ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-179/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot

(Case C-586/19 P)

(2020/C 77/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by T. de Haan and P. Péters, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Guinot

By order of 7 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.
4.

If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and Question 3 is answered in the negative: Is Article 294(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that (a) an authorisation could be granted with retroactive effect from the date the original authorisation expired, as provided for in Article 294(3), for a maximum retroactive period of one year before the date the application was submitted and (b) the proof of economic need provided for in Article 294(3) must also exist and attempted deception or obvious negligence be excluded in the case of the successive authorisation under Article 294(2)?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in order to be able subsequently to reduce the taxable amount, an invoice made out to the person entitled to the refund providing proof of the transaction giving entitlement to that refund is required, even though the transaction that enables the subsequent reduction in the taxable amount is duly documented and can subsequently be verified, is based in part on truthful, publicly available information, and enables the tax to be collected correctly?
3.

Is the provision of Article 9(d) of Regulation No 1069/2009 to be interpreted restrictively as meaning that material mixed with foreign bodies such as sawdust is only to be categorised as Category 2 material when the material is to be processed and is destined for feeding purposes?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 29 May 2019 by Silgan Closures GmbH, Silgan Holdings, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2019 in Case T-410/18, Silgan Closures GmbH, Silgan Holdings, Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-418/19 P)

(2020/C 103/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Silgan Closures GmbH, Silgan Holdings, Inc. (represented by: H. Wollmann, D. Seeliger, R. Grafunder and V. Weiss, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 29 January 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 23 December 2019 — Grupa Warzywna Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-935/19)

(2020/C 191/02)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grupa Warzywna Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

Question referred

Is an additional tax liability such as that provided for in Article 112b(2) of the Law on VAT compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (in particular Articles 2, 250 and 273 thereof), Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 325 TFEU and the principle of proportionality?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
1.

Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the assessment of the impermissible advertising practices of the licence holder formulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its established case-law in the case of a State gambling monopoly, the relevant issue is whether there has in fact been growth in the gambling market considered overall in the relevant period, or is it sufficient that the advertising is aimed at stimulating active participation in gambling, such as by trivialising gambling, conferring on it a positive image because revenues derived from it are used for activities in the public interest, or by increasing its attractiveness by means of enticing advertising messages holding out the tantalising prospect of major winnings?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 3 December 2019 by Roxtec AB against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-261/18, Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax

(Case C-893/19 P)

(2020/C 279/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Roxtec AB (represented by: T. Lampel, Rechtsanwalt, K. Wagner, Rechtsanwältin, J. Olsson, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Wallmax Srl

By order of 12 March 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, are Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 2(2), Article 3, Article 5 and Article 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, while establishing the need for employees to undertake vocational training, does not oblige employers to observe workers’ rest periods in so far as concerns the time during which training courses are to be attended?
1.

Are Article 205 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and the principle of proportionality to be interpreted as meaning that the joint and several liability of a registered person, which is the recipient of a taxable supply, for the value added tax not paid by its supplier in addition to the supplier’s principal debt (the value added tax debt) also includes the accessory obligation to pay compensation for late payment in the amount of the statutory interest on the principal debt from the beginning of the debtor’s default until the issuance of the tax assessment notice by which the joint and several liability is established or until the discharge of the debt?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 January 2020 — VS v Hauptzollamt Münster

(Case C-7/20)

(2020/C 137/42)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VS

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Münster

Question referred

Is the second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as meaning that Article 87(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 establishing the EU Customs Code (2) can be applied mutatis mutandis to the recovery of VAT (import turnover tax)?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 17 January 2020 — E. M. T. v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-20/20)

(2020/C 95/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: E. M. T.

Respondent: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Question referred

Must Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection …, (1) by virtue of which applicants must have the right to an effective remedy against decisions taken ‘on their application for international protection’, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 20 and 26 of [Directive 2013/32], be interpreted as precluding a rule of national procedure, such as Article 39/57 of the Belgian Law of 15 December 1980 on entry to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreign nationals, establishing a time limit of 10 ‘calendar’ days, starting from the notification of the administrative decision, for bringing an action against a decision rejecting a subsequent application for international protection, ‘where the action is brought by a foreign national who, at the time of notification of the decision, is in a specific place referred to in Articles 74/8 and 74/9 [of the same Law] or who is placed at the disposal of the [Belgian] Government’, in particular where the applicant must, following the notification of the administrative decision in question, take the step of finding a new legal adviser and securing free legal assistance in order to initiate proceedings?

(1) OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.
4.

Do Articles 20, 21, 34 and 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] preclude the introduction of a piece of legislation or a practice by a Member State implementing Directive 98/59/EC that imposes a sanctioning system, solely for workers hired after 7 March 2015 and involved in a single procedure, that excludes job reinstatement and, in any event, relief from the consequences arising from the loss of income and the loss of social security cover, unlike the protection afforded to other workers subject to the same procedure but hired before that date? Can such a system recognise only compensation in the form of an amount determined primarily on the basis of length of service and therefore apply a different penalty based on the date of hiring, so as to create different levels of protection based on the abovementioned criterion and not on the consequences actually sustained as a result of the unjustified loss of a worker’s source of income?
1.

Does the term ‘consumer’s domicile’ within the meaning of Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (1) of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), effective from 10 January 2015, mean the consumer’s domicile as at the date on which the application was lodged or as at the date on which the relationship of obligation arose between the consumer and his contractual partner (i.e., for example, as at the date of the conclusion of a contract), that is, will an agreement be a consumer contract as provided for in Article 17(1)(c) of the Regulation cited even in the event that the consumer has, as at the date on which the application was lodged, his domicile in a Member State other than that in which the consumer’s contractual partner pursues commercial or professional activities?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgique) lodged on 28 February 2020 — M. A. v État belge

(Case C-112/20)

(2020/C 161/53)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.A.

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Should Article 5 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, (1) which requires Member States, when implementing the directive, to take account of the best interests of the child, together with Article 13 of that directive and Articles 24 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as requiring the best interests of the child, an EU citizen, to be taken into account even if the return decision is taken with regard to the child’s parent alone?

(1) OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
(4)

Do the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and practical effect of EU law, with regard to the Framework Agreement, and the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in clause 4 thereof, preclude national legislation (Article 24(3)(a) of Law No 240/2010 and Article 29(2)(d) and (4) of Legislative Decree No 81/2015) which — notwithstanding the existence of rules applicable to all public-sector and private-sector workers recently set out in Legislative Decree No 81 which establish (from 2018) that the maximum duration of a fixed-term relationship is 24 months (including extensions and renewals) and make the use of such relationships by the public authorities contingent on the existence of ‘temporary and exceptional requirements’ — allows universities to hire researchers on a three-year fixed-term contract, which may be extended for two years in the event of a favourable assessment of the research and teaching activities carried out during those three years, without making either the conclusion of the initial contract or its extension conditional on the university having such temporary or exceptional requirements, and even allowing it, at the end of the five-year period, to enter into another fixed-term contract of the same type with the same individuals or with other individuals, in order to cover the same teaching and research requirements as those of the earlier contract?
If the answer to question 2 is in the negative:

Is the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as Paragraph 6(9) and (11) oöWFG, which allows EU citizens, EEA nationals and family members within the meaning of Directive 2004/38 to receive a social benefit (housing assistance in accordance with the oöWFG) without proof of language proficiency, while requiring third country nationals (including those with long-term resident status within the meaning of Directive 2003/109) to provide particular proof of a basic command of German?
1.

Does Article 168(a), read in conjunction with Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) conflict with national case-law precluding the right to deduct VAT in cases in which the trader is entitled to choose the allocation of a supply at the time of purchase if the tax authorities have not adopted a decision on its allocation on expiry of the statutory deadline for submission of the annual VAT return?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2020 — AR v Stadt Pforzheim

(Case C-56/20)

(2020/C 209/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AR

Defendant: Stadt Pforzheim

Question referred

Does EU law, in particular Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, (1) preclude provisions of national law under which, where a decision refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC, is adopted, the foreign EC card driving licence of a person who does not have normal residence in national territory must be submitted to the decision-making national authority without delay so that the latter can record in the driving licence that that person does not have a right to drive in national territory; the endorsement (indicating a ban) usually being entered on an EC card driving licence by affixing a red ‘D’, crossed out by a diagonal line, to space 13 (for example by means of a sticker)?

(1) OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.
1.

Does the situation of a natural person who, like the appellant in cassation in the main proceedings, has renounced her only nationality of a Member State of the European Union, and thus her citizenship of the Union, in order to obtain the nationality of another Member State, having been given a guarantee by the other Member State of grant of the nationality applied for, and whose possibility of recovering citizenship of the Union is subsequently eliminated by revocation of that guarantee, fall, by reason of its nature and its consequences, within the scope of EU law, such that regard must be had to EU law when revoking the guarantee of grant of citizenship? If the first question is answered in the affirmative,
Appeal brought on 12 February 2020 by Hästens Sängar AB against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 December 2019 in Case T-658/18, Hästens Sängar v EUIPO (Representation of a chequered gingham pattern)

(Case C-74/20 P)

(2020/C 247/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Hästens Sängar AB (represented by: M. Johansson, advokat, R. Wessman, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 28 May 2020 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Hästens Sängar AB shall bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2020 — XC

(Case C-195/20)

(2020/C 230/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XC

Other party to the proceedings: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Question referred

Is Article 27(2) and (3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, (1) as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the specialty rule does not preclude a measure involving deprivation of liberty for an offence committed prior to surrender other than that on which the surrender is based if the person voluntarily left the territory of the issuing Member State after the surrender, was subsequently surrendered again by another executing Member State to the territory of the issuing Member State pursuant to a new European arrest warrant, and the second executing Member State gave its consent to prosecution, sentencing and execution in respect of that other offence?

(1) OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24.
1.

Does the right to fair compensation for limits on the right to property that is guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow the compensation awarded by a State for the losses caused to aquaculture in a Natura 2000 network area by protected birds, in accordance with Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, to be significantly less than the losses actually suffered?
1.

Is Article 4 of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which applies reduced rates of excise duty to beer produced by independent small breweries pursuant to that provision must also apply the provision on the joint taxation of small breweries contained in the second sentence of Article 4(2) of that directive, or is the application of the latter provision left to the discretion of the Member State concerned?
1.

Is Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a motor vehicle that falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (2) shows the quality which is normal in goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect if the vehicle is equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of point 10 of Article 3 and Article 5(2) of Regulation No 715/2007 but the vehicle type nevertheless has a valid EC type-approval, meaning that the vehicle can be used on the road?
1.

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the equipment of a vehicle, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 715/2007, is inadmissible if the exhaust gas recirculation valve (i.e. a component that is likely to affect emissions performance) is designed in such a way that the exhaust gas recirculation rate (i.e. the portion of the exhaust gas being recirculated) is regulated in such a way that the valve ensures a low-emission mode only between 15 and 33 degrees Celsius and only below an altitude of 1 000 m, and, outside this temperature window, per 10 degrees Celsius, and above an altitude of 1 000 m, per 250 meters of altitude, the rate decreases in a linear way down to zero, meaning that NOx emissions increase beyond the limits of Regulation No 715/2007?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Lanciano (Italy) lodged on 28 May 2020 — XX v OO

(Case C-220/20)

(2020/C 279/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Lanciano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XX

Defendant: OO

Intervener: WW

Question referred

Do Articles 2, 4(3), 6(1) and 9 of the Treaty on [European] Union and Articles 67(1) and (4), 81 and 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in conjunction with Articles 1, 6, 20, 21, 31, 34, 45 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national provisions such as Articles 42, 83 and 87 of Decree Law No 18 of 17 March 2020, the decision of the Council of Ministers of 31 January 2020 declaring a state of national health emergency for six months until 31 July 2020 and Articles 14 and 263 of Decree Law No 34 of 19 May 2020 extending the national state of emergency for Covid-19 and the paralysis of civil and criminal justice and of the administrative work of Italian courts until 31 January 2021, taken together, in so far as they undermine the independence of the referring court and infringe the principle of due process as well as the connected rights to personal dignity, liberty and security, equality before the law, non-discrimination, fair and just working conditions, access to social security benefits and freedom of movement and of residence?
1.

Do Articles 2 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112 of 28 November 20[0]6 on the common system of value added tax, (1) Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 325 TFEU, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits the adoption or implementation of sanctioning measures in relation to a taxpayer who is a legal person, in both administrative and criminal proceedings which are conducted in parallel in relation to that taxpayer, for the same specific acts of tax evasion, in a situation where the penalty applied in the administrative proceedings may also be classified as a criminal penalty, in accordance with the criteria identified by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its case-law, and to what extent are all of those events, taken together, excessive with regard to the taxpayer concerned?
1.

Must Article 17(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 meaning that a worker does not lose his remuneration, or part thereof, because he exercises his right to annual leave? Or should that provision be interpreted as meaning that a worker retains his remuneration while exercising his right to annual leave, irrespective of the reason for not working during the leave period?