ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Proceedings brought by W.Ż.

(Case C-487/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rule of law - Effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence - Transfer without consent of a judge of an ordinary court - Action - Order of inadmissibility made by a judge of the Sąd Najwyższy (Izba Kontroli Nadzwyczajnej i Spraw Publicznych) (Supreme Court (Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs), Poland) - Judge appointed by the President of the Republic of Poland on the basis of a resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary, despite a court decision ordering that the effects of that resolution be suspended pending a preliminary ruling of the Court - Judge not constituting an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law - Primacy of EU law - Possibility of finding such an order of inadmissibility to be null and void)

(2021/C 481/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: W.Ż.

Intervening parties: Prokurator Generalny zastępowany przez Prokuraturę Krajową, formerly Prokurator Prokuratury Krajowej Bożena Górecka, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seised of an application for recusal as an adjunct to an action by which a judge holding office in a court that may be called upon to interpret and apply EU law challenges a decision to transfer him without his consent, must — where such a consequence is essential in view of the procedural situation at issue in order to ensure the primacy of EU law — declare to be null and void an order by which a court, ruling at last instance and comprising a single judge, has dismissed that action, if it follows from all the conditions and circumstances in which the process of the appointment of that single judge took place that (i) that appointment took place in clear breach of fundamental rules which form an integral part of the establishment and functioning of the judicial system concerned, and (ii) the integrity of the outcome of that procedure is undermined, giving rise to reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the independence and impartiality of the judge concerned, with the result that that order may not be regarded as being made by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam- Netherlands) — Stichting Cartel Compensation, Equilib Netherlands BV v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV and Others

(Case C-819/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 81, 84 and 85 EC - Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Cartels - Conduct of undertakings in the air transport sector between the European Economic Area (EEA) and third countries which took place when Articles 84 and 85 EC were in force - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of national courts to apply Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement)

(2022/C 11/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stichting Cartel Compensation, Equilib Netherlands BV

Defendants: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Martinair Holland NV, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, British Airways plc, Air France SA, Singapore Airlines Ltd, Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd, Swiss International Air Lines AG, Air Canada, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, SAS AB, SAS Cargo Group A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 81, 84 and 85 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court has jurisdiction to apply Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area in a private law dispute concerning an action for damages brought before it after the entry into force of 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 [EC] to the conduct of undertakings in the air transport sector between a Member State and a third country other than Switzerland which took place before 1 May 2004, to the conduct of undertakings in the air transport sector between a Member State and Switzerland which took place before 1 June 2002 and to the conduct of undertakings in the air transport sector between a European Economic Area country which is not a Member State and a third country which took place before 19 May 2005, even though no decision under Article 84 EC or Article 85 EC had been adopted as regards that conduct, in so far as that conduct was liable to affect trade between Member States and the contracting parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, respectively.

(1) OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
2.

Directive 2014/42 must be interpreted as meaning that it not only provides for the confiscation of property constituting an economic benefit derived from the criminal offence in respect of which the perpetrator has been convicted, but also provides for the confiscation of property belonging to that perpetrator in respect of which the national court hearing the case is satisfied that it derives from other criminal conduct, in compliance with the safeguards provided for in Article 8(8) of that directive and on condition that the offence in respect of which its perpetrator has been convicted is among those listed in Article 5(2) of that directive and that that offence is liable to give rise, directly or indirectly, to economic benefit within the meaning of the same directive.
1.

— Declares that, by providing that the failure to comply with or the partial or late compliance with the obligation to provide information concerning assets and rights located abroad entails the taxation of undeclared income corresponding to the value of those assets as ‘unjustified capital gains’, with no possibility, in practice, of benefiting from limitation; — by subjecting the failure to comply with or the partial or late compliance with the obligation to provide information concerning assets or rights located abroad to a proportional fine of 150 % of the tax calculated on amounts corresponding to the value of those assets or those rights, which may be applied concurrently with flat-rate fines, and — by subjecting the failure to comply with or the partial or late compliance with the obligation to provide information concerning assets or rights located abroad to flat-rate fines the amount of which is disproportionate to the penalties imposed in respect of similar infringements in a purely national context and the total amount of which is not capped, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — PlasticsEurope AISBL v European Chemicals Agency, French Republic, ClientEarth

(Case C-876/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation - List of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Updating of the entry of the substance bisphenol A as a substance of very high concern)

(2022/C 84/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PlasticsEurope AISBL (represented: initially by R. Cana, E. Mullier and F. Mattioli, and subsequently by R. Cana and E. Mullier, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, A.K. Hautamäki and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by S. Raes, advocaat), French Republic (represented by: T. Stehelin and E. Leclerc, acting as Agents), ClientEarth (represented by: P. Kirch, avocat)

Intervener in support of the other parties to the proceedings: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders PlasticsEurope AISBL to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth;

3. Orders the French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
2.

Annuls Article 1(e) of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives) in so far as it finds that Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 by participating, from 23 June 2004 to 17 November 2008, in several separate infringements;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd v European Commission, Hyet Sweet SAS

(Case C-666/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China - Regulations No 1225/2009 and 2016/1036 - Temporal scope - Article 2(7) - Market economy treatment - Denied - Article 2(10) - Adjustments - Burden of proof - Article 3 - Determination of injury - Duty of care of the European Commission)

(2022/C 237/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, dikigoros, and P. Billiet, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by T. Maxian Rusche and N. Kuplewatzky, subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche and A. Demeneix and, finally, by T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents), Hyet Sweet SAS

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Vogel Import Export NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-62/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings - Headings 4407 and 4409 - Planed wooden boards the four corners of which have been slightly rounded over the entire length of the board)

(2021/C 217/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vogel Import Export NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016, must be interpreted as meaning that planed wooden boards the four corners of which have been slightly rounded over the entire length of the board, must not be regarded as continuously shaped and are capable of falling within heading 4407 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Criminal proceedings against K. M.

(Case C-77/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 - Control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy - Use on board a fishing vessel of equipment which is capable of automatically grading fish by size - Article 89 - Measures to ensure compliance - Article 90 - Criminal sanctions - Principle of proportionality)

(2021/C 128/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties in the main proceedings

K. M.

Other party: Director of Public Prosecutions

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 89 and 90 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006, read in the light of the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the verifications which it is for the referring court to carry out, they do not preclude a national provision which, to penalise a breach of Article 32 of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 227/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2013, provides for not only the imposition of a fine but also the mandatory forfeiture of the catches and the prohibited or non-compliant fishing gear found on board the vessel concerned.

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
1.

Article 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1320/2014 of 1 December 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that sturgeon caviar, when brought into the customs territory of the European Union, may be regarded as a ‘personal or household item’ within the meaning of that provision, when it is intended to be offered as a gift to a third party, provided that there is no evidence of a commercial purpose, and may thus benefit from the derogation provided for in that provision from the obligation on the importer to present an import permit;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘ALTI’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-4/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 205 - Persons liable for payment of VAT to the public exchequer - Joint and several liability of the recipient of a taxable supply which has exercised its right to deduct VAT knowing that the person liable for payment of that tax would not pay it - Obligation of such a recipient to pay the VAT not paid by the person liable for payment and the default interest due on account of that person’s failure to pay the VAT)

(2021/C 278/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘ALTI’ OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

Article 205 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principle of proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which the person held jointly and severally liable, for the purpose of that article, must pay, in addition to the value added tax (VAT) not paid by the person liable for payment of that tax, the default interest on that amount, due from the person liable for payment, where it is proved that, in exercising its right of deduction, it knew or should have known that the person liable for payment would not pay that VAT.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against VAS Shipping ApS

(Case C-71/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 54 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - National legislation requiring third-country nationals employed on a vessel flying the flag of a Member State to hold a work permit in that Member State - Exemption covering vessels that call at the Member State’s port no more than 25 times in a one-year period - Restriction - Article 79(5) TFEU - National legislation aimed at fixing the volumes of admission of third-country nationals coming from third countries to the territory of the Member State concerned in order to seek work, whether employed or self-employed)

(2021/C 338/06)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Party in the main criminal proceedings

VAS Shipping ApS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU, read in the light of Article 79(5) TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a first Member State which provides that crew members, who are third-country nationals, of a vessel flying the flag of that Member State and owned, directly or indirectly, by a company with its head office in a second Member State must hold a work permit in that first Member State, unless the vessel concerned has made no more than 25 calls to ports in the first Member State in one year

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie — Poland) — Ultimo Portfolio Investment (Luxembourg) SA v KM

(Case C-303/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Risk of over-indebtedness - Article 8 - Creditor’s obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness - Article 23 - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature of the penalty in the event of infringement of that obligation)

(2021/C 297/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ultimo Portfolio Investment (Luxembourg) SA

Defendant: KM

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the examination of the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of the penalties provided for in that provision, in the event, inter alia, of the failure to comply with the obligation to examine the creditworthiness of the consumer, laid down in Article 8 of that directive, must be carried out taking into account, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, not only the provision adopted specifically in national law to transpose that directive, but also all the provisions of that law, interpreting them, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and objectives of that directive, so that those penalties meet the requirements laid down in Article 23 thereof.

(1) OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Vodafone GmbH

(Case C-5/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 - Article 3 - Open internet access - Article 3(1) - End users’ rights - Article 3(2) - Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights - Article 3(3) - Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic - Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures - Additional ‘zero tariff’ option - Limitation on tethering)

(2021/C 462/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Defendant: Vodafone GmbH

Interested party: Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a limitation on tethering, on account of the activation of a ‘zero tariff’ option, is incompatible with the obligations arising from Article 3(3).

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — DocMorris NV v Apothekerkammer Nordrhein

(Case C-190/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use subject to a medical prescription - Directive 2001/83/EC - Scope - Advertising by a mail-order pharmacy intended to influence not the customer’s choice of a particular medicinal product, but the choice of pharmacy - Prize competition - Free movement of goods - National legislation - Prohibition on offering, advertising or granting advantages and other promotional gifts in the field of therapeutic products - Selling arrangements falling outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU)

(2021/C 349/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DocMorris NV

Defendant: Apothekerkammer Nordrhein

Operative part of the judgment

1. Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation which prohibits a pharmacy which sells medicinal products by mail order from organising an advertising campaign in the form of a prize competition allowing participants to win everyday items other than medicinal products, participation in that competition being subject to the submission of an order for a medicinal product for human use subject to a medical prescription, together with that prescription;

2. Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such national legislation.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.08.2020.
1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 3 July 2020, Falqui and Poggiolini v Parliament (T-347/19 and T-348/19, not published, EU:T:2020:303), in so far as it rejected the claims made by Mr Danilo Poggiolini in case T-348/19 for annulment of the note of 11 April 2019 drawn up by the Head of the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance and concerning the adjustment of the amount of pension he receives following the entry into force, on 1 January 2019, of Decision No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Italy) and of the decision of the European Parliament set out in the letter of 8 July 2019;