ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — SH v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Sibiu, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov

(Case C-627/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax paid in relation to the purchase, building and alteration of immovable property - Ex officio revocation of a taxable person’s identification for VAT purposes - Adjustment of the initial deduction - Reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law)

(2022/C 368/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: S.H.

Respondents: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Sibiu, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov

Operative part of the order

Articles 16, 184, 186 to 188 and 192 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national rules and practice requiring a taxable person, whose identification for value added tax (VAT) purposes was revoked for a given period on account of there being no taxable transactions shown in that person’s VAT returns filed during six consecutive months, to adjust the input VAT deducted in relation to the purchase of capital goods without that taxable person being entitled to adduce evidence that the substantive conditions for benefitting from the right to deduct are satisfied, on the ground that there is an irrebuttable presumption that the taxable person used those goods for purposes other than economic activities.

(1) OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 31 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Laudamotion GmbH v TG, QN, AirHelp Germany GmbH

(Case C-517/21) (1)

(2022/C 359/67)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Ninth of the Court of 6 October 2022 — Ryanair DAC, Laudamotion GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-581/21 P) (1)

(2023/C 24/43)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 9 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — TX v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-481/21) (1)

(2022/C 408/47)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the Court of 1 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — JH, GK, FB, LR, TV, OS v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-126/22) (1)

(Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Cancellations - Re-routing - Cancellation of flight following measures taken by the Spanish government due to the Covid-19 pandemic - Re-routing arranged by air passengers - Re-routing through a combination of modes of transport other than air transport)

(2022/C 294/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: JH, GK, FB, LR, TV, OS

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Operative part of the order

Case C-126/22 is removed from the Register of the Court of Justice.

(1) Filing date: 22.2.2022.
Order of the President of the Court of 13 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Research Consorzio Stabile Scarl, acting on its own account and as agent of the association of undertakings to be constituted (Research-Cisa), C.I.S.A. SpA, acting on its own account and as agent of the same association (Research-Cisa), Debar Costruzioni SpA, acting on its own account and as agent of the association to be constituted with Consorzio Stabile COM Scarl, C.N. Costruzioni Generali SpA and Edil.Co. Srl, Invitalia — Agenzia Nazionale per l’Attrazione degli Investimenti e lo Sviluppo di Impresa v Invitalia — Agenzia Nazionale per l’Attrazione degli Investimenti e lo Sviluppo di Impresa, Debar Costruzioni SpA, acting on its own account and as agent of the association to be constituted with Consorzio Stabile COM Scarl, C.N. Costruzioni Generali SpA and Edil.Co. Srl, Research Consorzio Stabile Scarl, acting on its own account and as agent of the association of undertakings to be constituted (Research-Cisa), C.I.S.A. SpA, acting on its own account and as agent of the same association (Research-Cisa), intervening party: Invitalia — Agenzia Nazionale per l’Attrazione degli Investimenti e lo Sviluppo di Impresa

(Case C-215/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/44)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 20 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Swiss International Air Lines AG

(Case C-131/22) (1)

(2022/C 368/39)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/13

Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

(Opinion 3/15)

(2015/C 311/15)

Language of procedure: all the official languages

Applicant

European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, B. Hartmann, J. Samnadda, Agents)

Question submitted to the Court

Does the European Union have exclusive competence to conclude the Marrakesh Treaty to facilitate access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled?
3.

The Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data must, in order to be compatible with Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: (a) determine in a clear and precise manner the PNR data to be transferred from the European Union to Canada; (b) provide that the models and criteria used in the context of automated processing of PNR data will be specific and reliable and non-discriminatory; provide that the databases used will be limited to those used by Canada in relation to the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime; (c) save in the context of verifications in relation to the pre-established models and criteria on which automated processing of Passenger Name Record data is based, make the use of that data by the Canadian Competent Authority during the air passengers’ stay in Canada and after their departure from that country, and any disclosure of that data to other authorities, subject to substantive and procedural conditions based on objective criteria; make that use and that disclosure, except in cases of validly established urgency, subject to a prior review carried out either by a court or by an independent administrative body, the decision of that court or body authorising the use being made following a reasoned request by those authorities, inter alia, within the framework of procedures for the prevention, detection or prosecution of crime; (d) limit the retention of Passenger Name Record data after the air passengers’ departure to that of passengers in respect of whom there is objective evidence from which it may be inferred that they may present a risk in terms of the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime; (e) make the disclosure of Passenger Name Record data by the Canadian Competent Authority to the government authorities of a third country subject to the condition that there be either an agreement between the European Union and that third country equivalent to the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data, or a decision of the European Commission, under Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, covering the authorities to which it is intended that Passenger Name Record data be disclosed; (f) provide for a right to individual notification for air passengers in the event of use of Passenger Name Record data concerning them during their stay in Canada and after their departure from that country, and in the event of disclosure of that data by the Canadian Competent Authority to other authorities or to individuals; and (g) guarantee that the oversight of the rules laid down in the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data relating to the protection of air passengers with regard to the processing of Passenger Name Record data concerning them will be carried out by an independent supervisory authority.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Reimbursement of expenses - Travel expenses - Mission expenses - Distinguishing criteria

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Arts 11 to 15 )

2 . Officials - Reimbursement of expenses - Travel expenses - Journeys within the limits of the place of employment - Reimbursement by way of a fixed allowance

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 71; Annex VII, Art . 15, second paragraph )

Summary

1 . The Community legislature has provided, in Section 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, for two distinct schemes for the reimbursement of travel expenses incurred by Community staff in the performance of their duties, namely the reimbursement of "mission expenses" and the payment of a fixed allowance to cover "normal travel" within the meaning of Article 15 of the aforementioned annex .

It is evident from the scheme of subsection F (" mission expenses ") that the system established by Articles 11 to 13 of Annex VII is intended to cover journeys which involve travelling a certain distance and which entitle the employee to reimbursement of travel expenses and a daily subsistence allowance . On the other hand, Article 15 clearly concerns journeys which are fairly short and frequent and are made within a limited geographical area . A member of staff making such a journey is entitled, not to reimbursement of the exact amount of the expenses on presentation of supporting documents, but, for reasons of economy, to reimbursement by way of a fixed allowance, without production of supporting documents .

2 . Regular journeys which are made by officials in the performance of their duties, using their own cars, between two places of work located within the limits of their place of employment and which do not qualify for the daily subsistence allowance provided for in Article 13 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations cannot be regarded as "missions" within the meaning of subsection F of the aforementioned annex, which is generally only applicable if a journey is made outside the limits of the place of employment .

However, having regard to the basic principle laid down in Article 71 of the Staff Regulations according to which an official is entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred by him in the course of or in connection with the performance of his duties, the travel allowance must be granted, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 15 of Annex VII, to an official of a lower grade than Grade A 2 if, by reason of his employment, he is required constantly to make journeys between two places of work within the boundaries of his place of employment using his own car .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Compulsory nature - Action brought before the rejection of the complaint - Inadmissibility

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 91(2 ) )

Summary

Any action challenging an act adversely affecting the applicant and originating from the appointing authority must be preceded by a complaint which has been rejected by express or implied decision . By virtue of Article 91(2 ) of the Staff Regulations, an action brought before that preliminary procedure has been completed is premature and therefore inadmissible .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Action for annulment of measures - Measures against which actions may be brought - Letter addressed by a Member of the Commission to a Member State expressing an opinion as regards the compatibility of an agreement between undertakings with the competition rules of the Treaty - No binding legal effects - Exclusion - Taking account thereof by addressee Member State when adopting national measures - Immaterial

( EEC Treaty, Arts 5, 85 and 173; Regulation No 17 of the Council )

Summary

A letter addressed to the authorities of a Member State by a Member of the Commission which merely represents an initial evaluation, by the Commission' s departments, of an agreement between undertakings with regard to Article 85 of the Treaty and confines itself to suggesting amendments thereto, without producing binding legal effects such as those resulting from a decision granting exemption, negative clearance, or a decision ordering interim measures, the procedural rights of the parties to the agreement and any person who has lodged a complaint against it being expressly reserved, cannot be regarded as an act whose annulment may be sought in an action under Article 173 of the Treaty .

The fact that the said letter led the national authorities to which it was addressed to adopt measures of domestic law does not alter its legal nature . The Commission has no power either under Article 85 of the Treaty or Regulation No 17 or under Article 5 of the Treaty to address a binding decision to a Member State as regards the conduct to be adopted by the national authorities in connection with an agreement between undertakings falling under Article 85 of the Treaty,
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Actions - Subject-matter - Determined by the application within the limits laid down by the complaint

( Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91 )

2 . Procedure - Application - Conclusions - Amendment - Application for annulment first made in the reply - Inadmissible

( Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, Art . 19; Rules of Procedure, Art . 38 )

3 . Officials - Actions - Subject-matter - Instruction to the Commission to exercise the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty - Inadmissible

( Staff Regulations, Art . 91 )

Summary

1 . Although the administrative complaint provided for in Article 90(2 ) of the Staff Regulations is an essential prerequisite for bringing an action against an act adversely affecting a person covered by the Staff Regulations, it is a separate step from the action provided for in Article 91(2 ) of the Staff Regulations and determines the purpose and subject-matter of that action to a negative extent only, in the sense that it precludes an extension, but not a curtailment, of the purpose or subject-matter of the complaint in the action . The subject-matter of an action, therefore, is defined solely by the application, provided that it remains within the limits laid down by the complaint . It follows that the substance of the complaint cannot be subsumed into the application other than by unambiguous reference .

2 . An application for annulment which does not appear, even implicitly, in the application, but was first submitted in the reply, constitutes an amendment of the conclusions in the application and is therefore inadmissible under Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure .

3 . The Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action in which the conclusions do not seek to contest the legality of an act of the appointing authority adversely affecting them, but to have the Commission ordered to use the powers which it possesses as an institution under, on the one hand, Article 155 of the Treaty and Article 64 of the Staff Regulations, and, on the other hand, Articles 173(1 ) and 175(1 ) of the Treaty .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Sickness expenses - Reimbursement ceilings - Whether permissible - Conditions

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 72)

2. Officials - Action - Action seeking, in the absence of an act adversely affecting the applicant, judicial review of a provision of general application - Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91)

3. Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Sickness expenses - Reimbursement - Obligations of the institutions - Observance of the principle of equal treatment

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 72)

Summary

1. Article 72 of the Staff Regulations does not confer on persons covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme the right to obtain reimbursement of 80% or 85% of the expenses incurred, according to the type of services provided. Those rates fix the maximum reimbursable limit. They are not minimum rates and do not impose on the institutions an obligation to reimburse the persons concerned to the extent of those rates in all cases.

The fixing in the implementing provisions of upper limits for reimbursement in order to safeguard the financial equilibrium of the sickness insurance scheme does not constitute an infringement of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations provided that, in establishing those limits, the Community institutions observe the principle of social insurance cover underlying that article.

2. In proceedings brought under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations the Court has jurisdiction only to review the lawfulness of an act adversely affecting the applicant and is not entitled, in the absence of an individual implementing measure, to rule in the abstract on the lawfulness of a provision of a general nature.

3. The principle of equal treatment imposes on the Community institutions an obligation to take steps to provide a remedy for a situation of inequality affecting persons covered by a sickness insurance scheme who, in certain Member States, bear the cost of more expensive medical services.

However, the institutions cannot be required to increase immediately the reimbursements allowed to the officials concerned, all the more so since the financial equilibrium of the scheme must be safeguarded. On the other hand, it is for the institutions to act in concert, with all the diligence necessary, in order to achieve an appropriate revision of the rules relating to sickness insurance cover which ensures that the principle of equal treatment is observed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Actions - Interest in bringing an action - Action, by a candidate for a vacant post, for annulment of the appointment of another candidate - Admissibility - Conditions - Objective possibility of the candidate being appointed

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Purpose - Examination of applications in relation to the conditions of the notice - Discretion of the administration - Limits - Compliance with conditions laid down in the vacancy notice

(Staff Regulations, Art. 4)

3. Officials - Promotion - Discretion of the administration - Review by the Court - Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

Summary

1. Whilst it is true that an official who has submitted an application for a vacant post has no legitimate interest in securing annulment of the appointment of another candidate for that post if he himself cannot validly claim to be eligible for it, the position is different in the case of an official who meets the requirements of the vacancy notice and whose merits make him eligible for the post in question.

2. The essential function of the vacancy notice is to give those interested the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for the post in order to enable them to judge whether they should apply for it. The vacancy notice thus constitutes the legal framework which the appointing authority imposes on itself so that, if it discovers that the conditions laid down by the vacancy notice are more exacting than the needs of the service demand, it is entitled to re-open the promotion procedure by withdrawing the original vacancy notice and putting an amended one in its place.

3. In order to evaluate the interests of the service and the merits to be taken into account for the purposes of a promotion decision provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority is vested with a wide discretion and, in that sphere, the review by the Community judicature is limited to whether, having regard to the various considerations which have influenced the administration in making its assessment, it has remained within reasonable bounds and has not used its authority in a manifestly incorrect manner.

In that regard, the exercise of the discretion vested in the appointing authority calls for careful examination of the files and meticulous regard to the requirements laid down in the vacancy notice, that discretion being moderated by the obligation to examine with care and impartiality all the information relevant to each application.