title: Case C-347/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam — Netherlands) — A, B, C, D, E, F, G v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of health – Hygiene Package – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 – Hygiene of food of animal origin – Poultry meat – Post-mortem inspection of carcasses – Visible contamination of a carcass – Zero-tolerance approach)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/7

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam — Netherlands) — A, B, C, D, E, F, G v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
      (Case C-347/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of health - Hygiene Package - Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Hygiene of food of animal origin - Poultry meat - Post-mortem inspection of carcasses - Visible contamination of a carcass - Zero-tolerance approach)
      (2019/C 383/06)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Rotterdam

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: A, B, C, D, E, F, G

         Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Annex III, Section II, Chapter IV, points 5 and 8, to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘contamination’ includes not only contamination by faeces, but also contamination by crop contents and by bile.

                  2.

                  Annex III, Section II, Chapter IV, points 5 and 8, to Regulation No 853/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a poultry carcass must no longer contain any visible contamination after the cleaning stage and before the chilling stage.

                  3.

                  Annex I, Section I, Chapter II, Part D, point 1, to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 739/2011 of 27 July 2011, must be interpreted as not precluding the competent authority, for the purposes of inspecting poultry carcasses, from removing them from the slaughter line and carrying out both an external and internal examination of those carcasses, if necessary by lifting their fat tissue, provided that that examination does not go beyond what is necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness of that control, which it is for the referring court to verify.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Joined Cases C-447/17 P and C-479/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 September 2019 — European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union v Guardian Europe Sàrl and European Union, represented by the European Commission (C-447/17 P) and Guardian Europe Sàrl v European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and European Union, represented by the European Commission (C-479/17 P) (Appeals – Actions for damages – Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU – Excessive length of the proceedings in a case before the General Court of the European Union – Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant – Concept of a ‘single undertaking’ not applied – Material damage – Bank guarantee costs – Causal link – Loss of profit – Non-pecuniary damage – Liability of the European Union for damage caused by infringements of EU law arising from a decision of the General Court – No incurring of liability)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/8

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 September 2019 — European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union v Guardian Europe Sàrl and European Union, represented by the European Commission (C-447/17 P) and Guardian Europe Sàrl v European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and European Union, represented by the European Commission (C-479/17 P)
      (Joined Cases C-447/17 P and C-479/17 P) (1)

      (Appeals - Actions for damages - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Excessive length of the proceedings in a case before the General Court of the European Union - Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant - Concept of a ‘single undertaking’ not applied - Material damage - Bank guarantee costs - Causal link - Loss of profit - Non-pecuniary damage - Liability of the European Union for damage caused by infringements of EU law arising from a decision of the General Court - No incurring of liability)
      (2019/C 383/07)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

      Case C-447/17 P

         Appellant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented initially by J. Inghelram and K. Sawyer, and subsequently by J. Inghelram, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Guardian Europe Sàrl (represented by C. O’Daly, Solicitor, and F. Louis, avocat), European Union, represented by the European Commission (represented by N. Khan, A. Dawes and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)
      Case C-479/17 P

         Appellant: Guardian Europe Sàrl (represented by C. O’Daly, Solicitor, and F. Louis, avocat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented initially by J. Inghelram and K. Sawyer, and subsequently by J. Inghelram, acting as Agents), European Union, represented by the European Commission (represented by N. Khan, A. Dawes and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 June 2017, Guardian Europe v European Union (T-673/15, EU:T:2017:377);

                  2.

                  Dismisses the main appeal, brought by Guardian Europe Sàrl, in Case C-479/17 P;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the cross-appeal, brought by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in Case C-479/17 P;

                  4.

                  Dismisses the action for damages brought by Guardian Europe Sàrl in so far as it is designed to obtain compensation in the sum of EUR 936 000 for the alleged material damage consisting in the payment of bank guarantee costs after the reasonable period for adjudicating in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 27 September 2012, Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission (T-82/08, EU:T:2012:494);

                  5.

                  Orders Guardian Europe Sàrl to bear, in addition to its own costs, all the costs incurred by the European Union, represented both by the Court of Justice of the European Union and by the European Commission, both at first instance and in the appeal in Case C-447/17 P and the main appeal in Case C-479/17 P;

                  6.

                  Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to bear, in addition to its own costs, all the costs incurred by Guardian Europe Sàrl in the cross-appeal in Case C-479/17 P.

         (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Joined Cases C-613/17 and C-613/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Italy) — Federazione Italiana Golf (FIG) v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze (C-612/17), Federazione Italiana Sport Equestri (FISE) v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT) (C-613/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 – European System of national and regional accounts in the European Union – Annex A, paragraph 20.15 – Control exercised by a National Olympic Committee over national sporting federations constituted in the form of non-profit institutions (NPIs) – Annex A, Paragraph 20.15, second sentence – Concept of ‘public intervention in the form of general regulations applicable to all units working in the same activity’ – Scope – Annex A, paragraph 20.15, first sentence – Concept of ‘ability to determine the general policy or programme’ of an NPI – Scope – Annex A, paragraph 2.39(d), paragraph 20.15(d), and paragraph 20.309(i), last sentence – Taking into account of contributions paid by members to the NPI)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/9

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Italy) — Federazione Italiana Golf (FIG) v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze (C-612/17), Federazione Italiana Sport Equestri (FISE) v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT) (C-613/17)
      (Joined Cases C-613/17 and C-613/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 - European System of national and regional accounts in the European Union - Annex A, paragraph 20.15 - Control exercised by a National Olympic Committee over national sporting federations constituted in the form of non-profit institutions (NPIs) - Annex A, Paragraph 20.15, second sentence - Concept of ‘public intervention in the form of general regulations applicable to all units working in the same activity’ - Scope - Annex A, paragraph 20.15, first sentence - Concept of ‘ability to determine the general policy or programme’ of an NPI - Scope - Annex A, paragraph 2.39(d), paragraph 20.15(d), and paragraph 20.309(i), last sentence - Taking into account of contributions paid by members to the NPI)
      (2019/C 383/08)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte dei Conti

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Federazione Italiana Golf (FIG) (C-612/17), Federazione Italiana Sport Equestri (FISE) (C-613/17)

         Defendants: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (C-612/17), Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT) (C-613/17)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The concept of ‘public intervention in the form of general regulations applicable to all units working in the same activity’ referred to in the second sentence of paragraph 20.15 of Annex A to Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union, must be understood as covering any intervention by a public sector unit which lays down or applies regulations designed to make all units in the field of activity concerned indiscriminately and uniformly subject to global, broad and abstract rules or general guidelines, and such regulations are not likely, by their nature or character, to be ‘excessive’ within the meaning of Annex A, paragraph 20.309(h) of Regulation No 549/2013, to dictate, in practice, the general policy or programme of the units in the field of activity concerned.

                  2.

                  The concept of ‘ability to determine the general policy or programme’ of a non-profit institution (NPI), within the meaning of the first sentence of Paragraph 20.15 of Annex A to Regulation No 549/2013, must be understood as the ability of a public administration to exercise a real and substantial influence, on a lasting and permanent basis, on the very definition and achievement of the NPI’s objectives, activities and operational aspects, as well as the strategic orientations and guidelines that the NPI intends to pursue in the exercise of those activities. In cases such as those at issue in the main proceedings, it is for the national court, in the light of the indicators of control referred to in paragraphs 2.39(a) to (e) and 20.15(a) to (e) of Annex A to Regulation No 549/2013 and the corresponding indicators of control applicable to NPIs, referred to in paragraph 20 309 of Annex A to that regulation, to verify whether a public administration, such as the National Olympic Committee at issue in the main proceedings, exercises public control over national sports federations constituted in the form of NPIs, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, by carrying out, for that purpose, an overall assessment involving, by its nature, some judgment, in accordance with the last sentence of paragraph 2.39, the fifth to eighth sentences of paragraph 20.15 and paragraph 20 310 of Annex A to that regulation.

                  3.

                  Paragraph 2.39(d), paragraph 20.15(d) and the last sentence of paragraph 20.309(i) of Annex A to Regulation No 549/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the contributions paid by members to a private law NPI, such as the national sports federations at issue in the main proceedings, must be taken into account for the purposes of verifying whether or not there is public control. Such contributions may, notwithstanding the private status of their debtors and their legal definition under national law, be considered as being, within the framework of the indicator of control relating to the degree of financing, referred to in paragraphs 2.39(d) and 20.15(d) of Annex A to that regulation, as public in nature in the case of compulsory contributions which, without necessarily constituting the consideration for actual use of the services provided, are collected in the public interest for the benefit of national sports federations which hold a monopoly in the sports discipline for which they are responsible, in the sense that the practice of sport in its public dimension is subject to their exclusive authority, unless those federations retain the organisational and budgetary control of those contributions, which it is for the national court to verify.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case C-676/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Ploiești — Romania) — Oana Mădălina Călin v Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Dâmbovița, Statul Român — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principles of EU law – Procedural autonomy – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Principle of legal certainty – Res judicata – Recovery of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law – Final decision of a court or tribunal imposing payment of a tax which is incompatible with EU law – Application for revision of such a decision – Time limit within which that application must be submitted)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/11

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Ploiești — Romania) — Oana Mădălina Călin v Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Dâmbovița, Statul Român — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
      (Case C-676/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - Procedural autonomy - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Principle of legal certainty - Res judicata - Recovery of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law - Final decision of a court or tribunal imposing payment of a tax which is incompatible with EU law - Application for revision of such a decision - Time limit within which that application must be submitted)
      (2019/C 383/09)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Ploiești

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Oana Mădălina Călin

         Respondents: Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Dâmbovița, Statul Român — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, a national provision, as interpreted by a judgment of a national court, providing for a one-month limitation period for the submission of a request for revision of a final judicial decision handed down in breach of EU law, running from the date of communication of the decision of which revision is sought.

                  2.

                  However, the principle of effectiveness, in conjunction with the principle of legal certainty, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those as issue in the main proceedings, application by a national court of a one-month limitation period for the submission of a request for revision of a final judicial decision when, at the time that request for revision is made, the judgment introducing that limitation period has not yet been published in the Monitorul Oficial al României.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


title: Case C-683/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Cofemel — Sociedade de Vestuário, SA v G-Star Raw CV (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual and industrial property – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29/EC – Article 2(a) – Concept of ‘work’ – Protection of works by copyright – Conditions – Connection with the protection of designs – Directive 98/71/EC – Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Clothing designs)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/12

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Cofemel — Sociedade de Vestuário, SA v G-Star Raw CV
      (Case C-683/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘work’ - Protection of works by copyright - Conditions - Connection with the protection of designs - Directive 98/71/EC - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Clothing designs)
      (2019/C 383/10)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Cofemel — Sociedade de Vestuário, SA

         Respondent: G-Star Raw CV

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding national legislation from conferring protection, under copyright, to designs such as the clothing designs at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that, over and above their practical purpose, they generate a specific, aesthetically significant visual effect.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case C-686/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV v Prime Champ Deutschland Pilzkulturen GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products – Fruit and vegetables – Marketing rules – Concept of ‘country of origin’ – Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 – Article 113 a(1) – Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 – Article 76(1) – Definitions concerning the non-preferential origin of goods – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Article 23(1) and 23(2)(b) – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Article 60()1 – Delegated Regulation (EU)2015/2446 – Article 31(b) – Production steps carried out in another Member States – Labelling of foodstuffs – Prohibition on labelling which may mislead the consumer – Directive 2000/13/EC – Article 2(1)(a)(i) – Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 – Article 7(1)(a) – Article 1(4) – Article 2(3) – Explanatory notes)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/12

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV v Prime Champ Deutschland Pilzkulturen GmbH
      (Case C-686/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Fruit and vegetables - Marketing rules - Concept of ‘country of origin’ - Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 - Article 113 a(1) - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 76(1) - Definitions concerning the non-preferential origin of goods - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 23(1) and 23(2)(b) - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 60()1 - Delegated Regulation (EU)2015/2446 - Article 31(b) - Production steps carried out in another Member States - Labelling of foodstuffs - Prohibition on labelling which may mislead the consumer - Directive 2000/13/EC - Article 2(1)(a)(i) - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Article 7(1)(a) - Article 1(4) - Article 2(3) - Explanatory notes)
      (2019/C 383/11)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV

         Defendant: Prime Champ Deutschland Pilzkulturen GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 113a(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 361/2008 of 14 April 2008 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and No 1234/2007, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of defining the concept of ‘country of origin’, as referred to in those provisions, it is appropriate to refer to customs regulations relating to the determination of the non-preferential origin of goods, namely Article 23 et seq. (EEC) No 2913/92 of the Council of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code;

                  2.

                  Article 23(1) and 23(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 and Article 60(1) of Regulation No 952/2013, read in conjunction with Article 31(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation No 952/2013 as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code, must be interpreted as meaning that the country of origin of cultivated fungi is the country in which they were harvested, within the meaning of those provisions, notwithstanding that substantial production steps take place in other Member States of the European Union and that cultivated fungi are transported to the territory of harvest only three days or less before the first harvest;

                  3.

                  The general prohibition on misleading the consumer as regards the country of origin of foodstuffs, laid down in Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC of the Commission and Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 of the Commission, does not apply, in so far as concerns fresh fruit and vegetables, to the indication of origin required under Article 113a(1) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1308/2013;

                  4.

                  Union law must be interpreted as meaning that explanatory notes may not be imposed in addition to the indication of the country of origin required under Article 113a(1) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 361/2008, and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1308/2013, in order to avoid misleading the consumer in accordance with the prohibition laid down in Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13 and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1169/2011.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case C-688/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Bayer Pharma AG v Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt., Exeltis Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual property – Patents – Directive 2004/48/EC – Article 9(7) – Placing on the market of products infringing a patent right – Provisional measures – Patent subsequently declared invalid – Consequences – Right to appropriate compensation for losses caused by the provisional measures)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/14

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Bayer Pharma AG v Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt., Exeltis Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft.
      (Case C-688/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Patents - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 9(7) - Placing on the market of products infringing a patent right - Provisional measures - Patent subsequently declared invalid - Consequences - Right to appropriate compensation for losses caused by the provisional measures)
      (2019/C 383/12)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Fővárosi Törvényszék

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Bayer Pharma AG

         Defendants: Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt., Exeltis Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft.

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 9(7) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, in particular, the concept of ‘appropriate compensation’ referred to in that provision, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that a party shall not be compensated for losses which he has suffered due to his not having acted as may generally be expected in order to avoid or mitigate his loss and which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, results in the court not making an order for provisional measures against the applicant obliging him to provide compensation for losses caused by those measures even though the patent on the basis of which those had been requested and granted has subsequently been found to be invalid, to the extent that that legislation permits the court to take due account of all the objective circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the parties, in order, inter alia, to determine that the applicant has not abused those measures.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-709/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 — European Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd, European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (Appeal – Dumping – Implementing regulation (EU) 2015/776 – Import of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines – Extension to those imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China – Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Article 13 – Circumvention – Assembly operations – Provenance and origin of bicycle parts – Parts consigned from China to Sri Lanka, worked in Sri Lanka and then consigned from Sri Lanka to Pakistan for assembly)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/14

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 — European Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd, European Bicycle Manufacturers Association
      (Case C-709/17 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Dumping - Implementing regulation (EU) 2015/776 - Import of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines - Extension to those imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Assembly operations - Provenance and origin of bicycle parts - Parts consigned from China to Sri Lanka, worked in Sri Lanka and then consigned from Sri Lanka to Pakistan for assembly)
      (2019/C 383/13)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: M. França, J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd (represented by: P. Bentley QC), European Bicycle Manufacturers Association, (represented by: J. Beck, Solicitor, and by L. Ruessmann, avocat)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 October 2017, Kolachi Raj Industrial v Commission (T-435/15, EU:T:2017:712);

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd;

                  3.

                  Orders Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-28/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Deutsche Bahn AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro – Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 – Single euro payments area (SEPA) – Payment by direct debit – Article 9(2) – Accessibility of payments – Residence condition)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/15

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Deutsche Bahn AG
      (Case C-28/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro - Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 - Single euro payments area (SEPA) - Payment by direct debit - Article 9(2) - Accessibility of payments - Residence condition)
      (2019/C 383/14)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

         Respondent: Deutsche Bahn AG

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 must be interpreted as precluding a contractual clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes payment by direct debit in euros under the European Union-wide direct debit scheme (SEPA direct debit) where the payer does not have his place of residence in the same Member State as that in which the payee has established his place of business.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case C-46/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Milk and milk products sector – Quotas – Additional levy – Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 – Article 2 – Collection of the levy by the purchaser – Deliveries exceeding the reference quantity available to producers – Amount from the price of the milk – Compulsory application of a deduction – Reimbursement of the amount of excess levy – Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 – Article 9 – Buyer – Failure to comply with obligation to collect additional levy – Producers – Failure to comply with the monthly payment obligation – Protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/16

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto
      (Case C-46/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Milk and milk products sector - Quotas - Additional levy - Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 - Article 2 - Collection of the levy by the purchaser - Deliveries exceeding the reference quantity available to producers - Amount from the price of the milk - Compulsory application of a deduction - Reimbursement of the amount of excess levy - Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 - Article 9 - Buyer - Failure to comply with obligation to collect additional levy - Producers - Failure to comply with the monthly payment obligation - Protection of legitimate expectations)
      (2019/C 383/15)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl, S.s. Franco and Maurizio Artuso, Claudio Matteazzi, Roberto Tellatin, Sebastiano Bolzon

         Defendants: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999, of 17 May 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that a finding that the national legislation governing the arrangements for the buyer to collect the additional levy from producers is incompatible with that provision does not mean that producers subject to that legislation are no longer liable to pay that levy.

                  2.

                  Article 2(4) of Regulation No 3950/92, as amended by Regulation No 1256/1999, read in conjunction with Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the reimbursement of the overpayment of the additional levy must benefit, as a priority, producers who, pursuant to a provision of national law incompatible with Article 2(2) of Regulation No 3950/92, as amended by Regulation No 1256/1999, have fulfilled their monthly payment obligation.

                  3.

                  The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, recalculation of the amount of the additional levy due by producers who have not fulfilled the obligation, provided for by the applicable national legislation, to pay that levy on a monthly basis.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Joined Cases C-64/18, C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Zoran Maksimovic (C-64/18), Humbert Jörg Köfler (C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Leitner (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Joachim Schönbeck (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Semper (C-140/18 and C-148/18) v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal (References for a preliminary ruling – Article 56 TFEU – Freedom to provide services – Posting of workers – Retention and translation of records of wages – Work permit – Penalties – Proportionality – Fines of a minimum predefined amount – Cumulative – No upper limit – Court costs – Custodial sentence in lieu of a fine)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/17

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Zoran Maksimovic (C-64/18), Humbert Jörg Köfler (C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Leitner (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Joachim Schönbeck (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Semper (C-140/18 and C-148/18) v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal
      (Joined Cases C-64/18, C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18) (1)

      (References for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Retention and translation of records of wages - Work permit - Penalties - Proportionality - Fines of a minimum predefined amount - Cumulative - No upper limit - Court costs - Custodial sentence in lieu of a fine)
      (2019/C 383/16)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Zoran Maksimovic (C-64/18), Humbert Jörg Köfler (C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Leitner (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Joachim Schönbeck (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Semper (C-140/18 and C-148/18)

         Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

         Intervener: Finanzpolizei

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides, in respect of non-compliance with labour law obligations in relation to obtaining administrative permits and keeping records on wages, for fines to be imposed:

                  —

                  which may not be lower than a predefined minimum amount;

                  —

                  which apply cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned and without an upper limit;

                  —

                  to which is added a contribution to court costs of 20 % of the amount of the fines if the appeal against the decision imposing those fines is dismissed, and

                  —

                  which are replaced by custodial sentences in the event of non-payment.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case C-71/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v KPC Herning (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Sale of land on which a building is located at the time of supply – Classification – Articles 12 and 135 – Concept of ‘building land’ – Concept of ‘building’ – Assessment of the economic and commercial reality – Evaluation of objective evidence – Intention of the parties)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/18

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v KPC Herning
      (Case C-71/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Sale of land on which a building is located at the time of supply - Classification - Articles 12 and 135 - Concept of ‘building land’ - Concept of ‘building’ - Assessment of the economic and commercial reality - Evaluation of objective evidence - Intention of the parties)
      (2019/C 383/17)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Vestre Landsret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Skatteministeriet

         Defendant: KPC Herning

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 12(1)(a) and (b), (2) and (3) and Article 135(1)(j) and (k) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of land supporting a building at the date of that supply cannot be classified as a supply of ‘building land’ where that transaction is economically independent of other services and does not form a single transaction with them, even if the parties’ intention was that the building should be wholly or partly demolished to make room for a new building.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case C-94/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Nalini Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Article 21 TFEU – Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 3(1) and Articles 15, 27, 28, 30 and 31 – Definition of ‘beneficiary’ – Third-country national, the spouse of a Union citizen who has exercised his right to freedom of movement – Return of the Union citizen to the Member State of which he is a national, where he is serving a prison sentence – Requirements imposed on the host Member State under Directive 2004/38/EC when making a decision to remove such a third-country national)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/18

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Nalini Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality
      (Case C-94/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Article 21 TFEU - Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 3(1) and Articles 15, 27, 28, 30 and 31 - Definition of ‘beneficiary’ - Third-country national, the spouse of a Union citizen who has exercised his right to freedom of movement - Return of the Union citizen to the Member State of which he is a national, where he is serving a prison sentence - Requirements imposed on the host Member State under Directive 2004/38/EC when making a decision to remove such a third-country national)
      (2019/C 383/18)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court (Ireland)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Nalini Chenchooliah

         Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 15 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, is to be interpreted as being applicable to a decision to expel a third-country national on the ground that that person no longer has a right of residence under the directive in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the third-country national concerned married a Union citizen at a time when that citizen was exercising his right to freedom of movement by moving to and residing with that third-country national in the host Member State and, subsequently, the Union citizen returned to the Member State of which he is a national. It follows that the relevant safeguards laid down in Articles 30 and 31 of Directive 2004/38 are applicable when such an expulsion decision is adopted and it is not possible, under any circumstances, for such a decision to impose a ban on entry into the territory.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.


title: Case C-104/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 — Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Joaquín Nadal Esteban (Appeal – EU trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Article 52(1)(b) – Bad faith at the time that an application for a trade mark is filed)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/19

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 — Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Joaquín Nadal Esteban
      (Case C-104/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absolute grounds for invalidity - Article 52(1)(b) - Bad faith at the time that an application for a trade mark is filed)
      (2019/C 383/19)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ (represented by: J. Güell Serra and E. Stoyanov Edissonov, abogados)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Joaquín Nadal Esteban (represented by: J.L. Donoso Romero, abogado)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 November 2017, Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Nadal Esteban (STYLO & KOTON) (T-687/16, EU:T:2017:853).

                  2.

                  Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 June 2016 (Case R 1779/2015-2).

                  3.

                  Rejects the claim that the contested mark should be declared invalid.

                  4.

                  Orders Mr Joaquín Nadal Esteban and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay, in equal parts, the costs incurred by Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ both of the proceedings at first instance in Case T-687/16 and of the appeal.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.


title: Case C-123/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 September 2019 — HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran – Compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant following its inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Action for damages – Conditions which must be met in order for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability – Concept of ‘sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law’ – Assessment – Concept of ‘company owned or controlled’ – Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/20

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 September 2019 — HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH v Council of the European Union, European Commission
      (Case C-123/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant following its inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Action for damages - Conditions which must be met in order for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability - Concept of ‘sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law’ - Assessment - Concept of ‘company owned or controlled’ - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2019/C 383/20)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (represented by M. Schlingmann, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by R. Tricot, M. Kellerbauer and C. Zadra, and subsequently by R. Tricot, C. Hödlmayr and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 December 2017, HTTS v Council (T-692/15, EU:T:2017:890);

                  2.

                  Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Reserves the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case C-143/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Antonio Romano, Lidia Romano v DSL Bank — eine Niederlassung der DB Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG, formerly DSL Bank — a business division of Deutsche Postbank AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 2002/65/EC – Distance consumer loan contract – Right of withdrawal – Exercising the right of withdrawal after the contract has been performed in full at the consumer’s express request – Communication to the consumer of information regarding the right of withdrawal)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/21

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Antonio Romano, Lidia Romano v DSL Bank — eine Niederlassung der DB Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG, formerly DSL Bank — a business division of Deutsche Postbank AG
      (Case C-143/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2002/65/EC - Distance consumer loan contract - Right of withdrawal - Exercising the right of withdrawal after the contract has been performed in full at the consumer’s express request - Communication to the consumer of information regarding the right of withdrawal)
      (2019/C 383/21)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landgericht Bonn

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Antonio Romano, Lidia Romano

         Defendant: DSL Bank — eine Niederlassung der DB Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG, formerly DSL Bank — a business division of Deutsche Postbank AG

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directives 90/619/EEC, 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof and in the light of recital 13 of that Directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by national case-law, which, as regards a contract for financial services concluded at a distance between a trader and a consumer, does not exclude the consumer’s right of withdrawal where the contract has been performed in full by both parties at the express request of the consumer, before the consumer exercises his right of withdrawal. It is for the national court to take into account all national law and to apply methods of interpretation recognised by that law in order to achieve an outcome consistent with that provision by amending, where necessary, established national case-law based on an interpretation of national law that is incompatible with that provision;

                  2.

                  Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/65, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(3)(a) and Article 6(2)(c) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of a trader, who concludes a contract for financial services with a consumer at a distance, to communicate in a manner that would be clear and comprehensible to an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, in accordance with the requirements of EU law, before that consumer is bound by a distance contract or offer, the information regarding the existence of the right of withdrawal, is not infringed where that trader informs the consumer that the right of withdrawal does not apply to a contract that had been performed in full by both parties at the express request of the consumer before the consumer exercised his right of withdrawal, even if that information does not accord with national rules, as interpreted by national case-law, which provide that in such a case, the right of withdrawal applies.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.


title: Case C-145/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Regards Photographiques SARL v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 103(2)(a) – Article 311(1), point 2 – Annex IX, Part A, point 7 – Reduced rate of VAT – Works of art – Concept – Photographs taken by the artist, printed by him or under his supervision, signed and numbered and limited to 30 copies – National legislation restricting the application of the reduced rate of VAT only to photographs that have artistic character)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/22

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Regards Photographiques SARL v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
      (Case C-145/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 103(2)(a) - Article 311(1), point 2 - Annex IX, Part A, point 7 - Reduced rate of VAT - Works of art - Concept - Photographs taken by the artist, printed by him or under his supervision, signed and numbered and limited to 30 copies - National legislation restricting the application of the reduced rate of VAT only to photographs that have artistic character)
      (2019/C 383/22)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Regards Photographiques SARL

         Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  In order to be regarded as works of art eligible for the reduced rate of value added tax (VAT) under Article 103(1) and (2)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with point 2 of Article 311(1) of that directive and point 7 of Part A of Annex IX thereto, photographs must meet the criteria set out in that point 7, in that they have been taken by their creator, printed by him or under his supervision, signed and numbered and limited to 30 copies, to the exclusion of all other criteria, in particular the assessment by the competent national tax authority of their artistic character;

                  2.

                  Article 103(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with point 2 of Article 311(1) of that directive and point 7 of Part A of Annex IX thereto, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts the application of the reduced rate of VAT only to photographs that have artistic character, in so far as the existence of such artistic character is subject to an assessment by the competent national tax authority which is not made within the confines of objective, clear and precise criteria set by that national legislation, making it possible to determine precisely the photographs to which that legislation reserves the application of the reduced rate of VAT, in such a way as to avoid infringing the principle of fiscal neutrality.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case C-172/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree v Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas (Reference for a preliminary ruling – EU trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 97(5) – Jurisdiction – Infringement proceedings – Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which ‘the act of infringement has been committed’ – Advertising and offers for sale displayed on a website and on social media platforms)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/23

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree v Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas
      (Case C-172/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 97(5) - Jurisdiction - Infringement proceedings - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which ‘the act of infringement has been committed’ - Advertising and offers for sale displayed on a website and on social media platforms)
      (2019/C 383/23)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Court of Appeal

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree

         Defendants: Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas,

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 97(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a European Union trade mark who considers that his rights have been infringed by the use without his consent, by a third party, of a sign identical to that mark in advertising and offers for sale displayed electronically in relation to products that are identical or similar to the goods for which that mark is registered, may bring an infringement action against that third party before a European Union trade mark court of the Member State within which the consumers or traders to whom that advertising and those offers for sale are directed are located, notwithstanding that that third party took decisions and steps in another Member State to bring about that electronic display.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.


title: Joined Cases C-199/18, C-200/18 and C-343/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Pollo del Campo S.c.a., Avi Coop Società Cooperativa Agricola (C-199/18), C.A.F.A.R. — Società Agricola Cooperativa, Società Agricola Guidi di Roncofreddo di Guidi Giancarlo e Nicolini Fausta (C-200/18) v Regione Emilia-Romagna, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale 104 di Modena, A.U.S.L. Romagna (C-199/18 and C-200/18) and SAIGI Società Cooperativa Agricola a r.l., MA.GE.MA. Società Agricola Cooperativa v Regione Emilia-Romagna, A.U.S.L. Romagna (C-343/18) (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 – Article 27 – Official controls of feed and food – Financing – Fees or charges payable for official controls – Possibility for the Member States to exempt certain categories of operators – Minimum rates for fees)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/23

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Pollo del Campo S.c.a., Avi Coop Società Cooperativa Agricola (C-199/18), C.A.F.A.R. — Società Agricola Cooperativa, Società Agricola Guidi di Roncofreddo di Guidi Giancarlo e Nicolini Fausta (C-200/18) v Regione Emilia-Romagna, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale 104 di Modena, A.U.S.L. Romagna (C-199/18 and C-200/18) and SAIGI Società Cooperativa Agricola a r.l., MA.GE.MA. Società Agricola Cooperativa v Regione Emilia-Romagna, A.U.S.L. Romagna (C-343/18)
      (Joined Cases C-199/18, C-200/18 and C-343/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Article 27 - Official controls of feed and food - Financing - Fees or charges payable for official controls - Possibility for the Member States to exempt certain categories of operators - Minimum rates for fees)
      (2019/C 383/24)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Pollo del Campo S.c.a., Avi Coop Società Cooperativa Agricola (C-199/18), C.A.F.A.R. — Società Agricola Cooperativa, Società Agricola Guidi di Roncofreddo di Guidi Giancarlo e Nicolini Fausta (C-200/18) and SAIGI Società Cooperativa Agricola a r.l., MA.GE.MA. Società Agricola Cooperativa (C-343/18)

         Respondents: Regione Emilia-Romagna, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale 104 di Modena, A.U.S.L. Romagna (C-199/18 and C-200/18) and Regione Emilia-Romagna, A.U.S.L. Romagna (C-343/18)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are obliged to require the payment of fees relating to official controls on the activities referred to in Annex IV, section A and Annex V, section A to that regulation also from food and feed business operators which carry out the slaughtering and cutting of meat as ancillary activities to their main activity of rearing.

                  2.

                  Article 27 of Regulation No 882/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow a Member State to apply rates for fees which are lower than the minimum rates specified in Annex IV, section B and Annex V, section B to Regulation No 882/2004.

         (1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

         OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case C-290/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Wild fauna and flora – Conservation of natural habitats as well as wild fauna and flora – Article 4(4) – Annexes I and II – Sites of Community importance – Non-designation – Special areas of conservation – Necessary measures – Failure to adopt)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/24

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
      (Case C-290/18) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Wild fauna and flora - Conservation of natural habitats as well as wild fauna and flora - Article 4(4) - Annexes I and II - Sites of Community importance - Non-designation - Special areas of conservation - Necessary measures - Failure to adopt)
      (2019/C 383/25)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by P. Costa de Oliveira and C. Hermes, Agents, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Ines Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Reis Silva, H. Almeida, A. Pimenta and P. Barros da Costa, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by having failed to designate as special areas of conservation 61 sites of Community importance, which were selected by the European Commission in Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region, and in Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, as soon as possible and within a period of six years at most from the date on which those decisions were adopted, and, by having failed to adopt the necessary conservation measures which satisfy the ecological requirements of the types of natural habitat referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and of the species referred to in Annex II to that directive present on those sites of Community importance, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) of that directive;

                  2.

                  Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case C-331/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — TE v Pohotovosť s.r.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2008/48/EC – Consumer protection – Consumer credit – Article 10(2)(h) and (i) and Article 10(3) – Information to be included in the agreement – National legislation laying down an obligation to specify for each payment the distribution between the repayment of capital, interest and charges)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/25

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — TE v Pohotovosť s.r.o.
      (Case C-331/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer protection - Consumer credit - Article 10(2)(h) and (i) and Article 10(3) - Information to be included in the agreement - National legislation laying down an obligation to specify for each payment the distribution between the repayment of capital, interest and charges)
      (2019/C 383/26)
      Language of the case: Slovak

         Referring court

      Krajský súd v Prešove

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: TE

         Respondent: Pohotovost’ s.r.o.

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 10(2)(h) to (j) 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, in conjunction with Article 22(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a credit agreement must specify the breakdown of each repayment showing, where applicable, capital amortisation, interest and other charges.

                  2.

                  Articles 10(2) and 22(1) of Directive 2008/48, as interpreted by the judgment of 9 November 2016, Home Credit Slovakia (C-42/15, EU:C:2016:842), are applicable to a credit agreement, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which was entered into before that judgment was handed down and before the national legislation was amended in order to comply with the interpretation adopted in that judgment.

         (1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.


title: Case C-333/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Lombardi Srl v Comune di Auletta, Delta Lavori SpA, Msm Ingegneria Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Review procedures on the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665/EEC – Action for annulment of the decision awarding a public contract by a tenderer whose bid was unsuccessful – Counterclaim brought by the successful tenderer – Admissibility of the main action in the event that the counterclaim is well founded)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/26

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Lombardi Srl v Comune di Auletta, Delta Lavori SpA, Msm Ingegneria Srl
      (Case C-333/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Review procedures on the award of public supply and public works contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Action for annulment of the decision awarding a public contract by a tenderer whose bid was unsuccessful - Counterclaim brought by the successful tenderer - Admissibility of the main action in the event that the counterclaim is well founded)
      (2019/C 383/27)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Lombardi Srl

         Respondents: Comune di Auletta, Delta Lavori SpA, Msm Ingegneria Srl

         Intervener: Robertazzi Costruzioni Srl

         Operative part of the judgment

      The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as precluding a main action for review brought by a tenderer with an interest in obtaining a particular contract who has been or could be adversely affected by an alleged breach of EU public procurement law or rules transposing that law, and seeking the exclusion of another tenderer, from being declared inadmissible in application of national jurisprudential procedural rules or which concern the treatment of reciprocal ‘excluding’ actions brought by the parties, irrespective of the number of tenderers having participated in the procurement procedure or the number of those having brought actions for review.

         (1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.


title: Case C-347/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Avv. Alessandro Salvoni v Anna Maria Fiermonte (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 53 – Certificate relating to a judgment in civil and commercial matters in Annex I – Powers of the court of origin – Automatic verification whether there have been breaches of the rules on jurisdiction concerning consumer contracts)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/26

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Avv. Alessandro Salvoni v Anna Maria Fiermonte
      (Case C-347/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 53 - Certificate relating to a judgment in civil and commercial matters in Annex I - Powers of the court of origin - Automatic verification whether there have been breaches of the rules on jurisdiction concerning consumer contracts)
      (2019/C 383/28)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale di Milano

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Avv. Alessandro Salvoni

         Defendant: Anna Maria Fiermonte

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 53 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/281 of 26 November 2014 read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding the court of origin which has been requested to issue the certificate provided for in Article 53 of that regulation in respect of a judgment which has acquired the force of res judicata from being able to ascertain of its own motion whether there has been a breach of the rules set out in Chapter II, Section 4 of that regulation, so that it may inform the consumer of any breach that is established and enable him to assess, in full knowledge of the facts, the possibility of availing himself of the remedy provided for in Article 45 of that regulation.

         (1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.


title: Case C-377/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against AH, PB, CX, KM, PH (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Article 4(1) – Presumption of innocence – Public references to guilt – Agreement concluded between the prosecutor and the perpetrator of an offence – National case-law providing for the identification of accused persons who have not concluded such an agreement – Charter of Fundamental Rights – Article 48)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/27

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against AH, PB, CX, KM, PH
      (Case C-377/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Article 4(1) - Presumption of innocence - Public references to guilt - Agreement concluded between the prosecutor and the perpetrator of an offence - National case-law providing for the identification of accused persons who have not concluded such an agreement - Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 48)
      (2019/C 383/29)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

         Parties to the criminal proceedings against

      AH, PB, CX, KM, PH

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 4(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude that an agreement in which the accused person recognises his guilt in exchange for a reduction in sentencing, which must be approved by a national court, expressly mentions as joint perpetrators of the criminal offence in question not only that person but also other accused persons, who have not recognised their guilt and are being prosecuted in separate criminal proceedings, on the condition that that reference is necessary for the categorisation of the legal liability of the person who entered into the agreement and, second, that that same agreement makes it clear that those other persons are being prosecuted in separate criminal proceedings and that their guilt has not been legally established.

         (1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.


title: Case C-383/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Lublin-Wschód w Lublinie z siedzibą w Świdniku — Poland) — Lexitor sp. z o.o. v Spółdzielcza Kasa Oszczędnościowo — Kredytowa im. Franciszka Stefczyka, Santander Consumer Bank S.A. and mBank S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Credit agreements for consumers – Directive 2008/48/EC – Article 16(1) – Early repayment – Right of the consumer to a reduction in the total cost of the credit, consisting of the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/28

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Lublin-Wschód w Lublinie z siedzibą w Świdniku — Poland) — Lexitor sp. z o.o. v Spółdzielcza Kasa Oszczędnościowo — Kredytowa im. Franciszka Stefczyka, Santander Consumer Bank S.A. and mBank S.A.
      (Case C-383/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Article 16(1) - Early repayment - Right of the consumer to a reduction in the total cost of the credit, consisting of the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract)
      (2019/C 383/30)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Rejonowy Lublin-Wschód w Lublinie z siedzibą w Świdniku

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Lexitor sp. z o.o.

         Defendants: Spółdzielcza Kasa Oszczędnościowo — Kredytowa im. Franciszka Stefczyka, Santander Consumer Bank S.A. and mBank S.A.

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 16(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the right of the consumer to a reduction in the total cost of the credit in the event of early repayment of the credit includes all the costs imposed on the consumer.

         (1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.


title: Case C-397/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — DW v Nobel Plastiques Ibérica SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 – Prohibition of any discrimination based on a disability – Worker particularly susceptible to occupational risks within the meaning of national law – Existence of a ‘disability’ – Dismissal for objective reasons based on criteria of productivity, multi-skilling in the undertaking’s posts and absenteeism – Particular disadvantage for disabled persons – Indirect discrimination – Reasonable accommodation – Individual who is not competent, capable and available to perform the essential functions of the post concerned)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/29

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — DW v Nobel Plastiques Ibérica SA
      (Case C-397/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 - Prohibition of any discrimination based on a disability - Worker particularly susceptible to occupational risks within the meaning of national law - Existence of a ‘disability’ - Dismissal for objective reasons based on criteria of productivity, multi-skilling in the undertaking’s posts and absenteeism - Particular disadvantage for disabled persons - Indirect discrimination - Reasonable accommodation - Individual who is not competent, capable and available to perform the essential functions of the post concerned)
      (2019/C 383/31)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: DW

         Defendant: Nobel Plastiques Ibérica SA

         Interveners: Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa), Ministerio Fiscal

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the state of health of a worker categorised as being particularly susceptible to occupational risks, within the meaning of national law, which prevents that worker from carrying out certain jobs on the ground that such jobs would entail a risk to his or her own health or to other persons, only falls within the concept of ‘disability’, within the meaning of that directive, where that state leads to a limitation of capacity arising from, inter alia, long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in their professional life on an equal basis with other workers. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings;

                  2.

                  Article 2(2)(b)(ii) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that dismissal for ‘objective reasons’ of a disabled worker on the ground that he or she meets the selection criteria taken into account by the employer to determine the persons to be dismissed, namely having productivity below a given rate, a low level of multi-skilling in the undertaking’s posts and a high rate of absenteeism, constitutes indirect discrimination on grounds of disability within the meaning of that provision, unless the employer has beforehand provided that worker with reasonable accommodation, within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive, in order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities, which it is for the national court to determine.

         (1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.


title: Case C-417/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — AW, BV, CU, DT v Lietuvos valstybė, represented by the Lietuvos Respublikos ryšių reguliavimo tarnyba, the Bendrasis pagalbos centras and the Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2002/22/EC – Universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services – Article 26(5) – Single European emergency call number – Making available caller location information)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/30

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — AW, BV, CU, DT v Lietuvos valstybė, represented by the Lietuvos Respublikos ryšių reguliavimo tarnyba, the Bendrasis pagalbos centras and the Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija
      (Case C-417/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/22/EC - Universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services - Article 26(5) - Single European emergency call number - Making available caller location information)
      (2019/C 383/32)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: AW, BV, CU, DT

         Defendant: Lietuvos valstybė, represented by the Lietuvos Respublikos ryšių reguliavimo tarnyba, the Bendrasis pagalbos centras and the Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 26(5) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as requiring the Member States, subject to technical feasibility, to ensure that the undertakings concerned make caller location information available free of charge to the authority handling emergency calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’ as soon as the call reaches that authority, including in cases where the call is made from a mobile telephone which is not fitted with a SIM card;

                  2.

                  Article 26(5) of Directive 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, must be interpreted as conferring on the Member States a measure of discretion when laying down the criteria relating to the accuracy and reliability of the information on the location of the caller to the single European emergency call number ‘112’; however, the criteria which they lay down must ensure, within the limits of technical feasibility, that the caller’s position is located as reliably and accurately as is necessary to enable the emergency services usefully to come to the caller’s assistance, this being a matter for the national court to assess;

                  3.

                  EU law must be interpreted as meaning that where, in accordance with the domestic law of a Member State, the existence of an indirect causal link between the unlawful act committed by the national authorities and the damage sustained by an individual is regarded as sufficient to render the State liable, such an indirect causal link between a breach of EU law attributable to that Member State and the damage sustained by an individual must also be regarded as sufficient for the purposes of rendering that Member State liable for that breach of EU law.

         (1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.


title: Case C-443/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Italy (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Protection of plant health – Directive 2000/29/EC – Protection against the introduction into and the spread within the European Union of organisms harmful to plants or plant products – Article 16(1) and (3) – Implementing decision (EU) 2015/789 – Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the European Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) – Article 7(2)(c) – Containment measures – Obligation immediately to remove infected plants within a 20-kilometre strip in the infected zone – Article 7(7) – Obligation to monitor – Annual surveys – Article 6(2), (7) and (9) – Eradication measures – Persistent and general failure – Article 4(3) TEU – Obligation of sincere cooperation)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/31

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Italy
      (Case C-443/18) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Protection of plant health - Directive 2000/29/EC - Protection against the introduction into and the spread within the European Union of organisms harmful to plants or plant products - Article 16(1) and (3) - Implementing decision (EU) 2015/789 - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the European Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) - Article 7(2)(c) - Containment measures - Obligation immediately to remove infected plants within a 20-kilometre strip in the infected zone - Article 7(7) - Obligation to monitor - Annual surveys - Article 6(2), (7) and (9) - Eradication measures - Persistent and general failure - Article 4(3) TEU - Obligation of sincere cooperation)
      (2019/C 383/33)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino and G. Caselli, avvocati dello Stato)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that the Italian Republic,

                              —

                              by failing to ensure, in the containment area, the immediate removal of at least all plants which have been found to be infected by Xylella fastidiosa if they are situated within a distance of 20 km from the border of the infected zone with the rest of the Union territory, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2)(c) of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.), as amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/764 of 12 May 2016, and

                              —

                              by failing to ensure, in the containment area, that the presence of Xylella fastidiosa was monitored by carrying out annual surveys at appropriate times during the year, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(7) of the implementing decision;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the action;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.


title: Case C-468/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Constanța — Romania) — R v P (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations – Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 – Article 3(a) and (d) and Article 5 – Court seised of three joined claims concerning the divorce of the parents of a minor child, parental responsibility and the maintenance obligation with regard to that child – Court declaring that it has jurisdiction relating to the divorce and no jurisdiction relating to parental responsibility – Jurisdiction to entertain proceedings with regard to the claim concerning the maintenance obligation – Court for the place where the defendant is habitually resident and before which he has entered an appearance)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/32

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Constanța — Romania) — R v P
      (Case C-468/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 3(a) and (d) and Article 5 - Court seised of three joined claims concerning the divorce of the parents of a minor child, parental responsibility and the maintenance obligation with regard to that child - Court declaring that it has jurisdiction relating to the divorce and no jurisdiction relating to parental responsibility - Jurisdiction to entertain proceedings with regard to the claim concerning the maintenance obligation - Court for the place where the defendant is habitually resident and before which he has entered an appearance)
      (2019/C 383/34)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Judecătoria Constanța

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: R
      Defendant: P

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(a) and (d) and Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be interpreted as meaning that where there is an action before a court of a Member State which includes three claims concerning, respectively, the divorce of the parents of a minor child, parental responsibility in respect of that child and the maintenance obligation with regard to that child, the court ruling on the divorce, which has declared that it has no jurisdiction to rule on the claim concerning parental responsibility, nevertheless has jurisdiction to rule on the claim concerning the maintenance obligation with regard to that child where it is also the court for the place where the defendant is habitually resident or the court before which the defendant has entered an appearance, without contesting the jurisdiction of that court.

         (1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.


title: C-473/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — GP v Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Baden-Württemberg West (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security – Migrant workers – EU rules on the conversion of currencies – Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 – Decision No H3 of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems – Calculation of the differential supplement for family allowance, owed to a worker residing in a Member State and working in Switzerland – Determination of the reference date for the exchange rate)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/32

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — GP v Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Baden-Württemberg West
      (C-473/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Migrant workers - EU rules on the conversion of currencies - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Decision No H3 of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems - Calculation of the differential supplement for family allowance, owed to a worker residing in a Member State and working in Switzerland - Determination of the reference date for the exchange rate)
      (2019/C 383/35)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: GP

         Defendants: Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Baden-Württemberg West

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  With regard to the currency conversion of a dependent child benefit with a view to determining the amount of differential supplement, if any, under Article 68(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, the application and the interpretation of Article 90 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004, and of Decision No H3 of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems of 15 October 2009 concerning the date to be taken into consideration for determining the exchange rate referred to in Article 90 of Regulation No 987/2009, are unaffected by the fact that the benefit is paid in Swiss francs by a Swiss institution.

                  2.

                  Decision No H3 of 15 October 2009 must be interpreted as meaning that Paragraph 2 thereof applies for the purposes of a currency conversion of dependent child benefits with a view to determining the amount of differential supplement, if any, under Article 68(2) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009.

                  3.

                  Paragraph 2 of Decision No H3 of 15 October 2009 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the concept of ‘the day when the operation is performed by the institution’, within the meaning of that provision, refers to the day on which payment of the family benefit in question is made by the competent institution of the State of employment.

         (1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.