do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-741/18 P: Order of the Court of 19 December 2019 — OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State Aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers — Action for annulment — Alleged decisions not to raise objections — Deadline for lodging an appeal — Starting point — Awareness of the existence of the contested measure — Request for translation of the contested measure — Reasonable time — Out of time — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Assessment of the facts — Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, State aid, control of State aid, integration of people with disabilities, limitation of legal proceedings, worker with disabilities








C_2020068EN.01002201.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/22






Order of the Court of 19 December 2019 — OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) v European Commission
(Case C-741/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State Aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers - Action for annulment - Alleged decisions not to raise objections - Deadline for lodging an appeal - Starting point - Awareness of the existence of the contested measure - Request for translation of the contested measure - Reasonable time - Out of time - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Assessment of the facts - Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded)
(2020/C 68/21)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Appellant: OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) (represented by: L. Szabó, űgyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.










2.


OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Case T-812/14 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo — Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Lack of standing — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Portugal, State aid, admissibility, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, financial institution








C_2020061EN.01002301.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/23






Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission
(Case T-812/14 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo - Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Lack of standing - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 61/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and the 19 other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment (represented by: J. Webber and M. Steenson, Solicitors, and B. Woolgar and K. Bacon, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and S. Jaulino, acting as Agents, and M. Mendes Pereira, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5682 final of 3 August 2014 on State aid SA.39250 (2014/N) — Portugal — Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action as inadmissible;











2.



Orders BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission for the proceedings for interim relief, at first instance and after referral back to the General Court;











3.



Orders the Commission to bear the costs incurred by it in the proceedings on the appeal;











4.



Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
Case C-360/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Cargill Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013 — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar sector — Production levy — Effectiveness — Right to reimbursement of sums unduly paid — Applicability of national rules on limitation periods — Principle of effectiveness)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural production, common organisation of markets, marketing year, regulation of agricultural production, sugar, sugar industry, sugar levy








C_2020061EN.01000502.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/5






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Cargill Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
(Case C-360/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013 - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar sector - Production levy - Effectiveness - Right to reimbursement of sums unduly paid - Applicability of national rules on limitation periods - Principle of effectiveness)
(2020/C 61/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cargill Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013 of 2 December 2013 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 marketing years, the coefficient required for calculating the additional levy for the 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 marketing years and the amount to be paid by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum levy and the levy to be charged for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 marketing years must be interpreted as:






—


meaning that the sums unduly paid by economic operators by way of those production levies must be reimbursed under national law, in particular within the limitation periods provided for by that law, in compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness; and as










—


precluding national rules which, as interpreted by the competent courts, provide that the applicable limitation period during which reimbursement of unduly paid sugar production levies may be requested expired before that regulation entered into force, making it practically impossible to exercise the right, conferred on those economic operators by the EU legal order, to obtain reimbursement of those levies for the marketing years covered by that regulation.






(1)  OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.
Case T-743/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Japan Tobacco v EUIPO — I.J. Tobacco Industry (I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY — Earlier EU figurative mark JTi — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2020061EN.01003201.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/32






Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Japan Tobacco v EUIPO — I.J. Tobacco Industry (I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY)
(Case T-743/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY - Earlier EU figurative mark JTi - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 61/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Japan Tobacco, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero and R. Ahijón Lana, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska, J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: I.J. Tobacco Industry FZE (Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: A.-E. Malami, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 (Case R 979/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Japan Tobacco and I.J. Tobacco Industry.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Japan Tobacco, Inc., to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by I.J. Tobacco Industry FZE.







(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
Case C-389/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Brussels Securities SA v État Belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Directive 90/435/EEC — Prevention of double taxation — First indent of Article 4(1) — Prohibition on taxing profits received — Inclusion of the dividend distributed by the subsidiary in the parent company’s tax base — Deduction of the dividend distributed from the parent company’s tax base and the indefinite carrying forward of the surplus to the following tax years — The order in which tax deductions on profits are to be applied — Loss of a tax advantage)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: basis of tax assessment, corporation tax, double taxation, nationality of legal persons, parent company, subsidiary, tax relief








C_2020061EN.01000701.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/7






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Brussels Securities SA v État Belge
(Case C-389/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Directive 90/435/EEC - Prevention of double taxation - First indent of Article 4(1) - Prohibition on taxing profits received - Inclusion of the dividend distributed by the subsidiary in the parent company’s tax base - Deduction of the dividend distributed from the parent company’s tax base and the indefinite carrying forward of the surplus to the following tax years - The order in which tax deductions on profits are to be applied - Loss of a tax advantage)
(2020/C 61/08)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Brussels Securities SA

Defendant: État Belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that dividends received by a parent company from its subsidiary must first be included in the tax base of the parent company, before 95 % of the amount of the dividends is then deducted, and any surplus may be carried forward to subsequent tax years indefinitely, that deduction having priority over another tax deduction which may only be carried forward for a limited time.


(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Case C-589/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd v European Commission, Viscas Corp. (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Determination of the value of sales — Principle of equal treatment)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, electric cable, equal treatment, market-sharing agreement, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2020061EN.01001401.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/14






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd v European Commission, Viscas Corp.
(Case C-589/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for underground and submarine power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Determination of the value of sales - Principle of equal treatment)
(2020/C 61/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (represented by: initially, A. Luke and C. Pouncey, Solicitors, then A. Luke and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, A. Biolan and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents), Viscas Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Declares that Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Declares that Viscas Corp. is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case C-16/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Michael Dobersberger v Magistrat der Stadt Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 56 and 57 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Applicability — Article 1(3)(a) — Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services — Provision of services on board international trains — National rules imposing administrative obligations in relation to the posting of workers)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: crew, establishment, freedom to provide services, international transport, posted worker, provision of services, rail transport








C_2020061EN.01000201.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/2






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Michael Dobersberger v Magistrat der Stadt Wien
(Case C-16/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 56 and 57 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Directive 96/71/EC - Applicability - Article 1(3)(a) - Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services - Provision of services on board international trains - National rules imposing administrative obligations in relation to the posting of workers)
(2020/C 61/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Michael Dobersberger

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover the provision, under a contract concluded by an undertaking established in a Member State and an undertaking established in another Member State, which is contractually linked to a railway undertaking established in that same Member State, of on-board services, cleaning or food and drink services for passengers carried out by salaried employees of the first undertaking, or by workers hired out to it by an undertaking also established in the first Member State, on international trains crossing the second Member State, where those workers carry out a significant part of the work inherent in those services in the territory of the first Member State and where they begin or end their shifts there.


(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.
Case C-290/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank charges, consumer credit, consumer information, contract terms, cost of borrowing








C_2020068EN.01001501.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/15






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
(Case C-290/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer credit agreements - Article 10(2) - Information to be included in credit agreements - Annual percentage rate of charge - Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge - Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%)
(2020/C 68/13)
Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Krajský súd v Trnave

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RN

Defendant: Home Credit Slovakia a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(2)(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, as amended by Commission Directive 2011/90/EU of 14 November 2011, must be interpreted as precluding, in a consumer credit agreement, the annual percentage rate of charge from being expressed not as a single rate but as a range referring to a minimum and a maximum rate.


(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Case C-582/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Viscas Corp. v European Commission and Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Determining the relative weight of the European and non-European members in the cartel — Participation of European undertakings in the cartel at several levels — Principle of equal treatment)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition policy, control of restrictive practices, electric cable, equal treatment, international cartel, market-sharing agreement, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2020061EN.01001302.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/13






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Viscas Corp. v European Commission and Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd
(Case C-582/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for underground and submarine power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Determining the relative weight of the European and non-European members in the cartel - Participation of European undertakings in the cartel at several levels - Principle of equal treatment)
(2020/C 61/15)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Viscas Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, A. Biolan and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents), Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (represented by: initially, by A. Luke and C. Pouncey, Solicitors, and, subsequently, by A. Luke and K. Fountoukakos, Solicitors)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case C-460/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — HK v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Civil service — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 1d — First paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII — Pension for the surviving spouse — Conditions for granting — Concept of ‘surviving spouse’ of a Union official — Marriage and non-marital partnership — Cohabitation — Principle of non-discrimination — Comparable situation — None — Condition of duration of marriage — Combating fraud — Justification)
Date: 2019-12-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, cohabitation, equal treatment, fraud against the EU, marriage, survivor's benefit








C_2020068EN.01001102.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/11






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — HK v European Commission, Council of the European Union
(Case C-460/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 1d - First paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII - Pension for the surviving spouse - Conditions for granting - Concept of ‘surviving spouse’ of a Union official - Marriage and non-marital partnership - Cohabitation - Principle of non-discrimination - Comparable situation - None - Condition of duration of marriage - Combating fraud - Justification)
(2020/C 68/08)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: HK (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and B. Mongin, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 May 2018, HK v Commission (T-574/16, not published, EU:T:2018:252);










2.


Dismisses HK’s action seeking annulment of European Commission’s decision refusing to grant him the benefit of the survivor’s pension and to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage alleged;










3.


Orders HK, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal.






(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.