ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland zittingsplaats Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 21 December 2021 — Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

(Case C-809/21)

(2022/C 138/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy

Respondent: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

Question referred

Is there an infringement of EU law — which is a condition for entitlement to interest under EU law as developed by the Court of Justice — where a Member State authority, on the basis of a post-importation control of a customs declaration submitted after 1 May 2016, imposes a duty in breach of legally valid provisions of EU law and a Member State court makes a finding of that infringement of EU law?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2021 — Deutsche Wohnen SE v Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin

(Case C-807/21)

(2022/C 128/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Summary proceedings against: Deutsche Wohnen SE

Other party to the proceedings: Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Questions referred

1. Is Article 83(4) to (6) of the GDPR (1) to be interpreted as incorporating into national law the functional concept of an undertaking and the principle of an economic entity, as defined in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, as a result of which, by broadening the principle of a legal entity underpinning Paragraph 30 of the Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten (Law on administrative offences; ‘the OWiG’), proceedings for an administrative fine may be brought against an undertaking directly and a fine imposed without requiring a finding that a natural and identified person committed an administrative offence, if necessary, in satisfaction of the objective and subjective elements of tortious liability?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is Article 83(4) to (6) of the GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that the undertaking must have intentionally or negligently committed the breach of an obligation vicariously through an employee (see Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2)), or is the objective fact of breach caused by it sufficient, in principle, for a fine to be imposed on that undertaking (‘strict liability’)?

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

(2) 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 (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 10 September 2021 by Acciona, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 June 2021 in Case T-362/20 Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA)

(Case C-557/21 P)

(2022/C 165/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Acciona S.A. (represented by: J. C. Erdozain López, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Agencia Negociadora PB, S.L.

By order of 27 January 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Acciona S.A. to bear its own costs.
1.

Having regard to the provisions of Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU, (1) does Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity, (2) in particular Article 1(b) and Article 3 thereof, prohibit, from the time of its entry into force, a Member State from continuing to grant one single licence to organise and operate the centralised electricity markets? Is there an obligation on the Romanian State, as of 1 January 2020, to bring to an end an existing monopoly on operation of the electricity market?
Does Directive 2003/88/EC (1) apply where characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities, such as the armed forces or the police, or to certain specific activities in the civil service protection services inevitably conflict with it, given that:

Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC provides that that directive is to apply to all sectors of activity, both public and private, within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC; (2)

Article 2(2) of Directive 89/391/EEC provides that that directive is not to be applicable where characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities, such as the armed forces or the police, or to certain specific activities in the civil protection services inevitably conflict with it?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 21 December 2021 by Luis Miguel Novais against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2021 in Case T-595/21 Novais v Portugal

(Case C-816/21 P)

(2022/C 222/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Luis Miguel Novais (represented by: Á. Oliveira and C. Almeida Lopes, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic

By order of 11 March 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered Luis Miguel Novais to bear his own costs.
Appeal brought on 20 January 2022 by Liam Jenkinson against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-602/15 RENV, Jenkinson v Council and Others

(Case C-46/22 P)

(2022/C 119/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Liam Jenkinson (represented by: N. de Montigny, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service, Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal;

— dispose of the case and grant the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

— order the respondents to pay all the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings and in each of the earlier proceedings (T-602/15; C-43/17 P; T-602/15 RENV).

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges misinterpretation of the claims and pleas put forward in that the General Court excluded from its review all principal claims based on a plea of illegality.

The second ground of appeal alleges a reduction of the factual and legal considerations set out by the applicant and therefore of the subject matter of the action in that the General Court exclusively analysed the applicant’s last post in the Eulex Kosovo Mission.

The third ground of appeal is directed against the judgment under appeal in so far as it rejected the first principal head of claim.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges misapplication of the principle of equal treatment between staff members of the Union and infringement of Article 336 TFEU, the General Court having reversed the intention of the EU legislature to offer minimum social security coverage to all employees. In the appellant’s view, the General Court also infringed the concept of the rule of law by excluding all non-contractual liability of the defendants.

The fifth ground of appeal is directed against the rejection, on grounds of inadmissibility, of the third head of claim put forward in the alternative at first instance. In any event, the appellant submits that the General Court should have raised of its own motion certain pleas involving matters of public policy and analysed the merits of the case.
1.

What legal consequences does EU law provide for in the event of infringement, by the requesting Member State in the context of a take back procedure under Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, (1) of the obligation to provide information laid down in Article 4 or the obligation to conduct a personal interview with the applicant under Article 5 thereof, and in particular, must Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 be interpreted: — as meaning that failure to provide the information leaflet required under Article 4(2) to a person who meets the conditions described in Article 23 or failure to conduct a personal interview with the applicant under Article 5 of the regulation in itself renders the transfer decision irremediably unlawful and thus places on the requesting Member State responsibility to take a decision on the application for international protection; — or as meaning that the unlawfulness of the transfer decision is subject to it being alleged and proven that the procedure would have had a different outcome if the authority of the requesting Member State had fulfilled the obligations laid down in Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013; — or as meaning that in no event is the authority of the requesting Member State obliged to afford a foreign national subject to a procedure for transfer to the requested Member State the safeguards relating to information and participation laid down in Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 10 January 2022 — Caxamar — Comércio e Indústria de Bacalhau SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-23/22)

(2022/C 165/35)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caxamar — Comércio e Indústria de Bacalhau SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

According to the correct interpretation of the Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020, in conjunction with the provisions of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 16 June 2014, (1) in particular Article 1 and Article 2(11) thereof, Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013, (2) and Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is it possible to conclude that, under Articles 2(2) and 22(1) of the Código Fiscal do Investimento (Tax Code on Investment), approved by Decreto-Lei n.o 162/2014 (Decree-Law No 162/2014) of 31 October 2014, and Articles 1 and 2 of the Portaria n.o 282/2014 (Ministerial Order No 282/2014) of 30 December 2014, the processing of fishery and aquaculture products relating to ‘salted cod’, ‘frozen cod’ and ‘desalted cod’ in Economic Activity Code 10204Rev3 does not constitute the processing of agricultural products for the purposes of granting the relevant tax advantages?

(1) Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 February 2022 — NG v Direktor na Glavna direktsia ‘Natsionalna politsia’ pri MVR — Sofia

(Case C-118/22)

(2022/C 191/23)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: NG

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Direktor na Glavna direktsia ‘Natsionalna politsia’ pri MVR — Sofia

Question referred

Does the interpretation of Article 5 in conjunction with Article 13(2)(b) and (3) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA permit national legislative measures which lead to a virtually unrestricted right of competent authorities to process personal data for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and/or to the elimination of the data subject’s right to have the processing of his or her data restricted or to have them erased or destroyed?

(1) OJ 2016 L 119, p. 89.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against BK

(Case C-175/22)

(2022/C 191/31)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

BK

Questions referred

Does Article 6(3) and (4) of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) preclude an interpretation of national legal provisions — Article 301(1)(2), in conjunction with Article 287(1), of the Nakazatelno protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure, Bulgaria; ‘the NPK’) — in the case-law according to which the court may, in its judgment, give a legal classification of the offence that differs from that set out in the bill of indictment, provided that it is not classified as an offence attracting a more severe penalty, on the ground that the accused person was not properly informed of the new, different legal classification before the delivery of the judgment and was unable to defend himself against it?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter prohibit the court from informing the accused person that it could base its decision on the merits on a different legal classification of the offence, and also from giving him the opportunity to prepare his defence against that classification, because the initiative for this different legal classification did not come from the public prosecutor’s office?

(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).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 28 January 2022 — YQ v Ředitelství silnic a dálnic ČR

(Case C-57/22)

(2022/C 207/16)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: YQ

Defendant: Ředitelství silnic a dálnic ČR

Question referred

Must Article 7(1) 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 be interpreted as precluding national case-law by virtue of which a worker who was unlawfully dismissed then reinstated in his or her employment, in accordance with national law, following the annulment of the dismissal by a decision of a court, is not entitled to paid annual leave for the period between the date of the dismissal and that of the reinstatement in his or her employment on the ground that, during that period, that worker did not actually carry out work for the employer, also in cases when, according to national legislation, the worker who has been unlawfully dismissed and who has without undue delay informed his or her employer in writing that he or she insists on being employed, is entitled to wage or salary compensation in the amount of average earnings from the date when he or she informed the employer that he or she insists on the continuation of his or her employment until such time as the employer allows him or her to carry on in his or her work or his or her employment relationship is validly terminated?

(1) OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 7 January 2022 — T. S.A. v Przewodniczący Krajowej Rady Radiofonii i Telewizji

(Case C-22/22)

(2022/C 198/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: T. S.A.

Respondent: Przewodniczący Krajowej Rady Radiofonii i Telewizji

Question referred

Must Article 20(2) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), (1) in conjunction with Article 4(1) thereof, and Articles 11 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prohibits only television broadcasters from placing advertisements in their children’s programmes, but places no such prohibition on the broadcasters of on-demand audiovisual media services?

(1) OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1.
1.

Does the assessment of whether the applicant is a consumer within the meaning of Articles 17 and 18 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) depend on (a) whether the applicant pursued the activity of a graphic and web designer declared by her in the proceedings only as an employed person or, at least in part, also in the context of a freelance activity at the time of concluding the contract of sale and immediately thereafter and (b) the purpose for which the applicant acquired the vehicle, that is to say solely for the purpose of satisfying her own needs in terms of private consumption or also in connection with a current or future trade or professional activity or purpose?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 11 March 2022 — ME v État belge

(Case C-191/22)

(2022/C 213/43)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ME

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Must Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and [Article 4(1)(c)] of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) and the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty be interpreted as requiring Member States to take into account the age of a child for whom family reunification is sought not at the date of the application for family reunification but at the date when the sponsor, who has been recognised as a refugee, submitted his or her application for international protection and to regard that child as a minor within the meaning of Article 4[(1)(c)] of Directive 2003/86/EC where that child was a minor at the time that the sponsor submitted his or her application for asylum but attained majority before the sponsor obtained refugee status and before the application for family reunification was lodged?

(1) OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2022 — TAP Portugal v Myflyright GmbH

(Case C-157/22)

(2022/C 222/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TAP Portugal

Respondent: Myflyright GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of that provision exists where a flight departing from an airport outside the base of the operating air carrier is cancelled because a crew member deployed on that flight (in casu the co-pilot), who has passed the prescribed regular medical examinations without restriction, dies suddenly and in a way that the air carrier is unable to foresee shortly before the flight or falls so seriously ill that he or she cannot perform the flight?

(1) Regulation 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
—

consequently: — grant the Appellant compensation for the non-material prejudice suffered, as detailed in the application, estimated ex aequo et bono at 50 000 €; — annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 21 December 2018 rejecting the Appellant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations; — if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 24 June 2019 rejecting the Appellant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; — order the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to pay all the costs.
3.

In the event that the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative and Questions 2(a) and 2(b) to the effect that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, it may be found that the difference in treatment in respect of pay affects considerably more women than men: Must Article 157 TFEU and Article 2(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 be interpreted as meaning that, it may be a legitimate aim for the parties to a collective agreement, by means of a provision such as that referred to in Question 1, on the one hand, to pursue the aim of deterring the employer from mandating overtime and rewarding recourse to employees to an extent in excess of that contracted by means of an overtime supplement, but, on the other hand, also to pursue the aim of preventing full-time employees from being treated less favourably than part-time employees and to provide for that reason that supplements are payable only for overtime worked in excess of a full-time employee’s working hours in a calendar month?