16.5.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 198/21
Parties to the main proceedings Appellant: T. S.A.
Respondent: Przewodniczący Krajowej Rady Radiofonii i Telewizji
Question referred Must Article 20(2) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), (1) in conjunction with Article 4(1) thereof, and Articles 11 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prohibits only television broadcasters from placing advertisements in their children’s programmes, but places no such prohibition on the broadcasters of on-demand audiovisual media services?
(1)
OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2022 — XXX v Helvetia schweizerische Lebensversicherungs-AG (Case C-41/22) (2022/C 198/31) Language of the case: German Referring court Landgericht Erfurt
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: XXX Defendant: Helvetia schweizerische Lebensversicherungs-AG
Questions referred 1.
Does EU law, in particular Article 15(1) of the Second Life Assurance Directive, (1) Article 31 of the Third Life Assurance Directive (2) and Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC, (3) read where appropriate in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national legislation or case-law under which a policyholder — who has legitimately exercised his or her right of cancellation — is required to bear the burden of demonstration and proof for the purpose of quantifying the benefits of use derived by the insurer itself?
Where such an imposition of the burden of demonstration and proof is permissible, does EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness, require that the policyholder enjoy, in return, rights to information or some other assistance from the insurer that will enable him or her to enforce his or her rights? 2.
Is an insurer which provided the policyholder with no information or only incorrect information on his or her right of cancellation prohibited from relying on forfeiture, abuse of rights or lapse of time to prevent the exercise of the policyholder’s resultant rights, including the right of cancellation?