Definition of ‘exclusive or special rights for the establishment and provision of postal services’ - Article 8 - Right of the Member States to organise the registered mail service used in the course of judicial proceedings - Time-limit for lodging a procedural document before a court - Interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law - Limits - Direct effect relied on by an emanation of a Member State in proceedings between it and an individual)
(2019/C 187/21)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Mariusz Pawlak

Respondent: Prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The first sentence of Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, read in conjunction with Article 8 of Directive 97/67/EC, must be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law which recognises only the posting of a procedural document in a post office of the sole operator designated to provide the universal postal service as being equivalent to lodging a procedural document before the relevant court, without there being an objective justification based on grounds of public policy or public security.










2.


A public authority, regarded as an emanation of a Member State, cannot rely on Directive 97/67, as amended by Directive 2008/6, as such, against an individual.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Case C-258/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 27 March 2019 — EUROVIA Ipari, Kerskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, civil procedure, enforcement of ruling, provision of services, tax relief








C_2019187EN.01004801.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/48






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 27 March 2019 — EUROVIA Ipari, Kerskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-258/19)
(2019/C 187/52)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EUROVIA Ipari, Kereskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred







1.


Does the practice of a Member State infringe the principle of fiscal neutrality and the formal requirements of the right to deduct VAT where, for the purposes of exercising the right to deduct the tax, it has regard solely to the time the chargeable event occurred, and does not take into account the fact that there was a civil dispute between the parties concerning performance of the contract, which was determined in judicial proceedings, and that the invoice was only issued once a final judgment was delivered?










2.


If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is it possible to exceed the limitation period for exercising the right to deduct VAT, set by the legislation of the Member State at five years from the time when the services were supplied?










3.


If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is the exercise of the right to deduct VAT affected by the conduct of the recipient of the invoice in the present case, which did not pay the contractor’s remuneration determined by a final judgment until the contractor had brought enforcement proceedings, for which reason the invoice was not issued until after the limitation period had expired?
Case C-201/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Mydibel SA v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Deduction of input tax — Immovable property acquired as capital goods — Sale and lease back — Adjustment of deductions of VAT — Principle of VAT neutrality — Principle of equal treatment)
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, capital goods, equal treatment, financial institution, lease, real property, sale, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2019187EN.01002702.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/27






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Mydibel SA v État belge
(Case C-201/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Deduction of input tax - Immovable property acquired as capital goods - Sale and lease back - Adjustment of deductions of VAT - Principle of VAT neutrality - Principle of equal treatment)
(2019/C 187/31)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mydibel SA

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Subject to verification of the relevant matters of fact and national law by the referring court, Articles 184, 185, 187 and 188 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as not imposing an obligation to adjust value added tax (VAT) on a building which was initially deducted correctly, where that property was the subject of a sale and lease back transaction not subject to VAT in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings.










2.


An interpretation of Articles 184, 185, 187 and 188 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/162, as imposing an obligation to adjust the value added tax (VAT) initially deducted in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings complies with the principles of VAT neutrality and equal treatment.






(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/216 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 January 2019 on the apportionment of tariff rate quotas included in the WTO schedule of the Union following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 (OJ L 38, 8.2.2019)
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: United Kingdom, World Trade Organisation, agricultural product, fishery product, industrial product, processed food product, tariff quota, withdrawal from the EU








LI2019085EN.01006901.xml










27.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


LI 85/69







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/216 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 January 2019 on the apportionment of tariff rate quotas included in the WTO schedule of the Union following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 32/2000

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 38 of 8 February 2019
)


On page 18, Annex, Part A, in the table, 11th row (relating to order number 094166):
for:












‘Semi-milled or wholly milled rice


t


25 516 


OT


094166


88 %


22 442 ’





read:












‘Semi-milled or wholly milled rice


t


25 516 


EO


094166


88 %


22 442 ’
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 March 2019 on the proposal for a Council directive laying down the general arrangements for excise duty (recast) (COM(2018)0346 — C8-0381/2018 — 2018/0176(CNS))
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Committee on Legal Affairs, Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, European Parliament
Subjects: alcoholic beverage, electrical energy, energy-generating product, excise duty, free movement of goods, import (EU), suspension of customs duties, tax harmonisation, tax system, tobacco








C_2021108EN.01031001.xml










26.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/310






P8_TA(2019)0296
General arrangements for excise duty (recast) *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 March 2019 on the proposal for a Council directive laying down the general arrangements for excise duty (recast) (COM(2018)0346 — C8-0381/2018 — 2018/0176(CNS))
(Special legislative procedure — consultation — recast)
(2021/C 108/33)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2018)0346),










—


having regard to Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0381/2018),










—


having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts (1),










—


having regard to the letter of 22 February 2019 from the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in accordance with Rule 104(3) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to Rules 104 and 78c of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A8-0117/2019),










A.


whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the Commission proposal does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance;












1.


Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.






(1)  OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 1.
Case C-259/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 27 March 2019 — LG, PK v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2019246EN.01000701.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 27 March 2019 — LG, PK v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
(Case C-259/19)
(2019/C 246/07)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: LG, PK

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Questions referred

Whether, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, the following ruling is compliant with EU law in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant case-law: the ruling by the Supreme Court in judgments 44 to 49 of 23 January 2019, which establishes the unambiguous criterion that a term in a consumer mortgage loan agreement that has not been negotiated and that stipulates that all the costs of arranging the mortgage are to be borne by the borrower is unfair, and which apportions the various expenses that are involved in the unfair term found to be void between the bank that imposed the term and the borrower, in order to limit repayments of amounts wrongly paid under national legislation.
And whether, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant case-law, it is compliant with EU law for the Supreme Court to adopt an inclusive interpretation of a term that is void for unfairness if the term can be severed and its effects abolished without affecting the continued existence of the mortgage loan agreement.


(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.