mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Delfarma Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Protection of health and life of humans — Parallel import of medicinal products — Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products — Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products.
Case C-387/18. (2019)
Language: Swedish

Delfarma begärde omprövning av sin ansökan, varvid den bad myndighetens direktör att inte tillämpa artikel 2 led 7b b i läkemedelslagen på grund av att denna bestämmelse medför en begränsning av den fria rörligheten för varor som är förbjuden enligt artikel 34 FEUF. Till stöd för denna begäran ifrågasatte Delfarma bedömningen att motsvarigheten till ett referensläkemedel och ett referensläkemedel inte kan anses vara identiska med varandra eller likna varandra av det enda skälet att de godkänts på grundval av olika dokumentation. Delfarma gjorde vidare gällande att det ytterligare krav som föreskrivs i artikel 2 led 7b b i läkemedelslagen, enligt vilket det importerade läkemedlet och det läkemedel som godkänts i importstaten måste ingå i samma registreringskategori för läkemedel, är av formell karaktär och inte motiveras av hänsyn till skyddet för folkhälsan.
Genom beslut av den 3 augusti 2017 fastställde myndighetens direktör sitt tidigare beslut med motiveringen att dokumentationen för ett referensläkemedel inte kan styrka kvaliteten, säkerheten och effekten av en motsvarighet till referensläkemedlet och att utsläppandet på marknaden av ett läkemedel för vilket den behöriga myndigheten inte förfogar över dokumentation som gör det möjligt att kontrollera dessa uppgifter utgör ett hot mot hälsa och liv, vilket motiverar det krav som föreskrivs i artikel 2 led 7b b i läkemedelslagen.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Delfarma"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "myndighetens direktör"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Delfarma"->"begärde omprövning av sin ansökan";
  "begärde omprövning av sin ansökan"->"tillämpa artikel 2 led 7b b i läkemedelslagen på grund av att denna bestämmelse medför en begränsning av den fria rörligheten för varor som är förbjuden enligt artikel 34 FEUF. 34 TFEU."[dir=none];
  "begärde omprövning av sin ansökan"->"myndighetens direktör";
  "myndighetens direktör"->"fastställde myndighetens direktör sitt tidigare beslut 03/08/2017";
  "fastställde myndighetens direktör sitt tidigare beslut 03/08/2017"->"Delfarma";
  "fastställde myndighetens direktör sitt tidigare beslut 03/08/2017"->"motiverar det krav som föreskrivs i artikel 2 led 7b b i läkemedelslagen"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Delfarma Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Protection of health and life of humans — Parallel import of medicinal products — Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products — Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products.
Case C-387/18. (2019)
Language: Croatian

U tim je okolnostima Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Vojvodski upravni sud u Varšavi, Poljska) odlučio prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeće prethodno pitanje:
„Protivi li se pravu Unije, osobito člancima 34. i 36. UFEU‑a, nacionalni propis u skladu s kojim se stavljanje lijeka iz paralelnog uvoza u promet u državi članici ne može odobriti isključivo zbog toga što je lijek iz paralelnog uvoza u državi članici izvoza odobren kao ekvivalent referentnog lijeka, odnosno na temelju skraćene dokumentacije, dok je u državi članici uvoza takav lijek odobren za stavljanje u promet kao referentni lijek, odnosno na temelju potpune dokumentacije, pri čemu se odobrenje odbija bez ispitivanja osnovne terapijske istovjetnosti obaju lijekova te bez upućivanja zahtjeva nacionalnog tijela nadležnom tijelu u državi izvoza za dostavu odgovarajuće dokumentacije, unatoč takvoj mogućnosti?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Vojvodski upravni sud u Varšavi, Poljska)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sud"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Vojvodski upravni sud u Varšavi, Poljska)"->"prekinuti postupak"[dir=none];
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Vojvodski upravni sud u Varšavi, Poljska)"->"prethodno pitanje";
  "prethodno pitanje"->"Sud";
  "prethodno pitanje"->"Protivi li se pravu Unije, osobito člancima 34. i 36. UFEU‑a, nacionalni propis u skladu s kojim se stavljanje lijeka iz paralelnog uvoza u promet u državi članici ne može odobriti isključivo zbog toga što je lijek iz paralelnog uvoza u državi članici izvoza odobren kao ekvivalent referentnog lijeka, odnosno na temelju skraćene dokumentacije, dok je u državi članici uvoza takav lijek odobren za stavljanje u promet kao referentni lijek, odnosno na temelju potpune dokumentacije, pri čemu se odobrenje odbija bez ispitivanja osnovne terapijske istovjetnosti obaju lijekova te bez upućivanja zahtjeva nacionalnog tijela nadležnom tijelu u državi izvoza za dostavu odgovarajuće dokumentacije, unatoč takvoj mogućnosti?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Delfarma Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Protection of health and life of humans — Parallel import of medicinal products — Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products — Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products.
Case C-387/18. (2019)
Language: Latvian

Šādos apstākļos Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Vojevodistes administratīvā tiesa Varšavā) nolēma apturēt tiesvedību un uzdot Tiesai šādu prejudiciālu jautājumu:
“Vai Savienības tiesības, it īpaši LESD 34. un 36. pants, nepieļauj valsts tiesisko regulējumu, saskaņā ar kuru dalībvalstī paralēli importēto zāļu tirdzniecības atļauja nevar tikt piešķirta tikai tādēļ, ka zāles, uz kurām attiecas paralēlais imports, ir atļautas eksportētājā dalībvalstī kā atsauces zāļu ekvivalents, proti, pamatojoties uz kopsavilkuma dokumentāciju, lai gan importētājā dalībvalstī minētās zāles tika atļautas kā atsauces zāles, proti, pamatojoties uz pilnīgu dokumentāciju, ņemot vērā, ka šāds lēmums par atteikumu tiek pieņemts bez abu zāļu terapeitiska identiskuma pārbaudes pēc būtības un bez valsts iestādes pieprasījuma, lai gan ir šāda iespēja, saņemt dokumentāciju no eksportētājas dalībvalsts kompetentās iestādes?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Vojevodistes administratīvā tiesa Varšavā)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tiesai"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Vojevodistes administratīvā tiesa Varšavā)"->"apturēt tiesvedību"[dir=none];
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Vojevodistes administratīvā tiesa Varšavā)"->"prejudiciālu jautājumu";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Tiesai";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Vai Savienības tiesības, it īpaši LESD 34. un 36. pants, nepieļauj valsts tiesisko regulējumu, saskaņā ar kuru dalībvalstī paralēli importēto zāļu tirdzniecības atļauja nevar tikt piešķirta tikai tādēļ, ka zāles, uz kurām attiecas paralēlais imports, ir atļautas eksportētājā dalībvalstī kā atsauces zāļu ekvivalents, proti, pamatojoties uz kopsavilkuma dokumentāciju, lai gan importētājā dalībvalstī minētās zāles tika atļautas kā atsauces zāles, proti, pamatojoties uz pilnīgu dokumentāciju, ņemot vērā, ka šāds lēmums par atteikumu tiek pieņemts bez abu zāļu terapeitiska identiskuma pārbaudes pēc būtības un bez valsts iestādes pieprasījuma, lai gan ir šāda iespēja, saņemt dokumentāciju no eksportētājas dalībvalsts kompetentās iestādes?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Delfarma Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Protection of health and life of humans — Parallel import of medicinal products — Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products — Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products.
Case C-387/18. (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

Tokiomis aplinkybėmis Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Varšuvos vaivadijos administracinis teismas) nusprendė sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą ir pateikti Teisingumo Teismui šį prejudicinį klausimą:
„Ar Sąjungos teisė, visų pirma Sutarties dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo 34 ir 36 straipsniai, draudžia nacionalinės teisės nuostatas, pagal kurias leidimas prekiauti valstybėje narėje lygiagrečiai importuojamu vaistu negali būti išduotas tik dėl to, kad lygiagrečiai importuojamam vaistui eksporto valstybėje narėje leidimas išduotas kaip generiniam vaistui, t. y. pagal dokumentų rinkinio santrauką, o importo valstybėje narėje tam vaistui leidimas išduotas kaip referenciniam vaistui, t. y. pagal išsamią dokumentaciją, be to, išduoti leidimą atsisakyta neatlikus tyrimo, ar abiejų produktų terapinis poveikis yra iš esmės toks pats, o nacionalinė institucija nesikreipė su prašymu pateikti dokumentaciją į atitinkamą instituciją eksporto šalyje, nors tokią galimybę turėjo?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Teisingumo Teismui"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie)"->"sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą"[dir=none];
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie)"->"prejudicinį klausimą";
  "prejudicinį klausimą"->"Teisingumo Teismui";
  "prejudicinį klausimą"->"Ar Sąjungos teisė, visų pirma Sutarties dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo 34 ir 36 straipsniai, draudžia nacionalinės teisės nuostatas, pagal kurias leidimas prekiauti valstybėje narėje lygiagrečiai importuojamu vaistu negali būti išduotas tik dėl to, kad lygiagrečiai importuojamam vaistui eksporto valstybėje narėje leidimas išduotas kaip generiniam vaistui, t. y. pagal dokumentų rinkinio santrauką, o importo valstybėje narėje tam vaistui leidimas išduotas kaip referenciniam vaistui, t. y. pagal išsamią dokumentaciją, be to, išduoti leidimą atsisakyta neatlikus tyrimo, ar abiejų produktų terapinis poveikis yra iš esmės toks pats, o nacionalinė institucija nesikreipė su prašymu pateikti dokumentaciją į atitinkamą instituciją eksporto šalyje, nors tokią galimybę turėjo?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Delfarma Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Protection of health and life of humans — Parallel import of medicinal products — Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products — Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products.
Case C-387/18. (2019)
Language: Slovak

Za týchto okolností Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Vojvodský správny súd Varšava, Poľsko) rozhodol prerušiť konanie a položiť Súdnemu dvoru nasledujúcu prejudiciálnu otázku:
„Bráni právo Únie, najmä články 34 a 36 ZFEÚ, vnútroštátnej právnej úprave, na základe ktorej nemožno vydať povolenie na uvedenie súbežne dovážaného lieku na trh v členskom štáte už z toho dôvodu, že súbežne dovážaný liek bol v členskom štáte vývozu povolený ako generikum referenčného lieku, t. j. na základe skrátenej dokumentácie, kým v štáte dovozu bol tento liek povolený ako referenčný liek, t. j. na základe úplnej dokumentácie, pričom toto zamietavé rozhodnutie sa vydá bez toho, aby sa preskúmala zásadná terapeutická zhoda oboch týchto liekov a bez toho, aby vnútroštátny orgán, aj napriek tomu, že takáto možnosť existuje, požiadal príslušné orgány štátu vývozu o predloženie dokumentácie?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Vojvodský správny súd Varšava, Poľsko)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Súdnemu dvoru"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Vojvodský správny súd Varšava, Poľsko)"->"prerušiť konanie"[dir=none];
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Vojvodský správny súd Varšava, Poľsko)"->"prejudiciálnu otázku";
  "prejudiciálnu otázku"->"Súdnemu dvoru";
  "prejudiciálnu otázku"->"Bráni právo Únie, najmä články 34 a 36 ZFEÚ, vnútroštátnej právnej úprave, na základe ktorej nemožno vydať povolenie na uvedenie súbežne dovážaného lieku na trh v členskom štáte už z toho dôvodu, že súbežne dovážaný liek bol v členskom štáte vývozu povolený ako generikum referenčného lieku, t. j. na základe skrátenej dokumentácie, kým v štáte dovozu bol tento liek povolený ako referenčný liek, t. j. na základe úplnej dokumentácie, pričom toto zamietavé rozhodnutie sa vydá bez toho, aby sa preskúmala zásadná terapeutická zhoda oboch týchto liekov a bez toho, aby vnútroštátny orgán, aj napriek tomu, že takáto možnosť existuje, požiadal príslušné orgány štátu vývozu o predloženie dokumentácie?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Delfarma Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Protection of health and life of humans — Parallel import of medicinal products — Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products — Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products.
Case C-387/18. (2019)
Language: Slovenian

V teh okoliščinah je Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (upravno sodišče vojvodstva Varšava, Poljska) prekinilo odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje:
„Ali pravo Unije, zlasti člena 34 in 36 PDEU, nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, v skladu s katero se dovoljenje za promet z vzporedno uvoženim zdravilom v državi članici ne more izdati že samo iz tega razloga, da je bilo za zdravilo, ki je predmet vzporednega uvoza, v državi članici izvoza dovoljenje za promet izdano za uporabo kot generično zdravilo referenčnega zdravila, torej na podlagi skrajšane dokumentacije, v državi članici uvoza pa je bilo za tako zdravilo dovoljenje za promet izdano za uporabo kot referenčno zdravilo, torej na podlagi popolne dokumentacije, pri čemer do te zavrnitve pride brez preučitve osnovne terapevtske identičnosti obeh zdravil in ne da bi nacionalni organ – čeprav taka možnost obstaja – ustrezni organ v državi članici izvoza zaprosil za dokumentacijo?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (upravno sodišče vojvodstva Varšava, Poljska)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sodišču"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (upravno sodišče vojvodstva Varšava, Poljska)"->"prekinilo odločanje"[dir=none];
  "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (upravno sodišče vojvodstva Varšava, Poljska)"->"to vprašanje";
  "to vprašanje"->"Sodišču";
  "to vprašanje"->"Ali pravo Unije, zlasti člena 34 in 36 PDEU, nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, v skladu s katero se dovoljenje za promet z vzporedno uvoženim zdravilom v državi članici ne more izdati že samo iz tega razloga, da je bilo za zdravilo, ki je predmet vzporednega uvoza, v državi članici izvoza dovoljenje za promet izdano za uporabo kot generično zdravilo referenčnega zdravila, torej na podlagi skrajšane dokumentacije, v državi članici uvoza pa je bilo za tako zdravilo dovoljenje za promet izdano za uporabo kot referenčno zdravilo, torej na podlagi popolne dokumentacije, pri čemer do te zavrnitve pride brez preučitve osnovne terapevtske identičnosti obeh zdravil in ne da bi nacionalni organ – čeprav taka možnost obstaja – ustrezni organ v državi članici izvoza zaprosil za dokumentacijo?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 March 2019.
Ministre de l'Action et des Comptes publics v Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d'appel de Nancy.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 3 — Matters covered — Levies on income from assets charged to a French resident insured under the Swiss social security scheme — Levies apportioned for the funding of two benefits administered by the French National Solidarity Fund for Independent Living — Direct and sufficiently relevant link with certain branches of social security — Definition of ‘social security benefit’ — Individual assessment of an applicant’s personal needs — Taking into account the applicant’s resources in calculating the amount of the benefits.
Case C-372/18 (2019)
Language: English

Mr and Mrs Dreyer are French nationals, living in France and tax residents of that Member State. Mr Dreyer, who is now retired, spent his entire career working in Switzerland. He and his wife are insured under the Swiss social security scheme.
By tax adjustment notice of 31 October 2016, confirmed by decision of 6 December 2016, the French tax authorities declared Mr and Mrs Dreyer subject to the general welfare contribution, the social debt repayment contribution, the social levy and additional contribution, and the solidarity levy (together ‘the contributions and levies at issue’) in respect of income from assets received in France in 2015 in the form of income from choses in action. The contributions and levies at issue fund three French bodies, namely the Fonds de solidarité vieillesse (Old-Age Solidarity Fund, ‘the FSV’), the Caisse d’amortissement de la dette sociale (Social Security Debt Redemption Fund, ‘the CADES’) and the Caisse nationale de solidarité pour l’autonomie (National Solidarity Fund for Independent Living, ‘the CNSA’).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Mr and Mrs Dreyer"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The French tax authorities"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "The French tax authorities"->"Tax adjustment notice 31/10/2016";
   "Tax adjustment notice 31/10/2016"->"Mr and Mrs Dreyer";
   "Living in France and tax residents of France."->"Mr and Mrs Dreyer"[dir=none];
   "Insured under the Swiss social security scheme"->"Mr and Mrs Dreyer"[dir=none];
   "Decision 06/12/2016"->"Tax adjustment notice 31/10/2016"[dir=none];
   "They are subject of the general welfare contribution, the social debt repayment contribution, the social levy and additional contribution, and the solidarity levy."->"The French tax authorities"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 March 2019.
Ministre de l'Action et des Comptes publics v Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d'appel de Nancy.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 3 — Matters covered — Levies on income from assets charged to a French resident insured under the Swiss social security scheme — Levies apportioned for the funding of two benefits administered by the French National Solidarity Fund for Independent Living — Direct and sufficiently relevant link with certain branches of social security — Definition of ‘social security benefit’ — Individual assessment of an applicant’s personal needs — Taking into account the applicant’s resources in calculating the amount of the benefits.
Case C-372/18 (2019)
Language: English

In those circumstances, the Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy (Administrative Court of Appeal, Nancy) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Do the contributions allocated to the [CNSA], which contribute to the funding of [the APA and the PCH], have a direct and sufficiently relevant link with certain branches of social security listed in Article 3 of Regulation No 883/2004 and do they therefore come within the scope of that regulation solely on the ground that those benefits relate to one of the risks set out in that Article 3 and are granted without any discretionary assessment on the basis of a legally defined position?’

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy (Administrative Court of Appeal, Nancy, France)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The Court of Justice"[shape=doubleoctagon];
     
   "Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy (Administrative Court of Appeal, Nancy, France)"->"Question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling";
   "Question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling"->"The Court of Justice";
   "Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy (Administrative Court of Appeal, Nancy, France)"->"Stay the proceedings"[dir=none];
   "Question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling"->"Do the contributions allocated to the [CNSA], which contribute to the funding of [the APA and the PCH], have a direct and sufficiently relevant link with certain branches of social security listed in Article 3 of Regulation No 883/2004 and do they therefore come within the scope of that regulation solely on the ground that those benefits relate to one of the risks set out in that Article 3 and are granted without any discretionary assessment on the basis of a legally defined position?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019.
Ágnes Weil v Géza Gulácsi.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Járásbíróság.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 66 — Temporal scope — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Material scope — Civil and commercial matters — Article 1(1) and (2)(a) — Matters excluded — Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship — Article 54 — Application for the certificate certifying that the judgment given by the court of origin is enforceable — Judgment given concerning a debt stemming from the settlement of rights in property arising out of an unregistered non-marital partnership.
Case C-361/18. (2019)
Language: English

Ms Weil and Mr Gulácsi were unregistered partners, within the meaning of Article 685/A of the Civil Code, who lived together from February 2002 to October 2006.
By judgment of the Szekszárdi Városi Bíróság (Municipal Court, Szekszárd, Hungary) which became final and enforceable on 23 April 2009, Mr Gulácsi was ordered to pay Ms Weil the sum of 665133 Hungarian forint (HUF) (approximately EUR 2060), together with interest for late payment, by virtue of the settlement of rights in property arising out of their de facto (unregistered) non-martial partnership.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Mr Gulácsi"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Ms Weil"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Szekszárdi Városi Bíróság (Municipal Court, Szekszárd, Hungary)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "Mr Gulácsi"->"Unregistered partners"[dir=none, style=bold];
   "Unregistered partners"->"Ms Weil"[dir=none, style=bold];
   "Unregistered partners"->"Article 685/A of the Civil Code"[dir=none];
   "Szekszárdi Városi Bíróság (Municipal Court, Szekszárd, Hungary)"->"Judgement 23/04/2009";
   "Judgement 23/04/2009"->"Mr Gulácsi";
   "Judgement 23/04/2009"->"Mr Gulácsi was  ordered to pay Ms Weil the sum of 665133 Hungarian forint (HUF) (approximately EUR 2060)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019.
Ágnes Weil v Géza Gulácsi.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Járásbíróság.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 66 — Temporal scope — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Material scope — Civil and commercial matters — Article 1(1) and (2)(a) — Matters excluded — Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship — Article 54 — Application for the certificate certifying that the judgment given by the court of origin is enforceable — Judgment given concerning a debt stemming from the settlement of rights in property arising out of an unregistered non-marital partnership.
Case C-361/18. (2019)
Language: English

In order to obtain payment of that debt, Ms Weil initiated enforcement proceedings against Mr Gulácsi in Hungary, which were unsuccessful, since the latter did not have any assets.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Mr Gulácsi"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Ms Weil"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "Ms Weil"->"Initiated enforcement proceedings in Hungary";
   "Initiated enforcement proceedings in Hungary"->"Mr Gulácsi";
   "Initiated enforcement proceedings in Hungary"->"Unsuccessful since Mr Gulácsi did not have any assets in Hungary"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019.
Ágnes Weil v Géza Gulácsi.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Járásbíróság.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 66 — Temporal scope — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Material scope — Civil and commercial matters — Article 1(1) and (2)(a) — Matters excluded — Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship — Article 54 — Application for the certificate certifying that the judgment given by the court of origin is enforceable — Judgment given concerning a debt stemming from the settlement of rights in property arising out of an unregistered non-marital partnership.
Case C-361/18. (2019)
Language: English

Aware that Mr Gulácsi had been living in the United Kingdom since 2006, where he had a regular income, Ms Weil lodged an application, on 22 November 2017, before the Szekszárdi Járásbíróság (Szekszárd District Court, Hungary) — the same court which had given the judgment of 23 April 2009 — for the certificate referred to in Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012, for the purposes of enforcing that judgment.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Szekszárdi Járásbíróság (Szekszárd District Court, Hungary)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Ms Weil"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012"[shape=trapezium];
    
   "Ms Weil"->"Loged an application 22/11/2017";
   "Loged an application 22/11/2017"->"Szekszárdi Járásbíróság (Szekszárd District Court, Hungary)";
   "Loged an application 22/11/2017"->"Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012"[dir=none];
   "Loged an application 22/11/2017"->"The certificate referred to in Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012, for the purposes of enforcing that judgment."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019.
Ágnes Weil v Géza Gulácsi.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Járásbíróság.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 66 — Temporal scope — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Material scope — Civil and commercial matters — Article 1(1) and (2)(a) — Matters excluded — Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship — Article 54 — Application for the certificate certifying that the judgment given by the court of origin is enforceable — Judgment given concerning a debt stemming from the settlement of rights in property arising out of an unregistered non-marital partnership.
Case C-361/18. (2019)
Language: English

Aware that Mr Gulácsi had been living in the United Kingdom since 2006, where he had a regular income, Ms Weil lodged an application, on 22 November 2017, before the Szekszárdi Járásbíróság (Szekszárd District Court, Hungary) — the same court which had given the judgment of 23 April 2009 — for the certificate referred to in Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012, for the purposes of enforcing that judgment.
The referring court, hearing that application, is uncertain, first, whether it may ascertain, when issuing the certificate referred to in Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012, whether the action giving rise to the judgment of 23 April 2009 falls within the scope of that regulation.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Szekszárdi Járásbíróság (Szekszárd District Court, Hungary)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Ms Weil"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012"[shape=trapezium];
    
   "Ms Weil"->"Loged an application 22/11/2017";
   "Loged an application 22/11/2017"->"Szekszárdi Járásbíróság (Szekszárd District Court, Hungary)";
   "Loged an application 22/11/2017"->"Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012"[dir=none];
   "Loged an application 22/11/2017"->"The certificate referred to in Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012, for the purposes of enforcing that judgment.";
   "Uncertain when issuing the certificate referred to in Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012, whether the action giving rise to the judgment of 23 April 2009 falls within the scope of that regulation"->"Szekszárdi Járásbíróság (Szekszárd District Court, Hungary)"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019.
Ágnes Weil v Géza Gulácsi.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Járásbíróság.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 66 — Temporal scope — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Material scope — Civil and commercial matters — Article 1(1) and (2)(a) — Matters excluded — Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship — Article 54 — Application for the certificate certifying that the judgment given by the court of origin is enforceable — Judgment given concerning a debt stemming from the settlement of rights in property arising out of an unregistered non-marital partnership.
Case C-361/18. (2019)
Language: English

In those circumstances the Szekszárdi Járásbíróság (Szekszárd District Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1)
Is Article 53 of Regulation … No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that, if requested by one of the parties, the court of the Member State that delivered the decision must issue the certificate relating to the decision automatically, without examining if [the case] falls within the scope of Regulation … No 1215/2012?
(2)
If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation … No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that a repayment action between members of an unregistered non-marital [de facto] partnership falls within the scope of the rights in property arising out of a relationship deemed … to have comparable (legal) effects to marriage?’

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Szekszárdi Járásbíróság (Szekszárd District Court, Hungary)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The Court of Justice"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "Szekszárdi Járásbíróság (Szekszárd District Court, Hungary)"->"Questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling";
   "Questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling"->"The Court of Justice";
   "Szekszárdi Járásbíróság (Szekszárd District Court, Hungary)"->"Stay the proceedings"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Radu Lucian Rusu and Oana Maria Rusu v SC Blue Air - Airline Management Solutions SRL.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Air transport — Denied boarding — Concepts of ‘compensation’ and ‘further compensation’ — Type of damage for which compensation is available — Material or non-material damage — Deduction — Further compensation — Assistance — Information provided to passengers.
Case C-354/18. (2019)
Language: English

The applicants in the main proceedings reserved with Blue Air two plane tickets to allow them to travel, on 6 September 2016, from Bacău (Romania) to London (United Kingdom), where they are established and are working.
At the time of boarding, the applicants in the main proceedings were informed that the flight would be operated using a different aircraft from the one originally scheduled and that, given the smaller capacity of that aircraft, they would no longer be able to board.
As a result, the applicants in the main proceedings were rescheduled on a flight operated by Blue Air, and thus arrived in London on 11 September 2016.
Following those events, Blue Air offered each of the applicants in the main proceedings a free plane ticket valid until 24 March 2017, an offer which they refused on the ground that the harm suffered exceeded the value of a plane ticket.
Next, Blue Air offered the applicants in the main proceedings, on the basis of Regulation No 261/2004, compensation of EUR 400 per person. In that regard, the applicants in the main proceedings considered that that compensation seeks to provide compensation only for the non-material damage suffered and not for the material damage, which falls within the concept of ‘further compensation’.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Blue Air"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The applicants"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Regulation No 261/2004"[shape=trapezium];
    
   "Blue Air"->"A free plane ticket valid until 24/03/2017";
   "A free plane ticket valid until 24/03/2017"->"The applicants";
   "Blue Air"->"Compensation of EUR 400 per person";
   "Compensation of EUR 400 per person"->"The applicants";
   "Compensation of EUR 400 per person"->"Regulation No 261/2004"[dir=none];
   "Refused on the ground that the harm suffered exceeded the value of a plane ticket."->"The applicants"[dir=none];

    
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Radu Lucian Rusu and Oana Maria Rusu v SC Blue Air - Airline Management Solutions SRL.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Air transport — Denied boarding — Concepts of ‘compensation’ and ‘further compensation’ — Type of damage for which compensation is available — Material or non-material damage — Deduction — Further compensation — Assistance — Information provided to passengers.
Case C-354/18. (2019)
Language: English

The applicants in the main proceedings thus brought an action before the Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău, Romania). Before that court, they claimed that Blue Air should be ordered to pay them EUR 437 and EUR 386, respectively, for material damage, resulting from the withholding of salary. The applicants in the main proceedings subsequently provided clarification as to the amounts of salary actually lost. In addition, the applicants in the main proceedings each sought EUR 1500 for non-material damage. They further submitted that a dismissal procedure had been launched against Mr Rusu, but that he ultimately received only a reprimand.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău, Romania)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The applicants"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "The applicants"->"Brought an action";
   "Brought an action"->"Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău, Romania)";
   "Brought an action"->"Pay them EUR 437 and EUR 386, for material damage, EUR 1500 for non-material damage."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Radu Lucian Rusu and Oana Maria Rusu v SC Blue Air - Airline Management Solutions SRL.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Air transport — Denied boarding — Concepts of ‘compensation’ and ‘further compensation’ — Type of damage for which compensation is available — Material or non-material damage — Deduction — Further compensation — Assistance — Information provided to passengers.
Case C-354/18. (2019)
Language: English

The applicants in the main proceedings thus brought an action before the Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău, Romania). Before that court, they claimed that Blue Air should be ordered to pay them EUR 437 and EUR 386, respectively, for material damage, resulting from the withholding of salary. The applicants in the main proceedings subsequently provided clarification as to the amounts of salary actually lost. In addition, the applicants in the main proceedings each sought EUR 1500 for non-material damage. They further submitted that a dismissal procedure had been launched against Mr Rusu, but that he ultimately received only a reprimand.
Blue Air argued that the applicants in the main proceedings were not entitled to compensation beyond the EUR 400 provided for in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 since they had not specifically asked for faster transport with another airline on another route, but had accepted the flight scheduled for 11 September 2016. Furthermore, Blue Air contended that, had the applicants in the main proceedings requested an alternative flight, it would have looked for one which would have enabled them to reach their destination.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău, Romania)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The applicants"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Blue Air"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004"[shape=trapezium];
    
   "The applicants"->"Brought an action";
   "Brought an action"->"Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău, Romania)";
   "Brought an action"->"Pay them EUR 437 and EUR 386, for material damage, EUR 1500 for non-material damage."[dir=none];
   "Blue Air"->"Brought an action";
   "Brought an action"->"Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău, Romania)";
   "Brought an action"->"Not entitled to compensation beyond the EUR 400 since they had not specifically asked for faster transport with another airline on another route."[dir=none];
   "Not entitled to compensation beyond the EUR 400 since they had not specifically asked for faster transport with another airline on another route."->"Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Radu Lucian Rusu and Oana Maria Rusu v SC Blue Air - Airline Management Solutions SRL.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Air transport — Denied boarding — Concepts of ‘compensation’ and ‘further compensation’ — Type of damage for which compensation is available — Material or non-material damage — Deduction — Further compensation — Assistance — Information provided to passengers.
Case C-354/18. (2019)
Language: English

The Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău) upheld the action in part, ordering Blue Air to pay each of the applicants in the main proceedings EUR 400 as compensation for non-material damage and dismissing the remainder of the claims submitted by them.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău, Romania)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The applicants"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Blue Air"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău, Romania)"->"Order";
   "Order"->"Blue Air";
   "Order"->"The applicants";
   "Order"->"EUR 400 as compensation for non-material damage."[dir=none];
   "Order"->"Dismissing the remainder of the claims submitted by them."[dir=none];

    
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Radu Lucian Rusu and Oana Maria Rusu v SC Blue Air - Airline Management Solutions SRL.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Air transport — Denied boarding — Concepts of ‘compensation’ and ‘further compensation’ — Type of damage for which compensation is available — Material or non-material damage — Deduction — Further compensation — Assistance — Information provided to passengers.
Case C-354/18. (2019)
Language: English

Both the applicants in the main proceedings and Blue Air lodged an appeal against the decision of the Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău) before the referring court, which considers it necessary to clarify certain aspects relating to the interpretation of Articles 4, 7, 8 and 12 of Regulation No 261/2004.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):

digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The applicants"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Blue Air"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    

   "Blue Air"->"Loged an appeal";
   "Loged an appeal"->"The referring court";
   "The applicants"->"Loged an appeal";
   "Loged an appeal"->"To clarify certain aspects relating to the interpretation of Articles 4, 7, 8 and 12 of Regulation No 261/2004."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019.
Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele - Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) — Establishment of the producers’ contribution to the payment of the additional levy due — Reallocation of unused reference quantities — National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria.
Case C-348/18. (2019)
Language: English

The applicant in the main proceedings runs a farming business producing milk. During the period from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, it exceeded its individual reference quantity.
By a decision of 26 July 2001, entitled ‘Milk quota scheme — national adjustment for 2000/2001 period’, AGEA informed producers of their production overruns and of the result of the equalling-out procedure. Pursuant to that decision, the unused individual reference quantities were reallocated on the basis of priority categories as provided for in the applicable legislation. The applicant in the main proceedings was not among the producers to benefit from the reallocation.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "AGEA"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The applicant"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Decision 26/07/2001"[shape=trapezium];
    

   "AGEA"->"Informed production overruns and of the result of the equalling-out procedure.";
   "Informed production overruns and of the result of the equalling-out procedure."->"Decision 26/07/2001"[dir=none];
   "Decision 26/07/2001"->"Milk quota scheme national adjustment for 2000/2001 period"[dir=none];
   "Informed production overruns and of the result of the equalling-out procedure."->"The applicant";
   "The applicant"->"Exceeded its individual reference quantity 01/04/2000 - 31/03/2001"[dir=none];
   
}
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019.
Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele - Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) — Establishment of the producers’ contribution to the payment of the additional levy due — Reallocation of unused reference quantities — National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria.
Case C-348/18. (2019)
Language: English

The applicant in the main proceedings challenged the lawfulness of that decision, and also the lawfulness of AGEA’s decision adopted under Article 1(5) of Decree-Law No 8/2000 on the national adjustment for the milk and milk products marketing period from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, before the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — sede di Roma (Regional Administrative Court for Lazio — Rome, Italy).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The applicant"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "The applicant"->"Challenged the lawfulness of decision";
   "Challenged the lawfulness of decision"->"Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio";
   "Challenged the lawfulness of decision"->"The national adjustment for the milk and milk products marketing 01/04/2000 – 31/03/2001"[dir=none];
   
}