ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Is Article 1 of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of the Vienna Betting Terminal Duty Law which provide for taxation of the operation of betting terminals are to be assessed as ‘technical regulations’ within the meaning of that provision?
Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 June 2019 in Case T-138/18, De Esteban Alonso v Commission

(Case C-591/19 P)

(2019/C 413/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Fernando De Esteban Alonso

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of 11 June 2019 (T-138/18);

— dismiss the action brought at first instance;

— order Mr De Esteban to pay in full the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal, alleging an incorrect legal classification of the facts in the light of Article 4 of Commission Decision No 1999/396, the Commission submits that the General Court should not have held that Mr De Esteban had to be ‘treated in the same way’ as the persons referred to by name in the note sent by OLAF to the French authorities on 19 March 2003 or at the very least regarded as being personally involved in the facts, whereas the person concerned did not fall within any of those categories.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the interpretation of Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1073/1999 according to which the institutions must take ‘such action, in particular disciplinary or legal,’ on the report submitted by OLAF ‘as the results … warrant’. The Commission claims that that provision cannot be interpreted a contrario as limiting the discretion available to it in the defence of the European Union’s interests and, in particular, as prohibiting it from appearing as a civil party in criminal proceedings and from filing a criminal complaint before the national authorities where it deems it appropriate in the light of the information available to it, including at a stage prior to the adoption of any OLAF report.

By its third ground of appeal, relied on in the alternative, the Commission claims that the General Court could not uphold the action for compensation since there was no causal link. The General Court unduly departed from its case-law according to which there is no sufficiently direct causal link between the forwarding of information by OLAF to the national authorities and the harm allegedly suffered.
—

Must Article 26(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty be interpreted as meaning that a claim held by an investor, which arose from a contract for the sale of electricity supplied at the border of the host State, can constitute an investment made in the area of another Contracting Party, in the case where the investor does not carry out any economic activity in the territory of that latter Contracting Party?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea (Romania) lodged on 11 September 2019 — S.C. Valoris S.R.L. v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Craiova — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Vâlcea and Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-677/19)

(2019/C 432/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Vâlcea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S.C. Valoris S.R.L.

Defendants: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Craiova — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Vâlcea and Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Are the principles of sincere cooperation, equivalence and effectiveness to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 1(2) of Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 52/2017 (Government Emergency Order No 52/2017), which has laid down a time limit of approximately 1 year for the lodging of applications for the reimbursement of certain taxes levied in breach of EU law, while domestic legislation lays down no similar time limit for the exercise of the right to reimbursement of sums levied in breach of domestic law?
4.

If the view is taken that the reasonableness of the limitation period must be subject to certain minimum preconditions, may reasonableness depend on the point in time at which a national law stipulates that the action may be brought?; is it reasonable for the limitation period to start to run on the date on which the agreement was concluded, or, conversely, does the principle that unfair terms are not binding require a prior or simultaneous declaration as to the invalidity of the costs clause so as to ensure that the borrower has a reasonable period within which to seek the reimbursement of the sums which have been unduly paid?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 23 April 2019 by Hércules Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2019 in Case T-134/17, Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case C-332/19 P)

(2019/C 432/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. (represented by: Y. Martínez Mata and S. Rating, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 6 November 2019, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Hércules Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. to bear its own costs.
1.

Do the conditions for issuing a European arrest warrant by the French prosecuting authorities, as provided for in Articles 695-16 et seq. of the Code de procédure pénale (Code of criminal procedure), fully satisfy the requirements for effective judicial protection within the meaning of EU law?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 12 September 2019 by Retail Royalty Co. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-54/18: Fashion Energy v EUIPO - Retail Royalty

(Case C-678/19 P)

(2020/C 10/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Retail Royalty Co. (represented by: M. Dick, Solicitor, and J. Bogatz, Rechtsanwältin)

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

By order of 20 November 2019 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Retail Royalty Co. shall bear its own costs.
Action brought on 21 November 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-849/19)

(2020/C 19/38)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, C. Hermes)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by not adopting within the prescribed periods all the necessary measures for establishing appropriate conservation objectives and appropriate conservation measures in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) which are on Greek territory and are included in Commission Decision 2006/613/EC (2) of 19 July 2006;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic has not established appropriate conservation objectives within the prescribed periods in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory.

Also, the European Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic has not established appropriate conservation measures within the prescribed periods in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory.

For those reasons, the Hellenic Republic has infringed Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

(2) Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1).
4.

Does Directive 93/13, interpreted in the light of the principle of effectivity of Community law, preclude national case-law in which a term or set of terms, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are considered to be ‘plain [and] intelligible’ for the purposes of the directive, on the grounds that: — the preliminary loan offer sets out in detail the exchange transactions carried out during the life of the credit and makes clear that the euro/Swiss franc exchange rate will be that applicable two working days before the date of the event that determines the transaction and which is published on the website of the European Central Bank; — it is stated in the offer that the borrower agrees to the Swiss franc/euro and euro/Swiss franc exchange transactions necessary for the transaction and repayment of the credit, and that the lender will convert the balance of the monthly payments after payment of the charges associated with the credit into Swiss francs; — the offer states that, if the exchange transaction results in a sum lower than the amount payable in Swiss francs, the amortisation of the capital will be less rapid and any unpaid capital in respect of a repayment period will be entered on the debit side of the account in Swiss francs, and that it is made clear that the amortisation of the capital of the loan will change according to upwards or downwards variations in the exchange rate applied to the monthly payments that that change may result in the extension or reduction of the loan amortisation period and, where appropriate, alter the total repayment cost; — the articles ‘internal account in euros’ and ‘internal account in Swiss francs’ describe the transactions carried out in each payment period to the credit and the debit of each account, and the contract explains in transparent terms the actual functioning of the foreign currency conversion mechanism in transparent terms; and although there is no express reference in the offer to the ‘exchange risk’ which is borne by the borrower since he does not receive income in the account currency, or any explicit reference to the ‘interest rate risk’?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 October 2019 — ‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna

(Case C-784/19)

(2020/C 27/24)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna

Question referred

Is Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems to be interpreted as meaning that, in order for it to be possible to assume that an undertaking engaged in providing temporary personnel normally carries out its activities in the Member State in which it is established, it has to perform a substantial part of the employee assignment activity for hirers established in the same Member State?

(1) OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1.
1.

Are payments which the purchaser of a product makes in addition to the purchase price, depending on his sales revenues, once a year for four years, in order to be able to sell the product — in a particular territory, — for the very first time, — exclusively and — permanently, royalties and licence fees within the meaning of Article 32(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (CC) (1) which are to be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods under Article 32(5)(b) CC in conjunction with Article 157(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of the Customs Code (CCIR) (2)?
Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-586/14 RENV, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission

(Case C-888/19 P)

(2020/C 45/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— reject the second limb of the first plea of the application at first instance, as re-stated in the contested judgment as unfounded;

— rule itself on the merits of the second limb of the first plea of the application at first instance, as re-stated in the contested judgment;

— refer the case back to the General Court so that it can decide upon the applicant’s remaining pleas on infringements in law; and

— order the applicant to pay the appellant’s legal costs and expenses of this procedure as well as the legal costs and expenses of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the basis of three separate grounds of appeal.

First ground: The General Court committed an error in law in the contested judgment in the interpretation and application of the related concepts of ‘significant distortions’ and ‘financial situation’ under Article 2(7)(c), third indent of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation (1) and the consequential shifting of the burden of proof for Market Economy Treatment (MET) from the applicant to the Commission.

Second Ground: The General Court did not respect the limits of the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Commission in the assessment of MET claims and substituted its own assessment of the exporting producer’s circumstances for that of the Commission.

Third Ground: The appellant seeks the annulment of the first paragraph of the operative part of the contested judgment on the grounds that the General Court, in making this determination, ruled ultra petita.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51).
2.

Under what conditions, if any, do the combined provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a legal system, such as the national system under consideration, which, in the light of an implicit decision that a contractual term is fair, a decision having acquired the force of res judicata, prevents the court hearing enforcement proceedings, called upon to rule on the consumer’s objection to the enforcement, from finding the term to be unfair? Moreover, can such a court be so precluded where — under the law as it was applied at the time that decision acquired the force of res judicata — it was not possible to consider whether the term was unfair because the guarantor could not be classified as a consumer?
3.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, should Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters be interpreted as meaning that it constitutes an independent basis for the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State in which the harmful event occurred, before which court the creditor who has acquired the claim from the injured party under compulsory insurance against civil liability brings an action against an insurance undertaking established in another Member State?
Appeal brought on 24 September 2019 by Ramón Guiral Broto against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-772/17 Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (C del M)

(Case C-713/19 P)

(2020/C 45/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Ramón Guiral Broto (represented by: A. Sirimarco, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Café del Mar, SC, José Les Viamonte, Carlos Andrea González and European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 12 December 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 24 October 2019 — Criminal proceedings against LG, MH

(Case C-790/19)

(2020/C 54/29)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Brașov

Parties to the main proceedings

LG, MH

Question referred

Must Article 1(3)(a) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the person who commits the act which constitutes the offence of money laundering must always be a person other than the person who commits the predicate offence (the alleged offence from which is derived the money that is laundered)?

(1) OJ 2015 L 141, p. 73.
2.

In the event of a negative answer to either of the questions raised in paragraph 1, may guidelines issued by a European supervisory authority be the subject of a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? If so, is it open to a professional federation to challenge, by means of a plea of invalidity, guidelines intended for the members whose interests it protects and which are not of direct or individual concern to it?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 15 March 2019 by István Szécsi and Nóra Somossy against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 16 January 2019 in Case T-331/18, István Szécsi und Nóra Somossy v European Commission

(Case C-236/19 P)

(2020/C 77/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: István Szécsi and Nóra Somossy (represented by: D. Lázár, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 1 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered Mr István Szécsi and Ms Nóra Somossy to bear their own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 17 July 2019 by Laurence Bonnafous against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2019 in Case T-614/17 Bonnafous v EACEA

(Case C-548/19 P)

(2020/C 77/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Laurence Bonnafous (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

By order of 27 November 2019, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly unfounded.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 13 November 2019 — XY v KLM Cityhopper BV

(Case C-829/19)

(2020/C 87/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XY

Defendant: KLM Cityhopper BV

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 17 January 2020.
2.

Must Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, incorporated into EU law by Council Directive 1999/70 and Directive 2001/23, be interpreted to the effect that there is no objective ground to justify the collective agreement for the construction sector (Article 24(5) of which provides that where a worker is hired for different work positions on two or more fixed-term contracts for a specific construction project with the same undertaking or group of undertakings within the period and for the duration laid down in Article 15(5) of the Workers’ Statute, the said worker is not to acquire the status provided for in Article 15(5) of the Workers’ Statute, both in the circumstances referred to in that provision and where one undertaking succeeds another, as provided for in Article 44 of the Workers’ Statute, or in the case of the transfer of workers under Article 27 of the collective agreement) contravening Spanish national legislation (under which Article 15(5) of the Workers’ Statute provides that ‘Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs 1(a), 2 and 3, workers who have been engaged, with or without interruption, for longer than 24 months over a period of 30 months in the same or a different work position with the same undertaking or group of undertakings on two or more temporary contracts, regardless of whether the workers have entered into the contracts directly or have been supplied by temporary employment agencies or whether the same or different fixed-term conditions apply to the said contracts, shall acquire the status of permanent workers. The provisions of the previous paragraph shall also apply where one undertaking succeeds another or in the case of the transfer of workers in accordance with provisions laid down by statute or in collective agreements’)?
1.

Is the Agreement on air transport of 21 June 1999 (1) between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community, as amended by Decision No 2/2010 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of 26 November 2010, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that 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, (3) is applicable, in accordance with its Article 3(1)[(b)], also to passengers who depart on a flight from a third country and land at an airport in Switzerland in order subsequently to embark on a flight to a Member State?
1.

Do Article 15(c) and Article 2(f) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) preclude the interpretation and application of a provision of national law whereby a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict (in the sense that a civilian would, solely on account of his presence in the relevant region, face a real risk of being subject to such a threat), in cases in which that person is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his personal circumstances, can only exist where a minimum number of civilian casualties (killed and injured) has already been established?