do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-304/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Own resources — Customs duties — Finding of a customs debt — Inclusion in separate accounts — Obligation to make own resources available to the European Union — Recovery procedure initiated out of time — Default interest)
Date: 2019-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, illicit trade, infringement of EU law, interest, own resources, tobacco








C_2019305EN.01002002.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/20






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-304/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Own resources - Customs duties - Finding of a customs debt - Inclusion in separate accounts - Obligation to make own resources available to the European Union - Recovery procedure initiated out of time - Default interest)
(2019/C 305/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by Z. Malůšková, M. Owsiany-Hornung and F. Tomat, and subsequently by Z. Malůšková and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Albenzio, avvocato dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that by refusing to make available traditional own resources amounting to EUR 2 120 309,50, referred to in the write-off notice IT(07)08-917, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom of 31 October 1994, on the system of the European Communities’ own resources, Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000, on the system of the European Communities’ own resources, Article 8 of Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities' own resources and Article 8 of Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union, and Articles 10, 11 and Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, Articles 10, 11 and 17 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, and Articles 10, 12 and 13 Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 of 26 May 2014 on the methods and procedure for making available the traditional, VAT and GNI-based own resources and on the measures to meet cash requirements;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the Italian Republic to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the European Commission and to bear its own costs;










4.


Orders the European Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Case T-894/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Air France v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Measures implemented by France in favour of Marseille Provence Airport and airlines using the airport — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Investment subsidies — Differentiation between airport charges applicable to national and international flights — Reduced airport charges to encourage flights from the new Marseille Provence terminal 2 — Lack of individual concern — No substantial effect on the competitive position — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, State aid, airline, airport, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, international transport, investment aid, national transport








C_2019328EN.01004001.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/40






Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Air France v Commission
(Case T-894/16) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Measures implemented by France in favour of Marseille Provence Airport and airlines using the airport - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Investment subsidies - Differentiation between airport charges applicable to national and international flights - Reduced airport charges to encourage flights from the new Marseille Provence terminal 2 - Lack of individual concern - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 328/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Société Air France (Tremblay-en-France, France) (represented by: R. Sermier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, C. Giolito and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Aéroport Marseille Provence SA (Marignane, France) (represented by: A. Lepièce, lawyer), Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) and Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1698 of 20 February 2014 concerning measures SA.22932 (11/C) (ex NN 37/07) implemented by France in favour of Marseille Provence Airport and airlines using the airport (OJ 2016 L 260, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action as inadmissible;











2.



Orders Société Air France to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission











3.



Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd and Aéroport Marseille Provence SA to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.
Case C-529/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Potsdam (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2019 — Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG v ML
Date: 2019-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, sale, termination of a contract








C_2019348EN.01000601.xml










14.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Potsdam (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2019 — Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG v ML
(Case C-529/19)
(2019/C 348/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Potsdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: ML

Question referred

Is the right of withdrawal under Article 16(c) of the Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU) (1) also excluded where goods are made to the consumer’s specifications but the seller has not yet begun to manufacture the goods and would be making adjustments to them itself at the consumer’s premises, not through a third party? Does the answer depend on whether it would be possible to return the goods to the state they were in before customisation with only low dismantling costs, such as some 5 percent of the value of the goods?


(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).
Case T-227/18: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Microsemi Europe and Microsemi v Commission
Date: 2019-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition








C_2019328EN.01007702.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/77






Order of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Microsemi Europe and Microsemi v Commission
(Case T-227/18) (1)

(2019/C 328/87)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Case C-532/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2019 — QP v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo
Date: 2019-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, family law, family migration, family relationship, foreign national, freedom of movement, residence permit








C_2019432EN.01001602.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2019 — QP v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo
(Case C-532/19)
(2019/C 432/20)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and respondent: QP

Defendant and appellant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

Questions referred







1.


Is the requirement that a Spanish citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Royal Decree 240/2007, as a necessary condition for the grant of a right of residence to his third-country spouse under Article 7(2) of that Royal Decree, liable, in the event that those conditions are not satisfied, to constitute an infringement of Article 20 TFEU if, as a result of the refusal to grant that right, the Spanish citizen is compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole?
All of the above presupposes the requirement laid down in Article 68 of the Spanish Civil Code (Código Civil) for spouses to live together.










2.


In any event, notwithstanding the foregoing, does the practice of the Spanish State of automatically applying the rule laid down in Article 7 of Royal Decree 240/2007, and refusing to grant a residence permit to a family member of an EU citizen where that EU citizen has never exercised freedom of movement, on the ground that the EU citizen does not satisfy the conditions laid down in that provision, without having examined specifically and individually whether there exists a relationship of dependency between that EU citizen and the third-country national of such a nature that, for any reason and in the light of the circumstances, it would mean that were the third-country national refused a right of residence, the EU citizen could not be separated from the family member dependent on him and would have to leave the territory of the European Union, infringe Article 20 TFEU in the terms set out above?
All of this is in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including, inter alia, the judgment of 8 May 2018, C-82/16, K.A. and Others v Belgische Staat. (1)







(1)  Judgment of 8 May 2018, K.A. and Others (Family reunification in Belgium) (C-82/16, EU:C:2018:308).