Каталог правовых документов (cjeu_case)

104 315 документов
33243

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2020.#Romania v European Commission.#Appeal – European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) – Decision of the European Commission excluding expenditure from EU financing – Notification to the addressee – Error in the printing of the annex – Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union – Time limit for filing an appeal – Point from which time starts to run – Lateness – Principle of legal certainty – Observance of the adversarial principle.#Case C-498/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
33244

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2020.#Romania v European Commission.#Appeal – European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) – Decision of the European Commission excluding expenditure from EU financing – Notification to the addressee – Error in the printing of the annex – Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union – Time limit for filing an appeal – Point from which time starts to run – Lateness – Principle of legal certainty – Observance of the adversarial principle.#Case C-498/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
33245

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2020.#Hamas v Council of the European Union.#Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Fight against terrorism – Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities – Freezing of funds – Common Position 2001/931/CFSP – Article 1(4) and (6) – Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 – Article 2(3) – Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts – Conditions – Competent authority equivalent to a judicial authority – Sentencing decision – Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection.#Case C-386/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
33246

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2020.#Hamas v Council of the European Union.#Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Fight against terrorism – Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities – Freezing of funds – Common Position 2001/931/CFSP – Article 1(4) and (6) – Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 – Article 2(3) – Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts – Conditions – Competent authority equivalent to a judicial authority – Sentencing decision – Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection.#Case C-386/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
33247

Arrêt de la Cour (quatrième chambre) du 10 septembre 2020.#Tax-Fin-Lex d.o.o. contre Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Marchés publics de services – Directive 2014/24/UE – Article 2, paragraphe 1, point 5 – Notion de “marché public” – Notion de “contrat à titre onéreux” – Offre d’un soumissionnaire au prix de zéro euro – Rejet de l’offre – Article 69 – Offre anormalement basse.#Affaire C-367/19.

cjeu_case ·
33248

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2020.#Tax-Fin-Lex d.o.o. v Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public service contracts – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 2(1)(5) – Concept of ‘public contract’ – Concept of ‘contract for pecuniary interest’ – Tenderer’s bid at a price of EUR 0.00 – Rejection of the tender – Article 69 – Abnormally low tender.#Case C-367/19.

cjeu_case ·
33249

Arrêt de la Cour (dixième chambre) du 10 septembre 2020.#Konsumentombudsmannen contre Mezina AB.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Sécurité alimentaire – Allégations nutritionnelles et de santé portant sur les denrées alimentaires – Règlement (CE) no 1924/2006 – Articles 5 et 6 – Justification scientifique des allégations – Preuves scientifiques généralement admises – Article 10, paragraphe 1 – Article 28, paragraphe 5 – Régime transitoire – Pratiques commerciales déloyales des entreprises vis-à-vis des consommateurs dans le marché intérieur – Directive 2005/29/CE – Article 3, paragraphe 4 – Relation entre les dispositions de la directive 2005/29 et d’autres règles de l’Union régissant des aspects spécifiques des pratiques commerciales déloyales.#Affaire C-363/19.

cjeu_case ·
33250

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 September 2020.#Konsumentombudsmannen v Mezina AB.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Patent- och marknadsdomstolen vid Stockholms tingsrätt.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Food safety — Nutritional and health claims concerning foodstuffs — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Articles 5 and 6 — Scientific substantiation for claims — Generally accepted scientific evidence — Article 10(1) — Article 28(5) — Transitional arrangements — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market — Directive 2005/29/EC — Article 3(4) — Relationship between the provisions of Directive 2005/29 and other EU rules regulating specific aspects of unfair commercial practices.#Case C-363/19.

cjeu_case ·
33251

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2020.#Hamas v Council of the European Union.#Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Fight against terrorism – Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities – Freezing of funds – Common Position 2001/931/CFSP – Article 1(4) and (6) – Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 – Article 2(3) – Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts – Conditions – Competent authority equivalent to a judicial authority – Sentencing decision – Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities – Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds – Obligation to state reasons – Right to effective judicial protection.#Case C-122/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
33252

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2020.#Hamas v Council of the European Union.#Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Fight against terrorism – Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities – Freezing of funds – Common Position 2001/931/CFSP – Article 1(4) and (6) – Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 – Article 2(3) – Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts – Conditions – Competent authority equivalent to a judicial authority – Sentencing decision – Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities – Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds – Obligation to state reasons – Right to effective judicial protection.#Case C-122/19 P.

cjeu_case ·
33253

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 10 September 2020.#Euromin Holdings (Cyprus) Limited.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts).#Request for a preliminary ruling – Company law – Directive 2004/25/EC – Takeover bid – first and second subparagraphs of Article 5(4) – Protection of minority shareholders – Mandatory bid – Method of calculating the value of shares in order to determine the equitable price – Power to adjust the equitable price – Exceptions to the standard method of calculation in circumstances and in accordance with criteria that are clearly determined – Liability of the Member State concerned – Damage suffered by the offeror as a result of an excessively high bid.#Case C-735/19.

cjeu_case ·
33254

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 10 September 2020.#Föreningen Skydda Skogen and Others v Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län and Others.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Article 12(1) – Directive 2009/147/EC – Conservation of wild birds – Article 5 – Forestry – Prohibitions intended to ensure the conservation of protected species – Plan for final felling of trees – Site hosting protected species.#Joined Cases C-473/19 and C-474/19.

cjeu_case ·
33255

Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella delivered on 10 September 2020.#Proceedings brought by Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Article 101 TFEU – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Manipulation of the bidding procedure – Determination of the duration of the infringement period – Inclusion of the period during which the cartel members implemented the anticompetitive agreement – Economic effects of anticompetitive behaviour – Cessation of the infringement on the definitive award of the contract.#Case C-450/19.

cjeu_case ·
33256

Opinion of Advocate General Bobek delivered on 10 September 2020.#WEG Tevesstraße v Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Exemption for leasing and letting immovable property – National legislation exempting from VAT the supply of heat by an association of residential property owners to property owners belonging to that association.#Case C-449/19.

cjeu_case ·
33258

Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar delivered on 10 September 2020.#VG Bild-Kunst v Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual property – Copyright and related rights in the information society – Directive 2001/29/EC – Article 3(1) – Concept of ‘communication to the public’ – Embedding, in a third party’s website, of a copyright-protected work by means of the process of framing – Work freely accessible with the authorisation of the copyright holder on the licensee’s website – Clause in the exploitation agreement requiring the licensee to introduce effective technological measures against framing – Lawfulness – Fundamental rights – – Article 11 and Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.#Case C-392/19.

cjeu_case ·
33259

Opinion of Advocate General Hogan delivered on 10 September 2020.#Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België e.a. and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of animals at the time of killing – Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 – Article 4(1) – Obligation to stun animals before they are killed – Article 4(4) – Derogation in the context of ritual slaughter – Article 26(2) – Power of Member States to adopt national rules aimed at ensuring more extensive protection of animals in the case of ritual slaughter – Interpretation – National legislation requiring, in the case of ritual slaughter, stunning which is reversible and cannot cause death – Article 13 TFEU – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 10 – Freedom of religion – Freedom to manifest religion – Limitation – Proportionality – Lack of consensus among the Member States of the European Union – Discretion afforded to Member States – Principle of subsidiarity – Validity – Differing treatment of ritual slaughter and the killing of animals during hunting or recreational fishing activities and cultural or sporting events – No discrimination – Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.#Case C-336/19.

cjeu_case ·
33260

Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar delivered on 10 September 2020.#Star Taxi App SRL v Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială Municipiul Bucureşti prin Primar General and Consiliul General al Municipiului Bucureşti.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 56 TFEU – Applicability – Purely internal situation – Directive 2000/31/EC – Article 2(a) – Meaning of ‘Information Society services’ – Article 3(2) and (4) – Article 4 – Applicability – Directive 2006/123/EC – Services – Chapters III (Freedom of establishment for providers) and IV (Free movement of services) – Applicability – Articles 9 and 10 – Directive (EU) 2015/1535 – Article 1(1)(e) and (f) – Meaning of ‘rule on services’ – Meaning of ‘technical regulation’ – Article 5(1) – Failure to communicate in advance – Enforceability – Activity of connecting persons wishing to make urban journeys with authorised taxi drivers, by means of a smartphone application – Classification – National regulations subjecting that activity to prior authorisation.#Case C-62/19.

cjeu_case ·