do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-511/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Györgyné Lintner v UniCredit Bank Hungary Zrt. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Foreign currency based loan contract — Article 4(1) — Consideration of all the other terms of the contract for the purpose of assessing the unfairness of the contested term — Article 6(1) — Examination by the national court of its own motion as to whether the clauses in the contract are unfair — Scope)
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, lawyer, unfair terms of contract








C_2020215EN.01000201.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/2






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Györgyné Lintner v UniCredit Bank Hungary Zrt.
(Case C-511/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Foreign currency based loan contract - Article 4(1) - Consideration of all the other terms of the contract for the purpose of assessing the unfairness of the contested term - Article 6(1) - Examination by the national court of its own motion as to whether the clauses in the contract are unfair - Scope)
(2020/C 215/02)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Györgyné Lintner

Defendant: UniCredit Bank Hungary Zrt.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing an action brought by a consumer seeking to establish the unfair nature of certain terms in a contract that that consumer concluded with a professional, is not required to examine of its own motion and individually all the other contractual terms, which were not challenged by that consumer, in order to ascertain whether they can be considered unfair, but must examine only those terms which are connected to the subject matter of the dispute, as delimited by the parties, where that court has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task, as supplemented, where necessary, by measures of inquiry;










2.


Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, while all the other terms of the contract concluded between a professional and that consumer should be taken into consideration in order to assess whether the contractual term forming the basis of a consumer’s claim is unfair, taking such terms into account does not entail, as such, an obligation on the national court hearing the case to examine of its own motion whether all those terms are unfair.






(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9690 – Savencia/Compagnie des Fromages et Richesmonts) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 219/03
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cheese factory, dairy industry, dairy production, economic concentration, marketing, merger control








C_2020219EN.01000301.xml










3.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9690 – Savencia/Compagnie des Fromages et Richesmonts)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 219/03)
On 11 March 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission










—


(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9690. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-160/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 — Import of frozen poultrymeat originating in Brazil — Post-clearance recovery of additional import duties — Verification mechanism — Method for calculating additional duties)
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Brazil, additional duty, cif price, customs valuation, frozen product, import (EU), import levy, import price, poultrymeat, selling at a loss








C_2020215EN.01000302.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/3






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-160/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 - Import of frozen poultrymeat originating in Brazil - Post-clearance recovery of additional import duties - Verification mechanism - Method for calculating additional duties)
(2020/C 215/04)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: X BV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment







1.


On a proper construction of Article 3(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation No 163/67/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 248/2010 of 24 March 2010, the fact that goods imported into the European Union have been sold at a loss, that is, at a lower price than the CIF import price as set out in the customs declaration, is not in itself sufficient grounds for a finding that the correctness of the CIF import price has not been proved where the importer proves that all the conditions under which the consignment of those goods took place confirm that that price is correct.










2.


On a proper construction of Article 3(5) and Article 4 of Regulation No 1484/95, as amended by Regulation No 248/2010, in a situation where an importer has been unable to prove the correctness of the CIF import price set out in the customs declaration, the customs authorities must, in order to apply additional duties, set aside that price and make use of the methods for determining the customs value of imported goods laid down in Articles 29 to 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996.






(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Special Report 06/2020 ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU: No substantial improvement is possible without Member States’ commitment’ 2020/C 81/03
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU financing, intelligent transport system, motor vehicle pollution, public transport, reduction of gas emissions, sustainable mobility, transport infrastructure, transport network, transport planning, urban transport








C_2020081EN.01000401.xml










11.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/4






Special Report 06/2020
‘Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU: No substantial improvement is possible without Member States’ commitment’
(2020/C 81/03)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report 06/2020 ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU: No substantial improvement is possible without Member States’ commitment’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ Internet: http://eca.europa.eu.
Decision (EU) 2020/400 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 11 March 2020 appointing an Advocate-General to the Court of Justice
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: appointment of members, member of the Court of Justice (EU)








L_2020079EN.01000101.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 79/1








            DECISION (EU) 2020/400 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 11 March 2020
         
appointing an Advocate-General to the Court of Justice


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 253 and 255 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 of the Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and following the death of Mr Yves BOT, an Advocate‐General should be appointed to the Court of Justice for the remainder of the term of office of Mr Yves BOT, which ends on 6 October 2024.












(2)


Mr Jean RICHARD DE LA TOUR has been nominated for the vacant post.












(3)


The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of Mr Jean RICHARD DE LA TOUR to perform the duties of Advocate‐General of the Court of Justice,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Jean RICHARD DE LA TOUR is hereby appointed Advocate‐General of the Court of Justice for the period from 23 March 2020 to 6 October 2024.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 11 March 2020.


The President

M. CLAUSS
Case T-612/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2020 — Aceto Agricultural Chemicals v Commission (Application for interim relief — Plant protection products — Non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpropham — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: market approval, plant health control, plant health product, precautionary principle, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2020175EN.01002801.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/28






Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2020 — Aceto Agricultural Chemicals v Commission
(Case T-612/19 R)
(Application for interim relief - Plant protection products - Non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpropham - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
(2020/C 175/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corp. Ltd (Chester, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, A. Dawes and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/989 of 17 June 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpropham, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 160, p. 11).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-134/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Eisenstadt (Austria) lodged on 11 March 2020 — IR v Volkswagen AG
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: clean technology, combustion gases, consumer goods, consumer protection, contract terms, engine, environmental standard, motor vehicle pollution, reduction of gas emissions, vehicle parts








C_2020271EN.01002102.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Eisenstadt (Austria) lodged on 11 March 2020 — IR v Volkswagen AG
(Case C-134/20)
(2020/C 271/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Eisenstadt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IR

Defendant: Volkswagen AG

Questions referred







a)


Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (1) 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 equipment of a vehicle, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 715/2007, is inadmissible if the exhaust gas recirculation valve (i.e. a component that is likely to affect emissions performance) is designed in such a way that the exhaust gas recirculation rate (i.e. the portion of the exhaust gas being recirculated) is regulated in such a way that the valve ensures a low-emission mode only between 15 and 33 degrees Celsius and only below an altitude of 1 000 m, and, outside this temperature window, per 10 degrees Celsius, and above an altitude of 1 000 m, per 250 metres of altitude, the rate decreases in a linear way down to zero, meaning that NOx emissions increase beyond the limits of Regulation No 715/2007?










b)


Is it relevant to the assessment of Question a) whether the equipment referred to in Question a) is necessary to protect the engine against damage?










c)


Furthermore, is it relevant to the assessment of Question b) whether the part of the engine which is to be protected against damage is the exhaust gas recirculation valve?










d)


Is it relevant to the assessment of Question a) whether the equipment of the vehicle referred to in Question a) was already installed when the vehicle was produced or whether the regulation of the exhaust gas recirculation valve described in Question a) is to be installed in the vehicle by way of a repair within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Directive 1999/44/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees?






(1)  OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12.
Joined Cases C-694/18 to C-697/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central — Spain) — Ente Público Radio Televisión Madrid (C-694/18), Agencia Pública Empresarial de la Radio y Televisión de Andalucía (RTVA) (C-695/18), Radiotelevisión del Principado de Asturias S.A.U. (C-696/18), Ente Público de Radiotelevisión de Castilla La Mancha (C-697/18) v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT)
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, economic activity, provision of services, public institution, tax relief, taxpayer, television








C_2020320EN.01001704.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/17






Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central — Spain) — Ente Público Radio Televisión Madrid (C-694/18), Agencia Pública Empresarial de la Radio y Televisión de Andalucía (RTVA) (C-695/18), Radiotelevisión del Principado de Asturias S.A.U. (C-696/18), Ente Público de Radiotelevisión de Castilla La Mancha (C-697/18) v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT)
(Joined Cases C-694/18 to C-697/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/29)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Case C-338/19: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA v Regione Sardegna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Article 108 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Recovery of aid by the Member State on its own initiative — Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 — Applicable interest rate)
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Sardinia, State aid, control of State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid, telecommunications industry








C_2020287EN.01001701.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/17






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA v Regione Sardegna
(Case C-338/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Article 108 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Recovery of aid by the Member State on its own initiative - Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 - Applicable interest rate)
(2020/C 287/24)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

Defendant: Regione Sardegna

Operative part of the order

The interest rate provided for in Article 9(1) and (2) of 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 [108 TFEU], as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008, is not applicable where a national authority recovers State aid on its own initiative.


(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Case C-918/19: Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — GDVI Verbraucherhilfe GmbH v Swiss International Air Lines AG
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Switzerland, agreement (EU), air transport, carrier, indemnification, international transport, reservation, third country, traveller








C_2020320EN.01002303.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/23






Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — GDVI Verbraucherhilfe GmbH v Swiss International Air Lines AG
(Case C-918/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/52)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
Decision concerning the assessment of the conditions for resolution in respect of AS PNB Banka 2020/C 81/04
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: Single Resolution Board
Subjects: EU banking union, aid to undertakings, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, financial supervision








C_2020081EN.01000501.xml










11.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/5






Decision concerning the assessment of the conditions for resolution in respect of AS PNB Banka
(2020/C 81/04)
On 15 August 2019, the Single Resolution Board decided not to place AS PNB Banka under resolution. This decision was based on the conclusion that the condition of Article 18(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) was not met. The main elements of this decision are as follows:






Date of adoption of the decision:


15 August 2019




Decision No:


SRB/EES/2019/131




Addressee:


Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija




Institution:


PNB Banka




Application of the write-down and conversion of capital instruments power:


No




Resolution action:


No




Fund aid:


No




More information about this decision can be found on the SRB’s official Internet: https://srb.europa.eu/en/content/pnb


(1)  OJ L 225, 30.7.2014, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9684 — Parks Bottom/Omers/Accor/Fairmont Hotels) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 419/06
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, merger control, real estate business








C_2020419EN.01001601.xml










4.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/16






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9684 — Parks Bottom/Omers/Accor/Fairmont Hotels)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 419/06)
On 11 March 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9684. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-192/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Rensen Shipbuilding BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Heading 8901 — Ship hulls — Maritime navigation — Vessels, designed as seagoing — Meaning)
Date: 2020-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, specification of tariff heading, vessel








C_2020215EN.01001902.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/19






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Rensen Shipbuilding BV
(Case C-192/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 8901 - Ship hulls - Maritime navigation - Vessels, designed as seagoing - Meaning)
(2020/C 215/23)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rensen Shipbuilding BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane district Rotterdam

Operative part of the judgment

Additional note 1 to Chapter 89 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that vessels which, because of the properties inherent in their construction, are able to sail only about 21 nautical miles off the coast in the event of bad weather do not come within the concept of ‘vessels, designed as seagoing’ in that Additional note.


(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.