III. CASE-LAW

III.1. Court of Justice of the European Union

Judgement of the Justice Court of November 7, Case C‑68/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Taxation of energy products and electricity. Directive 2003/96/EC. Article 21(3). No chargeable event giving rise to taxation. Consumption of energy products on a site that produces such products. Article 2(3). Obligation to obtain a classification for energy products in order to determine the level of excise duty. Tax rate applicable to those products. Principle of proportionality.

Summary:

“Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or national practices which provide for the taxation of energy products consumed in the combined heat and power plant of the establishment in which they were produced, provided that that consumption concerns the production of energy products by generating the thermal energy necessary for the technological process of producing those products. That interpretation does not affect the application, in principle, of Article 14(1)(a) of that directive to the proportion of energy products consumed for the purpose of producing electricity.

Article 2(3) of Directive 2003/96 and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or national practices which, in the absence of a request made to the competent tax authorities for the purpose of classification in relation to excise duties for energy products whose level of taxation has not been determined by that directive, provide for the application of the excise duty rate laid down for gas oil and the maintenance of that rate, even though a classification decision was obtained subsequently in which those products were treated as heating oil.”

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0068

Judgement of the Justice Court of November 7, Case C-419/18: References for a preliminary ruling. Consumer protection. Directive 93/13/EEC. Article 3(1). Article 6(1). Article 7(1). Directive 2008/48/EC. Article 10(2). Credit agreements for consumers. Lawfulness of securing the debt arising under the agreement by means of a blank promissory note. Demand for payment of the debt owed under the promissory note. Scope of the court’s powers and obligations.

Summary:

“Articles 1(1), 3(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of securing the payment of the debt arising under a consumer credit agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, makes it possible to stipulate in that contract an obligation on the borrower to issue a blank promissory note, and which makes the lawfulness of the issuance of such a note subject to the prior conclusion of a promissory note agreement determining the detailed rules in accordance with which that note may be completed, provided that that stipulation and that agreement comply with Articles 3 and 5 of that directive and Article 10 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, a matter which is for the referring court to verify.

Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 and Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as meaning that where, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a national court has serious doubts as to the merits of an application based on a promissory note intended to secure the debt arising under a consumer credit agreement and that note was initially left blank when issued by the maker and subsequently completed by the payee, that court must examine of its own motion whether the provisions agreed between the parties are unfair and, in that respect, may require the seller or supplier to produce the document recording those provisions so that that court is able to verify that the rights that consumers derive from those directives are observed.”.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0419

Judgement of the Justice Court of November 7, in joined Cases C‑349/18 to C‑351/18: References for a preliminary ruling. Rail transport. Passengers’ rights and obligations. Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007. Article 3(8). Transport contract. Concept. Passenger without a ticket at the time of boarding a train. Unfair terms in consumer contracts. Directive 93/13/EEC. Article 1(2) and Article 6(1). General conditions of carriage of a railway undertaking. Mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions. Penalty clause. Powers of the national court.

Summary:

“Article 3(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which a passenger boards a freely accessible train for the purposes of travel without acquiring a ticket comes within the concept of a ‘transport contract’ for the purposes of that provision.

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding, firstly, that a national court which establishes that a penalty clause in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair moderate the amount of the penalty imposed on the consumer and, secondly, that a national court replace that term, in accordance with the principles of its contract law, with a supplementary provision of national law, except where the contract at issue cannot continue in existence in the event that the unfair term is deleted and where the cancelation of the contract in its entirety exposes consumers to particularly unfavourable consequences.”.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0349