marec 11, 2022 0 0 CELEX:62020CJ0464_INF: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2021.#KF v European Union Satellite Centre.#Appeal – Institutional law – Staff of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) – Members of the contract staff – Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out in respect of the applicant – Reopening of the investigation – Compliance with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 October 2018, KF v SatCen (T‑286/15, EU:T:2018:718) – Action for annulment and for damages.#Case C-464/20 P.
september 11, 2024 0 0 CELEX:62020CJ0465: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 September 2024.#European Commission v Ireland and Apple Sales International.#Appeal – State aid – Article 107(1) TFEU – Tax rulings issued by a Member State – Selective tax advantages – Allocation of profits generated by intellectual property licences to branches of non-resident companies – Arm’s length principle.#Case C-465/20 P.
september 11, 2024 0 0 CELEX:62020CJ0465_RES: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 September 2024.#European Commission v Ireland and Apple Sales International.#Appeal – State aid – Article 107(1) TFEU – Tax rulings issued by a Member State – Selective tax advantages – Allocation of profits generated by intellectual property licences to branches of non-resident companies – Arm’s length principle.#Case C-465/20 P.
maj 19, 2022 0 0 CELEX:62020CJ0466: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2022.#HEITEC AG v HEITECH Promotion GmbH and RW.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Trade marks – Directive 2008/95/EC – Article 9 – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Articles 54, 110 and 111 – Limitation in consequence of acquiescence – Concept of ‘acquiescence’ – Interruption of the period of limitation in consequence of acquiescence – Sending of a warning letter – Date of interruption of the period of limitation in the event of a court action being initiated – Effects of limitation – Application for damages, the provision of information and destruction of goods.#Case C-466/20.
april 16, 2025 0 0 CELEX:62020CJ0466_SUM: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2022.#HEITEC AG v HEITECH Promotion GmbH and RW.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Trade marks – Directive 2008/95/EC – Article 9 – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Articles 54, 110 and 111 – Limitation in consequence of acquiescence – Concept of ‘acquiescence’ – Interruption of the period of limitation in consequence of acquiescence – Sending of a warning letter – Date of interruption of the period of limitation in the event of a court action being initiated – Effects of limitation – Application for damages, the provision of information and destruction of goods.#Case C-466/20.
junij 08, 2023 0 0 CELEX:62020CJ0468: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2023.#Fastweb SpA and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Electronic communications networks and services – Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC et 2002/22/EC – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Article 56 TFUE – Freedom to provide services – National legislation granting the national regulatory authority the power to impose on telephony service providers a minimum time frame for the renewal of offers and a minimum time frame for billing – Consumer protection – Principle of proportionality – Principle of equal treatment.#Case C-468/20.
marec 17, 2025 0 0 CELEX:62020CJ0468_SUM: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2023.#Fastweb SpA and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Electronic communications networks and services – Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC et 2002/22/EC – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Article 56 TFEU – Freedom to provide services – National legislation granting the national regulatory authority the power to impose on telephony service providers a minimum time frame for the renewal of offers and a minimum time frame for billing – Consumer protection – Principle of proportionality – Principle of equal treatment.#Case C-468/20.
december 15, 2022 0 0 CELEX:62020CJ0470: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2022.#AS Veejaam and OÜ Espo v AS Elering.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – State aid – Renewable energy subsidy – Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 – Incentive effect of aid applied for after work has started on the project concerned – Article 108(3) TFEU – Obligation to notify – Consequences of breach of the obligation to notify.#Case C-470/20.
marec 31, 2022 0 0 CELEX:62020CJ0472: Arrêt de la Cour (sixième chambre) du 31 mars 2022.#Lombard Pénzügyi és Lízing Zrt. contre PN.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Protection des consommateurs – Directive 93/13/CEE – Clauses abusives – Contrats de crédit – Prêt libellé en devise remboursable en monnaie nationale – Clause contractuelle mettant le risque de change à charge du consommateur – Caractère abusif d’une clause se rapportant à l’objet principal du contrat – Effets – Nullité du contrat – Préjudice grave pour le consommateur – Effet utile de la directive 93/13 – Avis non contraignant de la juridiction suprême – Possibilité de rétablir les parties dans la situation qui aurait été la leur si ce contrat n’avait pas été conclu.#Affaire C-472/20. This document does not exist in English.
april 25, 2025 0 0 CELEX:62020CJ0472_SUM: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 March 2022.#Lombard Pénzügyi és Lízing Zrt. v PN.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms – Credit agreements – Loan denominated in a foreign currency repayable in national currency – Contractual term placing the exchange rate risk on the consumer – Unfairness of a term relating to the main subject matter of the agreement – Effects – Invalidity of the agreement – Serious harm to the consumer – Effectiveness of Directive 93/13 – Non-binding opinion of the highest court – Possibility of restoring the parties to the situation they would have been in if that agreement had not been concluded.#Case C-472/20.