ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Rensen Shipbuilding BV

(Case C-192/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 8901 - Ship hulls - Maritime navigation - Vessels, designed as seagoing - Meaning)

(2020/C 215/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rensen Shipbuilding BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane district Rotterdam

Operative part of the judgment

Additional note 1 to Chapter 89 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that vessels which, because of the properties inherent in their construction, are able to sail only about 21 nautical miles off the coast in the event of bad weather do not come within the concept of ‘vessels, designed as seagoing’ in that Additional note.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
1.

Declares that the Republic of Cyprus, by failing: — to provide 31 agglomerations (Aradippou, Ypsonas, Dali, Voroklini, Deryneia, Sotira, Xylophagou, Pervolia, Kolossi, Poli Chrysochous, Leivadia, Dromolaxia, Pera Chorio-Nisou, Liopetri, Avgorou, Paliometocho, Kiti, Frenaros, Ormideia, Kokkinotrimithia, Trachoni, Episkopi, Xylotympou, Pano Polemidia, Pyla, Lympia, Parekklisia, Kakopetria, Achna, Meneou and Pyrgos) with a collecting system for urban waste water, and — to ensure, for the same agglomerations, that the urban waste water entering the collecting systems is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before discharge, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 10 and 15 of and Annex I, points A, B and D, to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008.
1.

The second subparagraph of Article 34(3) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport is to be interpreted such that the prohibition it contains does not encompass national legislation under which the driver of a vehicle fitted with a digital tachograph is required to produce, as secondary evidence of his activities, in the absence of automatic and manual tachograph records, an attestation of activities drawn up by his employer in accordance with the form annexed to Commission Decision 2009/959/EU of 14 December 2009 amending Decision 2007/230/EC on a form concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities;
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 March 2019, Spain v Commission (T-237/17, not published, EU:T:2019:172), inasmuch as, by that judgment, the General Court annulled Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/264 of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a flat-rate correction of 10 % on certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain;
2.

Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that, under a cooperation agreement in which the municipalities party to that agreement transfer to one of those municipalities the responsibility for organising services for those municipalities, that municipality may be regarded, in the event that contracts are awarded after responsibilities have been transferred, as a contracting authority and that municipality is entitled, without first issuing a call for tenders, to confer on an in-house entity responsibility for services covering not only its own needs, but also those of the other municipalities party to that agreement when, without that transfer of responsibilities, those municipalities themselves would have had to fill the vacancy for their own needs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 — Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos v European Commission

(Case C-309/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 73(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Order of the General Court finding an action manifestly inadmissible for lack of a handwritten signature - Paper version of the application including a printed authenticated electronic signature)

(2020/C 255/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos (represented by: J. Azcárate Olano and E. Almarza Nantes, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-231/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(g) - Exemption of transactions for the management of special investment funds - Single supply used for the management of special investment funds and for other funds)

(2020/C 279/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a single supply of management services, provided by a software platform belonging to a third-party supplier for the benefit of a fund management company, which manages both special investment funds and other funds, does not fall within the exemption provided for in that provision.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
1.

Article 90(1) and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a taxable person is refused the right to a reduction of the value added tax paid in respect of an irrecoverable claim where he has failed to lodge that claim in insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor, even though the taxable person has shown that, had he lodged the claim, he would not have been able to recover it;
1.

Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which the deceased, a national of one Member State, was residing in another Member State at the date of his or her death but had not cut ties with the first of those Member States, in which the assets making up his or her estate are located, while his or her successors have their residence in both of those Member States, falls within the scope of the concept of ‘succession with cross-border implications’. The last habitual residence of the deceased, within the meaning of that regulation, must be established by the authority dealing with the succession in only one of those Member States.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — VQ v Land Hessen

(Case C-272/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Scope - Article 2(2)(a) - Meaning of ‘activity which falls outside the scope of Union law’ - Article 4(7) - Concept of ‘controller’ - Petitions Committee of the parliament of a Federated State of a Member State - Article 15 - Right of access by the data subject)

(2020/C 287/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VQ

Defendant: Land Hessen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(7) of 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) must be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as a Petitions Committee of the parliament of a Federated State of a Member State determines, alone or with others, the purposes and means of the processing of personal data, that committee must be categorised as a ‘controller’, within the meaning of that provision, and consequently the processing of personal data carried out by that committee falls within the scope of that regulation and, in particular, of Article 15 thereof.

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — NM, acting as liquidator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH v ON

(Case C-530/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 5 and 9 - Obligation of the air carrier to offer hotel accommodation to passengers whose flights have been cancelled - Damage suffered by a passenger during her stay at the hotel providing the accommodation - Possibility of invoking the liability of the air carrier as a result of negligence on the part of employees of the hotel)

(2020/C 378/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NM, acting as liquidator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH

Defendant: ON

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of the air carrier under that provision to offer hotel accommodation free of charge to the passengers referred to therein does not mean that that carrier is required to take care of the accommodation arrangements as such.

2. Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which, under Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation, has offered hotel accommodation to a passenger whose flight has been cancelled cannot be required, on the basis of that regulation alone, to compensate that passenger for damage caused by fault on the part of employees of that hotel.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona, Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 5 de Barcelona — Spain) — UQ (C-503/19), SI (C-592/19) v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

(Joined Cases C-503/19 and C-592/19) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 6(1) - Elements to be taken into consideration - National rules - Failure to take those elements into consideration - Refusal to grant long-term resident status on the ground that the person concerned has previous convictions)

(2020/C 378/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona, Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 5 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: UQ (C-503/19), SI (C-592/19)

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State as it is interpreted by some of the courts of that State, which provides that a third- country national may be refused long-term resident status for the sole reason that he or she has previous criminal convictions, without a specific assessment of his or her situation, in particular, the nature of the offence committed by that national, the threat he or she may pose to public policy or public security, the length of his or her residence on the territory of that Member State and the links he or she has with that State.

(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — NMI Technologietransfer GmbH v EuroNorm GmbH

(Case C-516/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Articles 107 and 108 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 - Exemption of certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market - Annex I - Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) - Definition - Independence test - Article 3(1) - Autonomous enterprise - Article 3(4) - Not included - Indirect control of 25 % of the capital or voting rights by public bodies - Concepts of ‘control’ and ‘public bodies’)

(2020/C 399/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NMI Technologietransfer GmbH

Defendant: EuroNorm GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(4) of Annex I to 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 [TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which excludes an enterprise from being regarded as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), where the body of the enterprise which holds the main part of its capital, although it is not authorised to ensure its day-to-day management, is composed for the most part of members representing public bodies, within the meaning of that article, so that the latter jointly exercise, by that sole fact, indirect control, within the meaning of that article, over the former enterprise, it being understood that:

— first, the concept of ‘public body’ in that article is intended to include entities such as universities and higher education establishments as well as a chamber of commerce and industry, provided that those entities are created to specifically meet needs in the general interest, have legal personality and are either financed for the most part or controlled directly or indirectly by the State, by regional or local authorities or by other public bodies, it being irrelevant in that respect that the persons appointed on the proposal of those entities serve on a voluntary basis within the enterprise concerned, since it is in their capacity as members of the latter that they have been proposed and appointed, and

— second, for the purposes of the existence of such control, it is sufficient for public bodies to hold jointly, albeit indirectly, at least 25 % of the capital or voting rights of the enterprise concerned, in accordance with the terms of the statutes of the enterprise which exercises direct control over it, without it being necessary to examine, moreover, whether those bodies are able to influence and coordinate the effective exercise by their representatives of their voting rights or whether those representatives actually take account of the interests of those bodies.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Romania v European Commission

(Case C-498/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Decision of the European Commission excluding expenditure from EU financing - Notification to the addressee - Error in the printing of the annex - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for filing appeal - Point from which time starts to run - Lateness - Principle of legal certainty - Observance of the adversarial principle)

(2020/C 390/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented initially by C.-R Canţăr, E. Gane O.-C. Ichim and M. Chicu, subsequently by E. Gane, O.-C. Ichim and M. Chicu, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Romania to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
2.

Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as precluding the application of national legislation under which, among members of the teaching staff of a university who continue to work there after reaching the statutory retirement age, only lecturers with doctoral supervisor status may retain their status as tenured lecturers, while lecturers without doctoral supervisor status may conclude only fixed-term employment contracts with that establishment, which include a system of lower remuneration than that for tenured lecturers, to the extent that the first category of lecturer is composed of permanent workers comparable to the workers in the second category, and that the difference in treatment arising, in particular, from the system of remuneration in question is not justified by an objective reason, which it is for the referring court to determine.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — B. v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège

(Case C-233/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Third-country national suffering from a serious illness - Return decision - Judicial remedy - Automatic suspensory effect - Conditions - Grant of social assistance - Articles 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2020/C 399/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B.

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Liège

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5 and 13 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, read in the light of Article 19(2) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing a dispute on social assistance, the outcome of which is linked to the possible suspension of the effects of a return decision taken in respect of a third-country national suffering from a serious illness, must hold that an action for annulment and suspension of that decision leads to automatic suspension of that decision, even though suspension of that decision does not result from the application of national legislation, where:

— that action contains arguments seeking to establish that the enforcement of that decision would expose that third-country national to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in his or her state of health, which does not appear to be manifestly unfounded, and that

— that legislation does not provide for any other remedy, governed by precise, clear and foreseeable rules, which automatically entail the suspension of such a decision.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation v Compagnie des pêches de Saint-Malo

(Case C-212/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Concept - Wreck of the oil tanker Erika - Aid scheme for aquaculture and fisheries undertakings - Decision declaring the aid scheme partly incompatible with the common market and ordering the recovery of the aid paid out - Assessment of validity - Examination of the Court’s own motion - Admissibility - Failure to bring an action for annulment by the defendant in the main proceedings - Reduction in social security contributions - Employees’ contributions - Advantage - Question of who is liable for repayment)

(2020/C 423/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

Defendant: Compagnie des pêches de Saint-Malo

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen is invalid in so far as it classifies the reduction in employees’ contributions granted by the French Republic to fishermen for the period from 15 April to 15 October 2000 as State aid incompatible with the common market.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — kohlpharma GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-602/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Refusal to approve an amendment to the particulars and documents relating to a medicinal product which is the subject of a parallel import licence - Protection of the health and life of humans - Directive 2001/83/EC)

(2020/C 414/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: kohlpharma GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the competent authority of a Member State from refusing to approve amendments to the particulars and documents relating to a medicinal product which is covered by a marketing authorisation in another Member State and by a licence for parallel import into the first Member State, on the sole ground that the marketing authorisation of reference in the first Member State has expired and the proposed amendments are based on both the indications authorised in the other Member State for the parallel-imported medicinal product and the indications relating to a medicinal product with the same therapeutic indication, which is covered by a marketing authorisation in the two Member States concerned and which is essentially manufactured with the same active ingredient but in a different pharmaceutical form, where the parallel import licence at issue is still valid and there is insufficient evidence of a risk to the effective protection of the life and health of humans.

(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.