39301Case C-242/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘UniCredit Leasing’ EAD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (NAP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Taxable amount — Reduction — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Financial leasing agreement terminated for non-payment of lease instalments — Tax assessment notice — Scope — Taxable transactions — Supply of goods for consideration — Payment of ‘compensation’ for termination up to the end of the agreement — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39302Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.#Kingdom of Spain v European Commission.#EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure made by Spain — Key checks — Criteria for recognition of producers’ bodies — Approval of operational programmes — Transfer of investments within the same operation programme — Legitimate expectations.#Case T-602/17.cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39303Case T-305/17: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2019 — Red Bull v EUIPO (Representation of a parallelogram composed of two fields in different colours)cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39304Case T-602/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2019 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure made by Spain — Key checks — Criteria for recognition of producers’ bodies — Approval of operational programmes — Transfer of investments within the same operation programme — Legitimate expectations)cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39305Arrêt de la Cour (quatrième chambre) du 3 juillet 2019.#Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO).#Pourvoi – Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure de déchéance – Marque verbale Boswelan – Usage sérieux – Absence – Utilisation de la marque dans le cadre d’un essai clinique préalable au dépôt d’une demande d’autorisation de mise sur le marché d’un médicament – Juste motif pour le non-usage – Notion.#Affaire C-668/17 P.cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39306Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.#Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal – EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – Word mark Boswelan – Genuine use – Absence – Use of the mark in the context of a clinical trial prior to the submission of an application for marketing authorisation for a medicinal product – Proper reason for non-use – Concept.#Case C-668/17 P.cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39307Arrêt de la Cour (quatrième chambre) du 3 juillet 2019.#Procédure engagée par Eurobolt BV.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Article 267 TFUE – Droit à un recours effectif – Portée du contrôle juridictionnel national d’un acte de l’Union européenne – Règlement (CE) no 1225/2009 – Article 15, paragraphe 2 – Communication aux États membres, au plus tard dix jours ouvrables avant la réunion du comité consultatif, de tous les éléments d’information utiles – Notion d’“éléments d’information utiles” – Forme substantielle – Règlement d’exécution (UE) no 723/2011 – Extension du droit antidumping institué sur les importations de certains éléments de fixation en fer ou en acier originaires de Chine aux importations expédiées de Malaisie – Validité.#Affaire C-644/17.cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39308Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.#Proceedings brought by Eurobolt BV.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Right to an effective remedy — Extent of review by national courts of an act of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 15(2) — Communication to the Member States, no later than 10 working days before the meeting of the Advisory Committee, of all relevant information — Concept of ‘relevant information’ — Essential procedural requirement — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 — Extension of the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China to imports consigned from Malaysia — Validity.#Case C-644/17.cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39309Case C-668/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 — Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Hecht-Pharma GmbH (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Word mark Boswelan — No genuine use — Use of the mark in a clinical trial prior to filing an application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market — Proper reason for non-use — Concept)cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39310Case C-644/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — proceedings brought by Eurobolt BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Right to an effective remedy — Extent of review by national courts of an act of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 15(2) — Communication to the Member States, no later than 10 working days before the meeting of the Advisory Committee, of all relevant information — Concept of ‘relevant information’ — Essential procedural requirement — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 — Extension of the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China to imports consigned from Malaysia — Validity)cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39311Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (Extracts).#PT v European Investment Bank.#Civil service – Staff of the EIB – Organisation of departments – Dispensation from service – Access to email and IT connections – Pre-litigation procedure – Admissibility – Legal certainty – Right to be heard – Presumption of innocence – Final report of OLAF – Obligation to state reasons – Liability – Material harm – Non-material harm.#Case T-573/16.cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39312Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (Extracts).#PT v European Investment Bank.#Civil service – Staff of the EIB – Organisation of departments – Dispensation from service – Access to email and IT connections – Pre-litigation procedure – Admissibility – Legal certainty – Right to be heard – Presumption of innocence – Final report of OLAF – Obligation to state reasons – Liability – Material harm – Non-material harm.#Case T-573/16.cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39313Case T-573/16: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2019 — PT v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Organisation of services — Time dispensation — Access to e-mail and IT connections — Pre-litigation procedure — Admissibility — Legal certainty — Right to be heard — Presumption of innocence — OLAF Final Report — Obligation to state reasons — Liability — Material damage — Non-material damage)cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39314Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019.#Bankia SA v Alfredo Sánchez Martínez and Sandra Sánchez Triviño.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Alicante.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law — Principle of effectiveness — Principle of procedural autonomy.#Case C-486/16.cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39315Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019.#Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA v Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Santander.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/CEE — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question identical to a question on which the Court has previously ruled or to which the answer can clearly be deduced from the case-law — Declaration that the term is unfair in part — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question manifestly inadmissible.#Case C-167/16.cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39316Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019.#Bankia SA v Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Fuenlabrada.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Declaration that the clause is unfair in part — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question manifestly inadmissible.#Case C-92/16.cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39317Case C-486/16: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante — Spain) — Bankia SA v Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law — Principle of effectiveness — Principle of procedural autonomy)cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39318Case C-167/16: Order of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander — Spain) — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA v Fernando Quintano Ujeta, María Isabel Sánchez García (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Declaration that the clause is unfair in part — Powers of a national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question manifestly inadmissible)cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.
39319Case C-92/16: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada — Spain) — Bankia SA v Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez, Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Declaration that the term is unfair in part — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Question manifestly inadmissible)cjeu_case · 3 июля 2019 г.