ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — HOLD Alapkezelő Befektetési Alapkezelő Zrt. v Magyar Nemzeti Bank

(Case C-352/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2009/65/EC - Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) - Directive 2011/61/EU - Alternative investment funds - Remuneration policies and practices in respect of the senior managers of a UCITS management company or manager of an alternative investment fund - Dividends distributed to certain senior managers - Concept of ‘remuneration’ - Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to property)

(2022/C 408/06)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HOLD Alapkezelő Befektetési Alapkezelő Zrt.

Defendant: Magyar Nemzeti Bank

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 14 to 14b of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), as amended by Directive 2014/91/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014, Article 13(1) of, and points 1 and 2 of Annex II to, Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

the provisions relating to remuneration policies and practices are applicable to the dividends paid by a company, the regular business of which is the management of undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) and Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs), directly or indirectly to those of its employees who perform the duties of managing director, investment manager or portfolio manager by virtue of their right to property in respect of the shares of that company, where the payment policy of those dividends is such as to induce those employees to take excessive risks which are detrimental to the interests of the UCITS or AIFs managed by that company and to the interests of their investors and is thus capable of facilitating the circumvention of the requirements flowing from those provisions.

(1) OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
3.

Article 10(2) and Article 15 of Directive 2015/2436 must be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to oppose the marketing, by a parallel importer, of a medicinal product repackaged in new outer packaging to which that trade mark is affixed, where the visible traces of opening of the original outer packaging which, where applicable, would result from relabelling of that medicinal product would be clearly attributable to the repackaging thus carried out by that parallel importer, unless those traces give rise, on the market of the Member State of importation or on a significant part of that market, to such strong resistance on the part of a significant proportion of consumers to medicinal products repackaged in that way as to constitute a barrier to effective access to that market, which must be established on a case-by-case basis.
1)

Article 72 of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities, as amended by Directive 2014/91/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 must be interpreted as meaning that: the information concerning a management company — provided for in Schedule A of Annex I to that directive — which the prospectus must at the very least contain under Article 69(2) of the directive comes within the concept of ‘essential elements of the prospectus’ as provided for in Article 72 and, consequently, that information must be kept up to date.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against HM (C-428/21 PPU), TZ (C-429/21 PPU)

(Joined Cases C-428/21 PPU and C-429/21 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 27(3)(g) and Article 27(4) - Request for consent for prosecution for offences other than those on which surrender was based - Article 28(3) - Request for consent for subsequent surrender of the person concerned to another Member State - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to effective judicial protection - Right of the person concerned to be heard by the executing judicial authority - Procedures)

(2022/C 2/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

HM (C-428/21 PPU), TZ (C-429/21 PPU)

Intervener: Openbaar Ministerie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(3)(g), Article 27(4) and Article 28(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has been surrendered to the issuing judicial authority in execution of a European arrest warrant has the right to be heard by the executing judicial authority where that latter authority has received a request for consent from the issuing judicial authority under those provisions of that framework decision; that hearing may take place in the issuing Member State, the judicial authorities of that State being required in that case to ensure that the right to be heard of the person concerned is exercised effectively, without the direct participation of the executing judicial authority. However, it is for the executing judicial authority to ensure that it possesses sufficient information, in particular as regards the position of the person concerned, to enable it to take its decision with full knowledge of the facts — and in full compliance with the rights of the defence of that person — in relation to the request for consent made under Article 27(4) or Article 28(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, and to request, if necessary, that the issuing judicial authority provide it as a matter of urgency with supplementary information.

(1) OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla y León v Delia

(Case C-86/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(2) - Equal treatment - National system for the recognition of health professionals’ career progression - Failure to take professional experience gained in another Member State’s health services into consideration - Barrier)

(2022/C 237/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla y León

Defendant: Delia

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the recognition of career progression within the health service of a Member State which prevents his or her professional experience gained within a public health service of another Member State from being taken into account for the purposes of calculating length of service, unless the restriction on freedom of movement for workers included in that legislation serves to fulfil an objective in the general interest, makes it possible to ensure the attainment of that objective, and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

(1) OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.
1.

Article 160(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, as well as Article 102(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015, must be interpreted as not applying to procedures for the award of public contracts organised by contracting authorities of the Member States, even where those contracts are financed by resources from the European Structural and Investment Funds.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v DSR — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA

(Case C-218/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Rates - Temporary provisions for particular labour-intensive services - Point 2 of Annex IV - Renovation and repairing of private dwellings - Application of a reduced rate of VAT to repair and maintenance services for lifts in residential buildings)

(2022/C 257/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Respondent: DSR — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Annex IV to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘renovation and repairing of private dwellings’, within the meaning of that provision, covers repair and renovation services for lifts in residential buildings, excluding maintenance services for such lifts.

(1) OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
1.

Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, as amended by Regulation (EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003, read in the light of that regulation and the Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national measure prohibiting, for the purpose of avoiding the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms in other products, the cultivation in the territory of a region of the Member State concerned of genetically modified organisms authorised under Regulation 1829/2003, on condition that that measure enables the objective of ensuring that producers and consumers have a choice between the products derived from genetically modified crops and products derived from organic and conventional crops to be achieved and that, with regard to the particular circumstances of crops in that territory, that measure is appropriate to achieving that objective and proportionate to it;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale (C-213/21 and C-214/21) v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani (C-213/21), Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21)

(Joined Cases C-213/21 and C-214/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Scope - Article 10(h) - Specific exclusions for service contracts - Civil defence, civil protection and danger prevention services - Non-profit organisations or associations - Ambulance service classified as an emergency service - Voluntary organisations - Social cooperatives)

(2022/C 318/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale (C-213/21 and C-214/21)

Defendants: Azienda Sanitaria Locale Barletta-Andria-Trani (C-213/21), Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21)

Interveners: Regione Puglia (C-213/21), Confederazione Nazionale delle Misericordie d’Italia (C-213/21), Associazione Nazionale Pubbliche Assistenze (Organizzazione nazionale di volontariato) — ANPAS ODV (C-213/21 and C-214/21), Croce Rossa Italiana — Comitato Provinciale di Cosenza (C-214/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that emergency ambulance transport services may be awarded, by contract, on a preferential basis, only to voluntary organisations, and not to social cooperatives which can offer rebates associated with their activities to their members.

(1) OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — I, S v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-19/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 8(2) and Article 27(1) - Unaccompanied minor with a relative legally present in another Member State - Refusal by that Member State of that minor’s take charge request - Right to an effective remedy of that minor or of that relative against the refusal decision - Articles 7, 24 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Best interests of the child)

(2022/C 408/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: I, S

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Articles 7, 24 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

must be interpreted as meaning that:

it requires a Member State to which a take charge request has been made, based on Article 8(2) of that regulation, to grant a right to a judicial remedy against its refusal decision to the unaccompanied minor, within the meaning of Article 2(j) of that regulation, who applies for international protection, but not to the relative of that minor, within the meaning of Article 2(h) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen Afdeling Gent — Belgium) — The Escape Center BVBA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-330/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services - Annex III, point 14 - Concept of the ‘use of sporting facilities’ - Fitness centres - Individual or group coaching)

(2022/C 424/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen Afdeling Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Escape Center BVBA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with point 14 of Annex III thereto,

must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services consisting of permission to use sporting facilities in a fitness centre and the supply of individual or group coaching may be subject to a reduced rate of value added tax where that coaching is linked to the use of those facilities and is necessary for the practice of sports and physical education or where that coaching is ancillary to the use of those facilities or to their actual use.

(1) OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.
1.

Article 123(1) TFEU and Article 21.1 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that a national central bank belonging to the European System of Central Banks is liable, from its own funds, for damage suffered by former holders of financial instruments cancelled by it pursuant to reorganisation measures, within the meaning of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, ordered by that central bank, where it appears, during subsequent court proceedings, that either that cancellation was not necessary in order to ensure the stability of the financial system, or that those former holders of financial instruments suffered greater losses as a result of that cancellation than they would have suffered in the event of the insolvency of the financial institution concerned, to the extent that the central bank in question is held liable only where it or the persons whom it authorised to act on its behalf acted in serious breach of their duty to exercise due care;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — NY v Herios SARL

(Case C-593/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 17(2)(a) - Self-employed commercial agents - Termination of the agency contract by the principal - Compensation of the agent - Goodwill indemnity - Sub-agency - Right of the subagent to a proportion of the goodwill indemnity payable to the main agent corresponding to the customers brought by the subagent)

(2022/C 463/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NY

Defendant: Herios SARL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(2)(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents,

must be interpreted as meaning that the goodwill indemnity which has been paid by the principal to the main agent in respect of the customer base brought by the subagent is capable of constituting, for the main agent, a substantial benefit. However, the payment of a goodwill indemnity to the subagent may be regarded as not being equitable, within the meaning of that provision, where the subagent continues his or her commercial agency business in relation to the same clients and for the same products but in the context of a direct relationship with the main principal, which replaced the main agent that had previously engaged him or her.

(1) OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — I.L. v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

(Case C-241/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 15(1) - Detention - Grounds for detention - General criterion based on the risk that the effective enforcement of the removal would be compromised - Risk that the person concerned would commit a criminal offence - Consequences of the establishment of the offence and the imposition of a penalty - Complication of the removal process - Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Restriction of the fundamental right to liberty - Requirement of a legal basis - Requirements of clarity, predictability and accessibility - Protection against arbitrariness)

(2022/C 451/02)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: I.L.

Defendant: Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) 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;

must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to order the detention of an illegally staying third-country national solely on the basis of a general criterion based on the risk that the effective enforcement of the removal would be compromised, without satisfying one of the specific grounds for detention provided for and clearly defined by the legislation implementing that provision in national law.

(1) OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ‘Mikrotīkls’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-542/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 8517 - Subheadings 8517 70 11 and 8517 70 19 - Router aerials)

(2022/C 472/25)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Mikrotīkls’ SIA

Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8517 70 11 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the customs and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000, as that annex has been amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 and by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013,

must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover router aerials configured for communication in local area networks (LAN) and/or in wide area networks (WAN).

(1) OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.