34761Opinion of Advocate General Bobek delivered on 14 May 2020.#Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v BV.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/80/EC — Article 12(2) — National schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crime guaranteeing fair and appropriate compensation — Scope — Victim residing in the Member State in which the violent intentional crime was committed — Obligation for the national compensation scheme to cover that victim — Concept of ‘fair and appropriate compensation’ — Liability of Member States in the event of a breach of EU law.#Case C-129/19.cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34762Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 14 May 2020.#Sonaecom SGPS SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Article 4 – Concept of ‘taxable person’ – Mixed holding company – Article 17 – Right to deduct input VAT – Input VAT paid by a mixed holding company in respect of consultancy services relating to a market study with a view to the possible acquisition of shareholdings in other companies – Abandonment of proposed acquisition – Input VAT paid on a bank commission for organising and putting together a bond loan, intended to provide subsidiaries with the necessary means to make investments – Investments not made.#Case C-42/19.cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34763Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered on 14 May 2020.#Diskrimineringsombudsmannen v Braathens Regional Aviation AB.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin – Directive 2000/43/EC – Article 7 – Protection of rights – Article 15 – Sanctions – Action for compensation based on an allegation of discrimination – Defendant acquiescing to claim for compensation without recognition on its part of the discrimination alleged – Connection between the compensation paid and the discrimination alleged – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to effective judicial protection – National procedural rules preventing the court seised from ruling on whether there was discrimination as alleged, despite the express request of the claimant.#Case C-30/19.cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34764Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — FMS, FNZ (C-924/19 PPU), SA and SA junior (C-925/19 PPU) v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum and immigration policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Application for international protection — Article 33(2) — Grounds of inadmissibility — Article 40 — Subsequent applications — Article 43 — Border procedures — Directive 2013/33/EU — Article 2(h) and Articles 8 and 9 — Detention — Whether lawful — Directive 2008/115/EU — Article 13 — Effective remedies — Article 15 — Detention — Whether lawful — Right to an effective remedy — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principle of primacy of EU law)cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34765Case C-276/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2020 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Derogations — Simplification measures and measures to prevent tax evasion or avoidance — Article 395(2) — Obligation incumbent on Member States to notify the European Commission of special measures intended to simplify the procedure for charging VAT — Substantial amendment of the measure initially notified)cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34766Case C-266/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — EIS GmbH v TO (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 6(1)(c) and (h), and Article 6(4) — Annex I.A — Right of withdrawal — Information to be provided by traders in relation to the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising the right of withdrawal — Obligation for traders to provide a telephone number ‘where available’ — Scope)cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34767Case C-263/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) –T-Systems Magyarország Zrt., BKK Budapesti Közlekedési Központ Zrt. v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Award of public contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 1(2) and Article 72 — Directive 2014/25/EU — Article 1(2) and Article 89 — Review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 2e(2) — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Directive 92/13/EEC — Article 2e(2) — Modification of a contract concluded following a public procurement procedure — No new public procurement procedure — Fines imposed on the contracting authority and the tenderer — Principle of proportionality)cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34768Case C-208/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Graz — Austria) — NK v MS, AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Consumer rights — Directive 2011/83/EU — Scope — Article 3(3)(f) — Concept of ‘contracts for the construction of new buildings’ — Article 16(c) — Concept of ‘goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised’ — Contract between an architect and a consumer concerning the drawing up of a plan for a new single-family house)cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34769Case C-189/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Spenner GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Transitional system of free allocation of allowances — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 9 — Determining the historical activity level — Significant change in the capacity of an installation that took place before the baseline period — Determining the relevant baseline period)cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34770Case C-17/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Criminal proceedings against Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Legislation applicable — Article 14(1)(a) and (2)(b) — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 12(1) — Article 13(1)(a) — Posted workers — Workers employed in two or more Member States — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 11(1)(a) — Article 12a(2)(a) and(4)(a) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 19(2) — E 101 and A 1 Certificates — Binding effect — Consequences — Social security — Employment law)cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34771Case C-15/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — AMA — Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA v Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti — Co.La.Ri. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Waste — Directive 1999/31/EC — Existing landfill sites — Period of responsibility for after-care of the landfill following closure — Extension — Costs of the landfill of waste — Polluter pays principle — Temporal scope of the directive)cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34772Ordonnance du Tribunal (dixième chambre) du 14 mai 2020.#Ernests Bernis e.a. contre Conseil de résolution unique.#Recours en annulation – Union économique et monétaire – Union bancaire – Mécanisme de résolution unique des établissements de crédit et de certaines entreprises d’investissement (MRU) – Article 18, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) no 806/2014 – Procédure de résolution applicable en cas de défaillance avérée ou prévisible d’une entité – Société mère et filiale – Déclaration par la BCE d’une situation de défaillance avérée ou prévisible – Décision du CRU de ne pas adopter de dispositif de résolution – Absence d’intérêt public – Liquidation conforme au droit national – Actionnaires – Défaut d’affectation directe – Irrecevabilité.#Affaire T-282/18.cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34773Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 May 2020.#Ernests Bernis and Others v Single Resolution Board.#Action for annulment — Economic and Monetary Union — Banking Union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Parent company and subsidiary — Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Decision of the SRB not to adopt a resolution scheme — Lack of public interest — Winding up in accordance with national law — Shareholders — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility.#Case T-282/18.cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34774Case T-282/18: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2020 –Bernis and Others v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and Monetary Union — Banking Union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Parent company and subsidiary — Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Decision of the SRB not to adopt a resolution scheme — Lack of public interest — Winding up in accordance with national law — Shareholders — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34775Arrêt de la Cour (deuxième chambre) du 14 mai 2020.#B e.a. contre Administration des contributions directes.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Articles 49 et 54 TFUE – Liberté d’établissement – Législation fiscale – Impôts sur les sociétés – Sociétés mères et filiales – Intégration fiscale verticale et horizontale.#Affaire C-749/18.cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34776Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020.#B and Others v Administration des contributions directes.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 49 and 54 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Taxation of companies – Parent companies and subsidiaries – Vertical and horizontal tax integration.#Case C-749/18.cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34777Arrêt de la Cour (troisième chambre) du 14 mai 2020.#Orde van Vlaamse Balies et Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone contre Ministerraad.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Directive 2009/138/CE – Assurance-protection juridique – Article 201 – Droit du preneur d’assurance de choisir librement son représentant – Procédure judiciaire – Notion – Procédure de médiation.#Affaire C-667/18.cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34778Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2020.#Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v Ministerraad.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2009/138/EC — Legal expenses insurance — Article 201 — Insured person’s right freely to choose a lawyer — Proceedings — Meaning — Mediation proceedings.#Case C-667/18.cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34779Arrêt de la Cour (cinquième chambre) du 14 mai 2020.#UY contre Staatsanwaltschaft Offenburg.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Coopération judiciaire en matière pénale – Droit à l’information dans le cadre des procédures pénales – Directive 2012/13/UE – Article 6 – Droit d’être informé de l’accusation portée contre soi – Poursuites pénales pour conduite d’un véhicule sans permis de conduire – Interdiction de conduire résultant d’une ordonnance pénale antérieure dont l’intéressé n’a pas pris connaissance – Signification de cette ordonnance à l’intéressé par le seul moyen d’un mandataire obligatoire – Acquisition de l’autorité de chose jugée – Négligence éventuelle de l’intéressé.#Affaire C-615/18.cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.
34780Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2020.#UY v Staatsanwaltschaft Offenburg.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Right to information in criminal proceedings – Directive 2012/13/EU – Article 6 – Right to information about the accusation – Criminal prosecution for driving a vehicle without a driving licence – Driving ban resulting from an earlier penalty order of which the person concerned was unaware – Service of that order on the person concerned solely by way of a person compulsorily appointed to accept service – Acquisition of the force of res judicata – Possible negligence on the part of the person concerned.#Case C-615/18.cjeu_case · 14 мая 2020 г.