The Regional Court in Brno referred this question to the Court of Justice:
Must Article 4(2) and (3) and Article 5 in fine of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 4 and 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, be interpreted as precluding the assessment of whether a return decision under Article 4(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union should be interpreted as a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on the return of illegally staying third-country nationals? 6 of Directive 2008/115/EC does not lead to a violation of the principle of non-refoulement, to apply the concept of safe country of origin under Articles 36 and 37 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection status in combination with the narrowed definition of the principle of non-refoulement focusing only on the prohibition of ill-treatment under Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?
The Court of Justice has not yet ruled on the case.
The Brno City Court referred the following questions to the Court of Justice:
Does Article 10(8) of the European Commission Decision of 27 April 2011, 2011/278/EU1 , in conjunction with Annex I thereto, require the allocation of free emission allowances for the period 2013 to 2020 to an installation which operates an oxygen converter process with an input of carbon-saturated liquid iron imported from another installation of a different operator, if it is also ensured that there is no double counting or double allocation of allowances intended for the liquid metal product?
If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is Article 10(8) of European Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011, in conjunction with Annex I to that decision, invalid in relation to the liquid metal product, on the ground that it is contrary to Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Annex I to that directive, or that it is unclear?
If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, is Article 1(1) of the European Commission Decision of 5 September 2013, 2013/448/EU2 also invalid in relation to the installation with the identifier CZ-existing-CZ-52-CZ-0102-05, for lack of legal basis?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can Article 1(1) and the third subparagraph of Article 1(2) of the European Commission Decision of 5 September 2013, 2013/448/EU, in relation to the installation with the identifier CZ-existing-CZ-52-CZ-0102-05, be interpreted as allowing the allocation of allowances for the liquid metal product to that installation on the basis of a new application by the Czech Republic, provided that double counting and double allocation of allowances are excluded?
If the answer to the fourth question is in the negative, is Article 1(1) of the European Commission Decision of 5 September 2013, 2013/448/EU, in relation to the installation with the identifier CZ-existing-CZ-52-CZ-0102-05, invalid because it conflicts with Article 10(8) of the European Commission Decision of 27 April 2011, 2011/278/EU, in conjunction with Annex I thereto?
If the answer to the third, fourth or fifth question is in the affirmative, what is the procedure under EU law for the authority of a Member State which has not allocated free emission allowances to the operator of an installation where an oxygen converter process is in operation, in breach of EU law, where the installation is no longer in operation and the period for which the allowances were allocated has already expired?
The applicant - VÍTKOVICE STEEL - claims in its dispute with the Ministry of the Environment that, on the basis of Annex I to Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011, it should have been allocated free emission allowances for the period 2013-2020 for the operation of the plant in which it carried out the process known as 'oxygen converter', since that Annex lists the oxygen converter as one of the processes for which free allowances are to be allocated, in relation to the product liquid metal. However, the Commission subsequently rejected the inclusion of that plant in the list of plants to be allocated free allowances by Decision 2013/448/EU. The defendant Ministry interpreted that decision as meaning that allowances could be allocated provided that there was no double counting of allowances for both the applicant's plant and the plant of the company supplying the applicant with liquid metal, but rejected the Commission's Directorate-General for Climate Action's view that no allowances could be allocated to the applicant and that it was up to the applicant to agree with its supplier to take over part of the allowances. The defendant Ministry subsequently carried out a calculation of the allocation of allowances to the applicant and its supplier which, in its view, precluded both double counting and double allocation of allowances. However, the Commission insisted that the allowances could not be allocated between the companies concerned. The defendant Ministry therefore finally decided not to allocate any free allowances to the applicant for the years 2013-2020 for the installations in question. The applicant challenged that decision in an administrative action before the referring court.
The Court ruled on the application by judgment of 21 December 2021.
The questions referred to the Court of Justice by the Office for Access to Transport Infrastructure (which allegedly fulfils the characteristics of a 'court' within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU as interpreted by the Court of Justice) concern the interpretation of Directive 2012/34 and its binding effect on the Railway Administration as a public organisation.
The Court of Justice has not yet ruled on the request.
The Regional Court in Brno referred to the Court of Justice the question of whether national legislation laying down a condition which prevents a taxable person liable for value added tax, if he has become liable for tax on a taxable supply to another taxable person, from making an adjustment to the amount of output tax on the value of a claim arising in the six months before the court's decision on the insolvency of the taxable person who has paid only partly or not at all for the supply, is contrary to the meaning of Article 90(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC.
The applicant, ELVOSPOL, applied an adjustment to the amount of output tax in its supplementary value added tax return for the tax year May 2015 because its debtor had failed to pay a claim for the supply of goods on the basis of an invoice from November 2013, whereas that debtor was bankrupt following the decision of May 2014. However, the tax authorities did not accept this procedure and instead assessed the tax. The legislation in question (Article 44(1) of the VAT Act) stipulated that a VAT adjustment could only be made in respect of a claim that had been incurred no later than 6 months before the court's decision on the debtor's bankruptcy. The applicant challenged that decision in an administrative action before the referring court.
The court ruled on the application by judgment of 11 November 2021.
The District Court for Prague 8 asked the Court of Justice whether the concept of the consumer's domicile within the meaning of Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 means the consumer's domicile on the date the action was brought or on the date the contractual relationship between the consumer and his contractual partner was established (i.e., the date the contract was concluded). That is to say, whether a contract is a consumer contract within the meaning of that provision even if the consumer is already domiciled in a Member State other than the State in which the consumer's contractual partner carries on a professional or business activity on the date of the action. He also asked whether a consumer who is domiciled in another Member State may be sued under Article 7 of that regulation in the courts of the place where the obligation was performed or should have been performed on the ground that the consumer's contractual partner is not carrying on a professional or business activity in the State in which the consumer is domiciled on the date of the action.
By order of 2 September 2020, the Court of Justice replied that the term 'consumer's domicile' in Article 18(2) of the regulation must be interpreted as meaning the consumer's domicile on the date on which the action is brought.
The Regional Court in Brno referred questions to the Court of Justice:
- whether the V I 1 document issued pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008, containing a certificate from an authorised body of a third country that the product has been produced using oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV or approved by the Community, constitutes a mere administrative condition for the entry of wine into the territory of the European Union; and
- does European Union law preclude a national rule which allows a trader in wine imported from Moldova to be exempted from liability for the administrative offence of putting into circulation wine subjected to oenological practices not authorised in the European Union, unless the national authorities rebut the presumption of that trader that the wine has been produced using oenological practices authorised by the European Union, which he may have acquired from the V I 1 document issued by the Moldovan authorities pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008?
The applicant, the winery U Kaplicki, was found guilty of legal offences for marketing wine in breach of Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council. He contests that decision by arguing that he was exempted from that liability by the fact that the wine was accompanied by V I 1 documents issued by the Moldovan authorities pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008. However, the defendant administrative authority did not admit those documents as evidence, since they cannot be relied on alone in assessing the applicant's liberation. The Regional Court disagreed with that in the judicial review, but the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the defendant's view in its decision on the appeal. The Constitutional Court subsequently intervened in the case, finding that the applicant's right to a fair trial had been infringed by the failure of the Supreme Administrative Court to refer the issue to the Court of Justice.
The Court has not yet ruled on the application.
The Regional Court in Ostrava referred to the Court of Justice the question whether the goods described as "Bob Martin Clear 50 mg solution for application to the skin - spot-on for cats" supplied in pipettes (0.5 ml) are to be containing the active substance Fipronilum (50 mg per pipette) and the excipients butylhydroxyanisole E 320, butylhydroxytoluene E 321, benzyl alcohol and diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, are to be classified under heading 3004 or heading 3808 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Customs Tariff. The applicant, the Samohýl group, sought classification of the said goods under heading 3004 of the nomenclature. However, the Olomouc Regional Customs Office classified the goods under heading 3008, since, in its view, they are not a medicinal product within the meaning of heading 3004. The applicant challenged that classification in an administrative action brought before the referring court.
The Court ruled on the application by judgment of 10 March 2021.
The Regional Court in Brno referred to the Court of Justice the question whether the rule contained in Annex VII(E)(2)(a) to Regulation No 1169/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of foodstuffs intended for the final consumer in the Czech Republic, it is permissible to indicate in the composition of the product a mixed ingredient as defined in Annex I(A)(2)(a). The applicant was ordered by the decision of the State Agricultural and Food Inspectorate to withdraw chocolate products from sale because the composition of the products stated 'chocolate powder' without listing the ingredients of that mixed ingredient. The applicant in the original proceedings argues that the exception to the obligation laid down in Article 9(1)(b), read in conjunction with Article 9(1)(b), applies in the present case. in conjunction with Article 18(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1169/2011 contained in Annex VII(E)(2)(a) of that regulation, since the composition of the equivalent mixture called 'chocolate powder' is defined in Annex I to Directive 2000/36/EC.
The Court of Justice ruled on the application by judgment of 13 January 2022.
On 29 July 2020, the Regional Court in Brno referred the following preliminary question to the Court:
Is it contrary to the meaning of Article 90(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1 ), national legislation which lays down a condition which prevents a taxable person liable for value added tax, where he became liable for tax on a taxable supply to another taxable person, from making an adjustment to the amount of output tax on the value of a claim arising in the six months before the court's decision on the insolvency of a taxable person who has paid only partly or not at all for the supply?
The Court has ruled by judgment on 11 November 2021.
Krajský soud v Ostravě lodged on 18 June 2019 its request for preliminary ruling:
Does the existence of express national legislation relating to [joint and several] liability for missing tax in a fraudulent chain preclude tax administration authorities from refusing the person held liable under that legislation the right to deduct value added tax in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on VAT fraud? Is such a practice in that situation precluded by Article 17(1), Article 20, Article 52(1), Article 52(6), and Article 54 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
The Court of Justice ruled by the order of 14 November 2019 that the request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě is manifestly inadmissible.
Obvodní soud pro Prahu 9 lodged on 12 February 2019 its request for a preliminary ruling:
"Is a break period in which an employee must be available to his employer within two minutes, in case there is an emergency call out, to be considered ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time?
Is the assessment to be made in relation to the question above influenced by the fact that such interruption [of the break] in the event of an emergency call out occurs only at random and unpredictably or, as the case may be, by how often such interruption occurs?
Can a court of first instance, ruling after its decision has been set aside by a higher court and the case referred back to it for further proceedings, fail to comply with a legal opinion pronounced by the higher court and which is binding on the court of first instance, if that opinion conflicts with EU law?"
The case C-107/19 is still pending.
Okresní soud v Ostravě lodged on 5 November 2018 its request for a preliminary ruling:
"Do the combined provisions of Article 8 and Article 23 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 preclude national legislation which specifies that the penalty for failure to fulfil the creditor’s obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness before the conclusion of the credit agreement shall be the nullity of the credit agreement linked with an obligation on the consumer to return the principal sum to the creditor at a time appropriate to the consumer’s financial capacity, where such a penalty (the nullity of the credit agreement) is however applicable only in the event that the consumer invokes it (that is, raises an objection of nullity in relation to the agreement) within a three-year limitation period?
Do the combined provisions of Article 8 and Article 23 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 require a national court to apply of its own motion the penalty laid down in national legislation for failure to fulfil the creditor’s obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness (that is, even in the event that the consumer does not actively invoke the penalty)?"
The case C-679/18 is still pending.
Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích lodged on 7 August 2018 its request for a preliminary ruling:
„Must Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that a claim which has been decided on after taking evidence may be regarded as uncontested if neither the defendant, who acknowledged the debt before the commencement of the action, nor the guardian took part in the court proceedings, and they did not raise any objections in the course of the proceedings?“
The case C-518/18 is still pending.
Městský soud v Praze lodged on 30 July 2018 its request for a preliminary ruling:
„Is there an obligation on a Community carrier to pay compensation to passengers under Article 3(5), second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 1 where the Community carrier as the contractual carrier operated the first leg of a flight with a stopover at an airport in a non-Member State, from which, under a code sharing agreement, a carrier which is not a Community carrier operated the second leg of the flight and there was a delay of more than three hours in the arrival at the final destination airport which arose exclusively in the second leg of the flight?“
The Case C-502/18 is still pending.
Krajský soud v Praze lodged on 18 June 2018 its request for a preliminary ruling:
"1) Must any taxable person be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 138(2)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’)? If not, to which taxable persons does that provision apply?
2) If the Court of Justice’s answer is that Article 138(2)(b) of the VAT Directive applies to a situation such as that in the main proceedings (that is, the acquirer of the products is a taxable person registered for tax), must that provision be interpreted as meaning that, where the dispatch or transport of those products takes place in accordance with the relevant provisions of Council Directive 2008/118/EC concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (‘the Excise Duty Directive’), a supply connected with a procedure under the Excise Duty Directive must be regarded as a supply entitled to exemption under that provision, even though the conditions for exemption under Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive are not otherwise satisfied, having regard to the assignment of the transport of goods to another transaction?
3) If the Court of Justice’s answer is that Article 138(2)(b) of the VAT Directive does not apply to a situation such as that in the main proceedings, is the fact that the goods are transported under an excise duty suspension arrangement decisive for deciding the question of which of several successive supplies a transport is to be ascribed to for the purposes of the right to exemption from VAT under Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive?
4) Is ‘the right to dispose of the goods as owner’ within the meaning of the VAT Directive acquired by a taxable person who buys goods from another taxable person directly for a specific customer in order to fulfil an already existing order (identifying the type of goods, the quantity, place of origin and time of delivery) where he does not physically handle the goods himself since, in the context of concluding the contract of sale, his buyer agrees to arrange transport of the goods from their point of origin, so that he will only provide access to the requested goods via his suppliers and communicate the information necessary for acceptance of the goods (on his own behalf or on behalf of his sub-suppliers in the chain), and his profit from the transaction is the difference between the buying-in price and the selling price of such goods without the cost of transporting the goods being invoiced in the chain?
5) Does the Excise Duty Directive establish (for example, in Article 4(1), Article 17 or Article 19), either directly or indirectly through a limit on the effective handling of such goods, sufficient conditions for the transfer of the ‘right to dispose of the goods (that are subject to excise duty) as the owner’ within the meaning of the VAT Directive, with the result that the taking over of the goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement by an authorised warehousekeeper or registered consignee in accordance with the conditions arising from the Excise Duty Directive should be treated as a supply of goods for VAT purposes?
6) In this context, when considering the determination of a supply which is linked to transport within a chain of supply of goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement with a single transport, is it necessary to regard a transport in the sense of the VAT Directive as commencing and closing in accordance with Article 20 of the Excise Duty Directive?
7) Does the principle of VAT neutrality or any other principle of EU law prevent application of the constitutional principle of in dubio mitius in national law, which obliges the public authorities, where legal rules are ambiguous and objectively offer a number of possible interpretations, to choose the interpretation that benefits the person subject to the legal rule (here the taxable person for VAT)? Would the application of this principle be compatible with EU law at least if it were limited to situations where the relevant facts of the case preceded a binding interpretation of a disputed legal question by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has determined that another interpretation less favourable to the taxable entity is correct?
If it is possible to apply the principle of in dubio mitius:
8) Was it possible, in terms of the limits set by EU law at the time when the taxable transactions took place in this case (November 2010 to May 2013), to consider the question whether the legal concept of supply of goods or transport of goods has (or does not have) the same content both for the purposes of the VAT Directive and for the purposes of the Excise Duty Directive objectively as legally uncertain and offering two interpretations?"
The Case C-401/18 is still pending.
Krajský soud v Ostravě – pobočka v Olomouci lodged on 7 May 2018 its request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of headings 7307 and 7322 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and the Common Customs Tariff, and the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/23 of 5 January 2015 concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that: “The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that welded steel parts such as those at issue in the main proceedings must, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all the factual information available to it, be classified under CN heading 7307, as ‘tube or pipe fittings’.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 15 May 2019, KORADO v General Customs Directorate (C-306/18) can be found here.
Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 lodged on 26 March 2018 its request for a preliminary ruling:
“Did a contractual relationship exist between the applicant and the defendant for the purposes of Article 5(1) of [Council] Regulation No 44/2001 1 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, even though no contract had been concluded between the applicant and the defendant and the flight was part of a package of services provided on the basis of a contract between the applicant and a third party (travel agency)?
Can that relationship be qualified as a consumer relationship in accordance with Section 4, Article 15 to Article 17 of [Council] Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters?
Does the defendant have legal capacity to be sued in an action seeking satisfaction of the claims arising from Regulation [(EC)] No 261/2004 [of the European Parliament and of the Council] of 11 February 2004, establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91?”
The Case C-215/18 is still pending.
Nejvyšší soud České republiky lodged on 26 March 2018 its request for a preliminary ruling:
“Is Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 1 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 to be interpreted as meaning that a person, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who engages in trade on FOREX, the international currency exchange market, on the basis of actively placing his own orders, although through a third party who is professionally engaged in that trade, must be regarded as a consumer under that provision?”
The Case C-208/18 is still pending.
Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích lodged on 19 May 2017 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request for a preliminary ruling has been made in proceeding concerning compensation for the costs arising from reminders which the former had sent to WCZ on account of the late payment of insurance premiums owed by the latter, before bringing legal proceedings seeking payment of those premiums.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that: “[a]rticle 6 of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as recognising that a creditor claiming compensation for the costs associated with sending reminders to a debtor due to the latter’s late payment is entitled to obtain reasonable compensation, on that basis and in addition to the fixed amount of EUR 40 laid down in Article 6(1) of that directive, for the purposes of Article 6(3) thereof, in respect of the part of those costs which exceeds that fixed amount.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 13 September 2017, EkoČeská pojišťovna a.s. v WCZ spol. s r.o. (C-287/17) can be found here.
Nejvyšší soud České republiky lodged on 18 January 2017 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request for a preliminary ruling has been made in proceeding concerning European order for payment procedure.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a European order for payment is served on the defendant without the application for the order, annexed to the order, being written in or accompanied by a translation into a language he is deemed to understand, as required by Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1393/2007, the defendant must be duly informed, by means of the standard form in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, of his right to refuse to accept the document in question.
If that formal requirement is omitted, the procedure must be regularised in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 1393/2007, by communicating to the addressee the standard form in Annex II to that regulation.
In that case, as a result of the procedural irregularity affecting the service of the European order for payment together with the application for the order, the order does not become enforceable and the period in which the defendant may lodge a statement of opposition cannot start to run, so that Article 20 of Regulation No 1896/2006 cannot apply.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 6 September 2018, Catlin Europe SE v O. K. Trans Praha spol. s r. o. (C-21/17) can be found here.
Okresní soud v Náchodě lodged on 19 December 2016 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request for a preliminary ruling has been made in proceeding concerning the remuneration for the on-call duty which she held, in particular, as a judge, in order to secure urgent acts in criminal proceedings.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice dismissed the request for a preliminary ruling as manifestly inadmissible.
The order of the ECJ of 4 May 2017, JS v Česká republika (C-653/16) can be found here.
Nejvyšší soud České republiky lodged on 4 November 2016 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request for a preliminary ruling has been made in proceeding concerning the reasonableness of the consideration which, in a procedure for removing minority shareholders, E.ON was required to pay them following the compulsory transfer of the shares which they held in Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s (intervener).
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for review of the reasonableness of the consideration that the principal shareholder of a company is required to pay to the minority shareholders of that company in the event of the compulsory transfer of their shares to that principal shareholder comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which that company is established.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 7 March 2017, Catlin E.ON Czech Holding AG v MD and Others (C-560/16) can be found here.
Nejvyšší soud České republiky lodged on 16 September 2016 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request for a preliminary ruling has been made criminal proceedings brought against JS for drug-related crimes and offences.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“‘Medicinal products’, within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, which contain ‘scheduled substances’, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1258/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, remain excluded from the scope of Regulation No 273/2004 following the entry into force of Regulation No 1258/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 1259/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Union and third countries in drug precursors.”
The order of the ECJ of 2 March 2017, (C-497/16) can be found here.
Nejvyšší soud České republiky lodged on 21 September 2015 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request has been made in proceedings between Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC, Urban Trends Trading BV, Rado Uhren AG, Facton Kft., Lacoste SA and Burberry Ltd and Delta Center a.s. regarding injunctions which the applicants in the main proceedings want to see granted against Delta Center for the purposes of compliance with their intellectual property rights.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“1. The third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as meaning that the tenant of market halls who sublets the various sales points situated in those halls to market-traders, some of whom use their pitches in order to sell counterfeit branded products, falls within the concept of ‘an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right’ within the meaning of that provision.
2. The third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions for an injunction within the meaning of that provision against an intermediary who provides a service relating to the letting of sales points in market halls are identical to those for injunctions which may be addressed to intermediaries in an online marketplace, set out by the Court in the judgment of 12 July 2011 in L’Oréal and Others (C-324/09, EU:C:2011:474).”
The judgment of the ECJ of 7 July 2016, Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC and Others v DELTA CENTER a.s. (C-494/15) can be found here.
Krajský soud v Ostravě lodged on 18 August 2015 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request has been made in proceedings concerning the issue of a driver’s professional competence card.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“Article 4 of Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, before the driving activity in question may be carried out, periodic training of 35 hours duration has to be completed by persons who are exempted, under Article 4, from the requirement that drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers obtain an initial qualification.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 7 July 2016, IM v Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje (C-447/15) can be found here.
Nejvyšší soud České republiky lodged on 3 September 2015 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The reference has been made in proceedings between NEW WAVE CZ, a.s., the holder of the word mark MegaBabe, and ALLTOYS, spol. s r. o. concerning the use of that mark by ALLTOYS without NEW WAVE’s consent.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as applying to a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which, after the definitive termination of proceedings in which it was held that an intellectual property right was infringed, the applicant in separate proceedings seeks information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services by which that intellectual property right is infringed.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 18 January 2017, NEW WAVE CZ, a.s. v ALLTOYS, spol. s r. o. (C-427/15) can be found here.
Obvodní soud pro Prahu 6 lodged on 26 June 2015 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request has been made in proceedings concerning Travel Service’s refusal to compensate those passengers for a long delay to their flight.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“1. Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a collision between an aircraft and a bird is classified under the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.
2. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that cancellation or delay of a flight is not due to extraordinary circumstances when that cancellation or delay is the result of the use by the air carrier of an expert of its choice to carry out fresh safety checks necessitated by a collision with a bird after those checks have already been carried out by an expert authorised under the applicable rules.
3. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘reasonable measures’ which an air carrier must take in order to reduce or even prevent the risks of collision with a bird and thus be released from its obligation to compensate passengers under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 include control measures preventing the presence of such birds provided that, in particular at the technical and administrative levels, such measures can actually be taken by that air carrier, that those measures do not require it to make intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking and that that carrier has shown that those measures were actually taken as regards the flight affected by the collision with a bird, it being for the referring court to satisfy itself that those conditions have been met.
4. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a delay to a flight equal to or in excess of three hours in arrival caused not only by extraordinary circumstances, which could not have been avoided by measures appropriate to the situation and which were subject to all reasonable measures by the air carrier to avoid the consequences thereof, but also in other circumstances not in that category, the delay caused by the first event must be deducted from the total length of the delay in arrival of the flight concerned in order to assess whether compensation for the delay in arrival of that flight must be paid as provided for in Article 7 of that regulation.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 4 May 2017, MP and JP v Travel Service a.s. (C-315/15) can be found here.
Nejvyšší soud České republiky lodged on 25 August 2014 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request has been made in proceedings brought by MM in her capacity as a court commissioner, in order to determine jurisdiction to approve the agreement on the sharing-out of the estate concluded by the guardian ad litem on behalf of minor children.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the approval of an agreement for the sharing-out of an estate concluded by a guardian ad litem on behalf of minor children constitutes a measure relating to the exercise of parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) of that regulation and thus falls within the scope of the latter, and not a measure relating to succession, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(f) thereof, excluded from the scope thereof.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 6 October 2015, Proceedings brought by Marie Matoušková (C-404/14) can be found here.
Krajský soud v Praze lodged on 21 September 2015 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request has been made in proceedings between Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC, Urban Trends Trading BV, Rado Uhren AG, Facton Kft., Lacoste SA and Burberry Ltd and Delta Center a.s. regarding injunctions which the applicants in the main proceedings want to see granted against Delta Center for the purposes of compliance with their intellectual property rights.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“1. Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in insolvency proceedings does not permit, firstly, the court hearing the action to examine of its own motion any unfairness of contractual terms on which the claims declared in those proceedings are based, even when that court has available to it the matters of law and fact necessary to that end, and which, secondly, permits that court to examine only unsecured claims, solely in respect of a restricted number of complaints related to whether they are time-barred or have been paid.
2. Article 10(2) 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 it requires a national court hearing a dispute concerning claims based on a credit agreement within the meaning of that directive to examine of its own motion whether the obligation to provide information laid down in that provision has been complied with and to establish the consequences under national law of an infringement of that obligation, provided that the penalties satisfy the requirements of Article 23 of that directive.
3. Articles 3(1) and 10(2) of Directive 2008/48 and point I of Annex I to that directive must be interpreted as meaning that the total amount of the credit and the amount of the drawdown together designate the sums made available to the consumer, which excludes those used by the lender to pay the costs connected with the credit concerned and which are not actually paid to that consumer.
4. The provisions of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether the amount of compensation required to be paid by a consumer who does not fulfil his obligations is disproportionately high, within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, it is necessary to evaluate the cumulative effect of all the penalty clauses in the contract in question, regardless of whether the creditor actually insists that they all be satisfied in full and that, if necessary, the national courts must, by virtue of Article 6(1) of that directive, establish all the consequences of the finding that certain terms are unfair, exclude all terms found to be unfair in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by them.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 21 April 2016, EGR and HR v Finway a.s. (C-377/14) can be found here.
Nejvyšší soud České republiky lodged on 12 December 2014 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The reference has been made in proceedings between Ms L, the mother of the children R and K, and Mr M, the father of those children, concerning the custody of those children, who are with their mother in Austria, whereas their father lives in the Czech Republic.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“1. Article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as allowing, for the purposes of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility, the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State which is not that of the child’s habitual residence to be established even where no other proceedings are pending before the court chosen.
2. Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be considered that the jurisdiction of the court seised by one party of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility has been ‘accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings’ within the meaning of that provision where the defendant in those first proceedings subsequently brings a second set of proceedings before the same court and, on taking the first step required of him in the first proceedings, pleads the lack of jurisdiction of that court.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 12 November 2014, L v M (C-656/13) can be found here.
Nejvyšší soud v České republice lodged on 21 September 2015 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request has been made in proceedings between Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec and Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané and Česká republika – Ministerstvo zemědělství (Czech Republic – Ministry of Agriculture) concerning their application for compensation for a loss suffered as a result of the methods for the grant of the separate sugar payment provided for under Czech law.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“Article 126(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’ includes the marketing year which the Member States must choose before 30 April 2006 as the representative period for the grant of the separate sugar payment, under Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulations (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006, No 2011/2006 of 19 December 2006 and No 2012/2006 of 19 December 2006.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 15 October 2014,Hoštická a.s. and Others v Česká republika — Ministerstvo zemědělství (C-561/13) can be found here.
Krajský soud v Ostravě lodged on its reference for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning personal income tax of temporary workers.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“Article 56 TFEU precludes legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which companies established in one Member State using workers employed and seconded by temporary employment agencies established in another Member State, but operating in the first Member State through a branch, are obliged to withhold tax and to pay to the first Member State an advance payment on the income tax due by those workers, whereas the same obligation is not imposed on companies established in the first Member State which use the services of temporary employment agencies established in that Member State.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 19 June 2014,Strojírny Prostějov v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (C-53/13) can be found here.
Nejvyšší soud v České republice lodged on 29 January 2013 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request has been made in proceedings between MF 7 a.s. and MAFRA a.s. concerning an application, made by MF 7, for a declaration that the trademarks Mladá fronta DNES and MLADÁ FRONTA DNES owned by MAFRA are invalid.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ordered that it has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví (Czech Republic) in its decision of 22 January 2013.
The order of the ECJ of 14 November 2013, MF 7 a.s. v MAFRA a.s. (C-49/13) can be found here.
Krajský soud v Plzni lodged on 24 July 2012 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request has been made in proceedings between OSA – Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním o.s., a musical works copyright collecting society, and Léčebné lázně Mariánské Lázně a.s, a company managing a non-State health establishment providing spa treatment services, concerning the payment of copyright licence fees for the making available of works transmitted by radio or television in its bedrooms.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“1. Article 3(1) 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 which excludes the right of authors to authorise or prohibit the communication of their works, by a spa establishment which is a business, through the intentional distribution of a signal by means of television or radio sets in the bedrooms of the establishment’s patients. Article 5(2)(e), (3)(b) and (5) of that directive is not such as to affect that interpretation.
2. Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be relied on by a copyright collecting society in a dispute between individuals for the purpose of setting aside national legislation contrary to that provision. However, the national court hearing such a case is required to interpret that legislation, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the directive in order to achieve an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by the directive.
3. Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, and Articles 56 TFEU and 102 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which reserves the exercise of collective management of copyright in respect of certain protected works in the territory of the Member State concerned to a single copyright collecting society and thereby prevents users of such works, such as the spa establishment in the main proceedings, from benefiting from the services provided by another collecting society established in another Member State.
However, Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the imposition by that copyright collecting society of fees for its services which are appreciably higher than those charged in other Member States (a comparison of the fee levels having been made on a consistent basis) or the imposition of a price which is excessive in relation to the economic value of the service provided are indicative of an abuse of a dominant position.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 27 February 2014OSA — Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním o.s. v Léčebné lázně Mariánské Lázně a.s. (C-351/12) can be found here.
Krajský soud v Praze lodged on 3 April 2012 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request has been made in the context of proceedings between RČ and the Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení (social security authorities of the Czech Republic) concerning the calculation of the capital value of the pension rights acquired by him in the national pension scheme that may be transferred, on his behalf, into the European Union pension scheme.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“1. On a proper construction of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of officials and the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, a Member State may determine the amount of the capital value of pension rights by means of the actuarial equivalent, the flat-rate redemption value or by means of other methods, in so far as the amount to be transferred actually represents the pension rights acquired by virtue of the previous activities of the official concerned.
2. Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Regulation No 259/68, as amended by Regulation No 723/2004, and Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as not precluding application of the method for calculating the capital value of pension rights acquired earlier, such as that defined in Czech law, even where that method results in the amount of capital to be transferred into the European Union pension scheme being set at a level of not even half the amount of the contributions paid by the official and his former employer into the national pension scheme.
3. Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Regulation No 259/68, as amended by Regulation No 723/2004, and Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of calculating the amount of the capital value of pension rights acquired under the national pension scheme and intended to be transferred into the European Union pension scheme, account is not to be taken of the period during which the official had already participated in that scheme.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 5 December 2013,RČ v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení (C-166/12) can be found here.
Vrchní soud v Praze lodged on 7 February 2012 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request has been made in the context of enforcement proceedings relating to the recovery of a fine imposed on MB, a Czech national, in respect of a road traffic offence which he committed in Austria.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“1. The term ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’, set out in Article 1(a)(iii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is an autonomous concept of Union law and must be interpreted as covering any court or tribunal which applies a procedure that satisfies the essential characteristics of criminal procedure. The Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in den Ländern (Austria) fulfils those criteria and must for that reason be regarded as coming within the scope of that term.
2. Article 1(a)(iii) of Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that a person is to be regarded as having had the opportunity to have a case tried before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters in the situation where, prior to bringing his appeal, that person was required to comply with a pre-litigation administrative procedure. Such a court must have full jurisdiction to examine the case as regards both the legal assessment and the factual circumstances.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 14 November 2013, MB (C-60/12) can be found here.
Městský soud v Praze lodged on 10 August 2011 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The request was made in the course of proceedings between Česká spořitelna, a.s., whose registered office is established in the Czech Republic, and GF, domiciled in Austria, concerning the interpretation of Articles 5(1)(a) and 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“1. Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person with close professional links to a company, such as its managing director or majority shareholder, cannot be considered to be a consumer within the meaning of that provision when he gives an aval on a promissory note issued in order to guarantee the obligations of that company under a contract for the grant of credit.
Therefore, that provision does not apply for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State.
2. Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 applies for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction over judicial proceedings by which the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, brings claims under that note, which was incomplete at the date of its signature and was subsequently completed by the payee, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 14 March 2013, Česká spořitelna, a.s. v GF (C-419/11) can be found here.
Nejvyšší soud České republiky lodged on 2 November 2010 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The reference has been made in proceedings between Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH, a company established in Graz (Austria), and SEWAR spol. s r. o., a company established in Šanov (Czech Republic), concerning the recognition and enforcement in the Czech Republic of a judgment delivered in Austria.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“Article 66(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, for that regulation to be applicable for the purpose of the recognition and enforcement of a judgment, it is necessary that at the time of delivery of that judgment the regulation was in force both in the Member State of origin and in the Member State addressed.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 21 June 2012, Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH proti SEWAR spol. s r. o. (C-514/10) can be found here.
Okresní soud v Chebu lodged on 5 July 2010 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The reference has been made in proceedings between Hypoteční banka a.s. and U.M.L., whose current address was unknown, seeking to secure payment of a sum of approximately 4.4 million Czech crowns (CZK), corresponding to the arrears on a mortgage loan which Hypoteční banka had granted to U.M.L.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“1. Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the application of the rules of jurisdiction laid down by that regulation requires that the situation at issue in the proceedings of which the court of a Member State is seised is such as to raise questions relating to determination of the international jurisdiction of that court. Such a situation arises in a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which an action is brought before a court of a Member State against a national of another Member State whose domicile is unknown to that court.
2. Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that:
– in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which a consumer who is a party to a long-term mortgage loan contract, which includes the obligation to inform the other party to the contract of any change of address, renounces his domicile before proceedings against him for breach of his contractual obligations are brought, the courts of the Member State in which the consumer had his last known domicile have jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 16(2) of that regulation, to deal with proceedings in the case where they have been unable to determine, pursuant to Article 59 of that regulation, the defendant’s current domicile and also have no firm evidence allowing them to conclude that the defendant is in fact domiciled outside the European Union;
– that regulation does not preclude the application of a provision of national procedural law of a Member State which, with a view to avoiding situations of denial of justice, enables proceedings to be brought against, and in the absence of, a person whose domicile is unknown, if the court seised of the matter is satisfied, before giving a ruling in those proceedings, that all investigations required by the principles of diligence and good faith have been undertaken with a view to tracing the defendant.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 17 November 2011, Hypoteční banka a.s. v U.M.L. (C-327/10) can be found here.
Krajský soud v Brně lodged on 5 July 2010 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The reference has been made in the context of a dispute between various undertakings and the Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech competition authority) concerning the decision of that authority to fine them for infringement of Czech competition law.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“1. The provisions of Article 81 EC and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a proceeding initiated after 1 May 2004, they do not apply to a cartel which produced effects, in the territory of a Member State which acceded to the Union on 1 May 2004, during periods prior to that date.
2. The opening by the European Commission of a proceeding against a cartel under Chapter III of Regulation No 1/2003 does not, pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003, read in combination with Article 3(1) of the same regulation, cause the competition authority of the Member State concerned to lose its power, by the application of national competition law, to penalise the anti-competitive effects produced by that cartel in the territory of the said Member State during periods before the accession of the latter to the European Union.
The ne bis in idem principle does not preclude penalties which the national competition authority of the Member State concerned imposes on undertakings participating in a cartel on account of the anti-competitive effects to which the cartel gave rise in the territory of that Member State prior to its accession to the European Union, where the fines imposed on the same cartel members by a Commission decision taken before the decision of the said national competition authority was adopted were not designed to penalise the said effects.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 14 February 2012, Toshiba Corporation and Others v Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (C-17/10) can be found here.
Okresní soud v Chebu lodged on 23 March 2009 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The reference was submitted in the course of proceedings between Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group, an insurance company established in the Czech Republic, and M.B., a policyholder domiciled in Slovakia, regarding the payment of an insurance premium.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the court seised, where the rules in Section 3 of Chapter II of that regulation were not complied with, must declare itself to have jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction, since entering an appearance in that way amounts to a tacit prorogation of jurisdiction.”
The judgment of the ECJ of 20 May 2010, Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v M.B. (C-111/09) can be found here.
Krajský soud v Ústí nad Labem lodged on 24 December 2007 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The reference was submitted in the context of a dispute between RLRE Tellmer Property sro and the Finanční ředitelství v Ústí nad Labem (Tax Directorate of Ústí nad Labem) concerning the question whether the costs of cleaning the common parts in an apartment block are, like letting, exempt from value-added tax (‘VAT’).
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“For the purposes of applying Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the letting of immovable property and the cleaning service of the common parts of the latter must, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, be regarded as independent, mutually divisible operations, so that the said service does not fall within that provision.”
The judgment of the Court of 11 June 2009 (C-572/07, Recueil 2009) can be found here.
The case was removed from the register.
Krajský soud v Ostravě lodged on 24 March 2006 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
The reference was submitted in the course of proceedings between the company Skoma-Lux sro (‘Skoma-Lux’) and the Celní ředitelství Olomouc (Olomouc customs directorate, ‘the customs directorate’), regarding a fine imposed on Skoma-Lux in respect of customs infringements which it is alleged to have committed between March and May 2004, on the ground that the customs directorate could not enforce against it Community legislation which had not yet been published in the Czech language in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, precludes the obligations contained in Community legislation which has not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of a new Member State, where that language is an official language of the European Union, from being imposed on individuals in that State, even though those persons could have learned of that legislation by other means.
In holding that a Community regulation which is not published in the language of a Member State is unenforceable against individuals in that State, the Court is interpreting Community law for the purposes of Article 234 EC.”
The judgment of the Court of 11 December 2007 (C-161/06, Receuil 2007, s. I-10841) can be found here.
The case was removed from the register.
Obvodní soud pro Prahu 3 lodged on 7 February 2006 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
This reference has been made in the context of proceedings where the opposing parties are Telefónica O2 Czech Republic as, formerly Český Telecom as (‘TO2’), and Czech On Line as (‘COL’) on the subject of the rejection by TO2 of a request, made by COL, for an extension of existing collaboration to broadband high-speed internet services (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line).
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“In accordance with the transitional provisions of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, the 'Access Directive') and of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (the 'Framework Directive'), the Český telekomunikační úřad [Czech telecommunications regulatory authority] was entitled to consider the obligation, on the part of a telecommunications company with significant market power within the meaning of Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP), as amended by Directive 98/61/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998, to conclude a contract for the interconnection of its networks with that of another operator, subsequent to 1 May 2004, within the context of the provisions of Directive 97/33, as amended.”
The judgment of the Court of 14 June 2007 (C-64/06, Receuil 2007, s. I-04887) can be found here.
Obvodní soud pro Prahu 3 lodged on 28 November 2005 its reference for a preliminary ruling.
This reference has been presented in the context of proceedings between Mr Jan Vorel and his employer, Nemocnice Český Krumlov (Český Krumlov Hospital) concerning the definition of the concept of ‘working time’ within the meaning of Directives 93/104 and 2003/88 relating to on-call duties provided by a doctor in a hospital and the remuneration due in respect of those duties.
The text of the request for a preliminary ruling can be found here.
The Court of Justice ruled that:
“Directive 93/104/EC of the Council of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000, and Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time should be interpreted as:
- precluding national legislation under which on-call duty performed by a doctor under a system where he is expected to be physically present at the place of work, but in the course of which he does no actual work, is not treated as wholly constituting 'working time' within the meaning of the said directives;
- not preventing a Member State from applying legislation on the remuneration of workers and concerning on-call duties performed by them at the workplace which makes a distinction between the treatment of periods in the course of which work is actually done and those during which no actual work is done, provided that such a system wholly guarantees the practical effect of the rights conferred on workers by the said directives in order to ensure the effective protection of their health and safety.”
Order of the Court of 11 January 2007 Vorel (Case C-437/05, Receuil 2007, s. I-00331) can be found here.