ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 31 May 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, other parties: S.S., N.Z., S.S.

(Case C-338/21)

(2021/C 431/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Other parties: S.S., N.Z., S.S.

Question referred

Must Articles 27(3) and 29 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 (1) be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue here, in which a Member State has opted to implement Article 27(3)(c), but has also granted the suspensive effect that can be applied to the implementation of a transfer decision, to a review or appeal against a decision in proceedings concerning an application for a residence permit on the grounds of trafficking in human beings, which, while not being a transfer decision, does nevertheless temporarily prevent the actual transfer?

(1) OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2021 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Contship Italia SpA

(Case C-433/21)

(2021/C 422/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Respondent: Contship Italia SpA

Question referred

Do Articles 18 (ex Article 12 TEC) and 49 (ex Article 43 TEC) TFEU preclude national legislation which, like Article 30(1)(5) of legge 23 dicembre 1994, n. 724 (Law No 724 of 23 December 1994), in the version applicable ratione temporis, prior to the amendments introduced by legge 27 dicembre 2006, n. 296 (Law No 296 of 27 December 2006), excludes from the measures to prevent tax avoidance by non-operational companies — based on minimum revenue and income thresholds relative to the value of specific corporate assets, which, if not met, is a sign that the company is non-operational and means that the taxable income must be determined by way of presumption — only companies and entities whose securities are traded on Italian regulated markets and not companies and entities whose securities are traded on foreign regulated markets, as well as the companies that control or are controlled by, even indirectly, those listed companies and entities?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 8 July 2021 by repowermap.org against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2021 in Case T-872/16, repowermap.org v EUIPO and Repower

(Case C-417/21 P)

(2021/C 462/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: repowermap.org (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, abogado, and W. Sakulin, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Repower AG

By order of 8 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 19 July 2021 — SC Avicarvil Farms SRL v Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale, Agenția pentru Finanțarea Investițiilor Rurale, Agenția de Plăti și Intervenție în Agricultură, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție în Agricultură — Centrul Județean Vâlcea

(Case C-443/21)

(2021/C 452/07)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Pitești

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Avicarvil Farms SRL

Defendants: Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale, Agenția pentru Finanțarea Investițiilor Rurale, Agenția de Plăti și Intervenție în Agricultură, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție în Agricultură — Centrul Județean Vâlcea

Question referred

Does Article 143 of Regulation No 1303/2013, (1) in conjunction with Article 310 TFEU (principle of sound financial management) and Article 40(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (2) [reproduced in Article 33(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 (3)], together with the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty, preclude an administrative practice of the national authorities involved in the implementation of a non-repayable financial support measure which, as a result of a calculation error found by the European Court of Auditors, have issued acts ordering a reduction in the amount of the financial support granted in the PNSR, approved by European Commission Decision C(2012) 3529 of 25 May 2012, before the adoption of a new European Commission decision excluding from financing amounts exceeding the additional costs and income foregone resulting from the commitments made, as a result of those calculation errors?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).

(3) Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 12 April 2021 by sprd.net AG against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) made on 12 February 2021 in Case T-19/20, sprd.net v EUIPO — Shirtlabor

(Case C-236/21 P)

(2021/C 471/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: sprd.net AG (represented by: J. Hellenbrand, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Shirtlabor GmbH

By order of 1 September 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 21 September 2021 by Ryanair DAC, Laudamotion GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2021 in Case T-866/19, Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission

(Case C-581/21 P)

(2021/C 462/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ryanair DAC, Laudamotion GmbH (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, S. Rating, abogado, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the order under appeal;

— refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

— reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants advance two grounds of appeal.

The General Court infringed EU law and distorted the facts (1) in considering that the priority of the Slot Regulation (1) is relevant to determining whether the Traffic Distribution Rules (2) entail implementing measures, and (2) by disregarding the normal course of events in determining the artificial nature of a request by the appellants for an implementing measure from the slot coordinator.

In addition, the appellants submit that the General Court has failed to state reasons to support its findings in the order under appeal.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ 1993 L 14, p. 1).

(2) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1585 of 24 September 2019 on the establishment of traffic distribution rules pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the airports Amsterdam Schiphol and Amsterdam Lelystad (notified under document C(2019) 6816) (OJ 2019 L 246, p. 24).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2021 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v famila-Handelsmarkt Kiel GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-543/21)

(2021/C 490/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: famila-Handelsmarkt Kiel GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

1. Is the concept of ‘selling price’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it must include the deposit payable by the consumer when purchasing goods in bottles or jars which are returnable against a deposit?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Are the Member States authorised under Article 10 of Directive 98/6/EC to maintain a provision which deviates from Article 3(1) and (4) of Directive 98/6/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(a) thereof, such as that in Paragraph 1(4) of the Preisangabenverordnung (Regulation on the indication of prices), in accordance with which, where a refundable security deposit is required in addition to the consideration for a product, the amount of that security deposit must be indicated in addition to the price for the product, and a total amount must not be formed, or does the approach of full harmonisation pursued by Directive 2005/29/EC (2) preclude that?

(1) Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (OJ 1998 L 80, p. 27).

(2) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 22 March 2021 by Johann A. Löning against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) made on 20 January 2021 in Case T-543/20, Johann A. Löning v European Union, represented by the European Commission

(Case C-176/21 P)

(2021/C 471/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Johann A. Löning (represented by: W. Mathes, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 3 September 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
1.

Having regard to the autonomous concept of a ‘state of insolvency’, are Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Directive 2008/94 (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation transposing the directive — Article 15(1) and (2) of Legea nr. 200/2006 privind constituirea și utilizarea Fondului de garantare pentru plata creanțelor salariale (Law No 200/2006 on the establishment and use of the Guarantee Fund for the Payment of Salary Claims), in conjunction with Article 7 of the Normele metodologice de aplicare a Legii nr. 200/2006 (Methodological rules for the application of Law No 200/2006) — as interpreted by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Section for the resolution of questions of law), in Decision No 16/2018, according to which the period of three months for which the Guarantee Fund may take over and pay the salary debts of an insolvent employer refers exclusively to the date on which the insolvency proceedings are opened?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 17 March 2021 by Luis Gonzalo Segura del Oro Pulido against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2021 in Case T-701/20, Segura del Oro Pulido v Commission

(Case C-225/21 P)

(2021/C 502/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Luis Gonzalo Segura del Oro Pulido (represented by: J. Jover Padró, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 29 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly inadmissible and orders Luis Gonzalo Segura del Oro Pulido to bear his own costs.
—

Are Article 4(1) and Article 20(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, where it is claimed that a company domiciled in a Member State, and being sued by an employee before the courts of that State, is the joint employer of that employee, who was engaged by another company, that court is not required to assess at the outset whether the employee is jointly employed by those two companies in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction to rule on the claims made against them?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Villefranche-sur-Saône (France) lodged on 29 October 2021 — Procureur de la République v K.B., F.S.

(Case C-660/21)

(2022/C 24/27)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal correctionnel de Villefranche-sur-Saône

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Procureur de la République

Defendants: K.B., F.S.

Question referred

Must Articles 3 (Right to information about rights) and 4 (Letter of Rights on arrest) of the Directive of the European Parliament of 22 May 2012 (1) and Article 7 (Right to remain silent) of the Directive of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016 (2) in conjunction with Article 48 (Presumption of innocence and right of defence) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the prohibition on the national court raising of its own motion a violation of the rights of the defence as guaranteed by those directives, more specifically in so far as it is prohibited from raising of its own motion, with a view to the annulment of the procedure, a failure to give notification of the right to remain silent at the time of the arrest or a late notification of the right to remain silent?

(1) Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).

(2) Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).
Action brought on 29 October 2021 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-657/21)

(2022/C 11/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Crowe, U. Rösslein, C. Burgos, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— establish that, by failing to ensure the full and immediate application Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, as from its date of application on 1 January 2021, the European Commission infringed the Treaties;

— in the alternative, annul the Commission’s unlawful refusal to ensure the full and immediate application of Regulation 2020/2092, as from its date of application;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Commission’s obligation under the second sentence of Article 17(1) TEU to ensure the application of the Treaties and of the measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them.

The Commission is failing to apply Regulation 2020/2092 in full, since it unlawfully excludes itself from applying the core provisions of Article 6 of the regulation until after it has finalised guidelines on the application of the regulation, which it will do only after the judgments of the Court in the actions for annulment brought by two Member States against the regulation have been delivered. This failure to apply the regulation in full until the Court’s judgments in the actions for annulment constitutes an infringement of the Commission’s responsibilities under Article 17(1) TEU, which obliges it to ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Commission’s obligation under the third paragraph of Article 17(3) TEU to be completely independent in carrying out its responsibilities.

The Commission’s failure to ensure the full and immediate application of the regulation, without self-imposed constraints, as from its date of application, pursuant to an instruction from the European Council, represents a violation of its obligation of independence under the third paragraph of Article 17(3) TEU.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU and the principles of institutional balance and mutual sincere cooperation.

The Commission’s failure to ensure the full and immediate application of the regulation, without self-imposed constraints, as from its date of application, pursuant to an instruction from the European Council, amounts to an infringement of Article 13(2) TEU, according to which each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, as well as the principles of institutional balance and mutual sincere cooperation.

(1) OJ 2020, L 433I, p. 1.
2.

If the answer to the first question is that such registration is permissible, is Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […], read in conjunction with the principles of the protection of legal certainty and the effective implementation of EU law, and the obligation of cooperation between States under Article 4(3) [TEU], to be interpreted as permitting a request for the registration of a waiver of the succession of a deceased person effected by an heir in the State in which he or she is habitually resident by another heir residing in the State in which the deceased was habitually resident at the time of his or her death, irrespective of the fact that the procedural law of the latter State does not provide for the possibility to have a waiver of a succession registered on behalf of another person?
Appeal brought on 30 August 2021 by Joëlle Mélin against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 June 2021 in Case T-51/20, Mélin v Parliament

(Case C-541/21 P)

(2022/C 24/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Joëlle Mélin (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 June 2021 in Case T-51/20, Mélin v Parliament;

— declare the plea of illegality admissible and rule that Article 33(1) and (2) and Article 68(1) and (2) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members (‘IMSM’) are unlawful;

— find that there is no legal basis for the Secretary-General’s decision of 17 December 2019 and annul that decision;

in the main proceedings:

— find that Joëlle Mélin has adduced evidence of the work of her assistant in accordance with Article 33(1) and (2) of the IMSM and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

consequently,

— annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 December 2019, notified by letter No D202484 dated 18 December 2019, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the appellant amounting to EUR 130 339,35 in respect of amounts wrongly paid in connection with the parliamentary assistance allowance and giving reasons for its recovery;

— annul debit note No 2019-2081 informing the appellant that a debt on the part of the appellant had been found following the decision of Secretary-General of 17 December 2019, recovery of the sums wrongly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance, application of Article 68 of the IMS and Articles 98 to 101 of the Financial Regulation;

— order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward a plea in law entitled ‘INFRINGEMENT OF EU LAW BY THE GENERAL COURT — ERROR IN LAW AND ERROR IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LEGAL NATURE OF THE FACTS — MANIFEST ERROR OF ASSESSMENT — DENATURATION OF A JUDGMENT’, which she sub-divides into two chapters, the first relating to the plea of illegality raised at first instance and the General Court’s analysis of the first plea, and the second relating to the merits and the General Court’s analysis of the third plea.

In the first chapter, the appellant raises a plea of illegality and claims that Article 33(1) and (2) and Article 68(1) and (2) of the IMSM do not respect the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. The arguments put forward by the appellant in the second chapter concern the General Court’s assessment of the errors of fact alleged against the Secretary-General.
Appeal brought on 5 August 2021 by Health Product Group sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-678/19, Health Product Group v EUIPO

(Case C-483/21 P)

(2022/C 37/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Health Product Group sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Kondrat, adwokat)

Other party: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 30 November 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Health Product Group sp. z o.o. should bear its own costs.