ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 22 June 2022 — SIA DOBELES AUTOBUSU PARKS, AS CATA, SIA VTU VALMIERA, SIA JELGAVAS AUTOBUSU PARKS, SIA Jēkabpils autobusu parks v Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs, Valsts SIA Autotransporta direkcija

(Case C-421/22)

(2022/C 326/17)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants in cassation: SIA DOBELES AUTOBUSU PARKS, AS CATA, SIA VTU VALMIERA, SIA JELGAVAS AUTOBUSU PARKS, SIA Jēkabpils autobusu parks

Other parties to the proceedings: Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs, Valsts SIA Autotransporta direkcija

Question referred

Do the second subparagraph of Article 1(1), Article 2a(2) and Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70, (1) as amended by Regulation (EU) No 2016/2338 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016, permit a compensation scheme which does not impose on the competent authority an obligation to compensate a public transport service provider in full, by periodically index-linking the fare chargeable under the contract (the compensation sum), for any increase in the costs connected with providing the service which fall outside the service provider’s control, and which, therefore, does not entirely eliminate the risk that the service provider will incur non-compensable losses?

(1) OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1.

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/2338 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 concerning the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail (OJ 2016 L 354, p. 22).
2.

If the first question is answered in the negative: Is a divorce on the basis of Articles 82, 87, 89 and 90 of the Spanish Civil Code to be treated in accordance with the rule contained in Article 46 of the Brussels IIa Regulation regarding authentic instruments and agreements?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 4 March 2022 by Magic Box Int. Toys SLU against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-549/20, Magic Box Int. Toys v EUIPO — KMA Concepts

(Case C-194/22 P)

(2022/C 340/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Magic Box Int. Toys SLU (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, KMA Concepts Ltd.

By order of 7 June 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal and ordered Magic Box Int. Toys to bear its own costs.
1.

‘Are Article 2(j) and Article 23 of “Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted” (1) to be interpreted as applying to the father of two children who were born in Belgium and who have been recognised as refugees there, whereas Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95/EU specifies that the family members of the beneficiary of international protection who are covered by Directive 2011/95/EU are such “in so far as the family already existed in the country of origin”?’
2.

Is it compatible with that aim for different protection to be afforded to the wolf depending on whether it is found north or south of the Douro River, bearing in mind (i) that, scientifically, that distinction is currently considered to be inappropriate; (ii) that the assessment of the conservation status of the wolf in the three regions where it is found in Spain (Alpine, Atlantic and Mediterranean) in the period 2013-2018 was unfavourable; (iii) that the wolf is a strictly protected species in almost every Member State and, in particular, because of a shared region, in Portugal; and (iv) the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the natural range and the territorial scope to be taken into account in order to assess the wolf’s conservation status, it being more consistent with that directive, including with Article 2(3) thereof, that the wolf should be included, without differentiating between north and south of the Douro, in Annexes II and IV, such that the capture and killing of wolves would be possible only if there is no satisfactory alternative pursuant to and subject to the requirements laid down in Article 16? If that distinction is considered to be justified,
2.

Second, it alleges that the General Court also erred in law in the interpretation of Article 2(1) and Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1150/2000, in conjunction with Article 217(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, and with Article 325 TFEU, which requires Member States to counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union, in so far as it found that the Czech Republic did not establish the customs duty concerned late when it failed to establish that customs duty in the days following the return of the representative of the Czech customs authorities, who had participated in the inspection mission carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in Laos in November 2007 (ground directed against paragraphs 94 to 126 of the judgment under appeal). The General Court is thus to have erred in its assessment of the legal framework, in the sense that it found that that legal framework enabled the Czech Republic to wait until OLAF provided the evidence gathered during the mission (and thus not to satisfy the obligation to establish the European Union’s entitlement to own resources), to the detriment of the European Union’s financial interests. The General Court should have interpreted the applicable EU law to the effect that the Czech Republic was required, under the duty of diligence, to request OLAF for the evidence gathered during the inspection mission immediately after the return of its representative from that mission, which would have enabled it to establish the European Union’s entitlement to own resources in the days following the return of the Czech representative from the inspection mission to Laos.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 June 2022 — Google Ireland Limited, Tik Tok Technology Limited and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited v Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (Komm Austria)

(Case C-376/22)

(2022/C 359/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants on a point of law: Google Ireland Limited, Tik Tok Technology Limited and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited

Defendant: Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (Komm Austria)

Questions referred

1. Must Article 3(4)(a)(ii) of Directive 2000/31/EC, (1) be interpreted as meaning that a measure taken against a ‘given information society service’ can also be understood as a legislative measure relating to a general category of certain information society services (such as communications platforms), or does the existence of a measure within the meaning of that provision require that a decision be taken in relation to a specific individual case (for example, concerning a communications platform identified by name)?

2. Must Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/31 be interpreted as meaning that failure to notify the measure taken to the Commission and the Member State in which the platform is established, which, under that provision, must be notified ‘in the shortest possible time’ (ex post facto) in the case of urgency, means that — following the expiry of a sufficient period for the (ex post facto) notification — that measure must not be applied to a given service?

3. Does Article 28a(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU, (2) as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808, (3) preclude the application of a measure as provided for in Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31 where it does not relate to broadcasts and user-generated videos made available on a video-sharing platform?

(1) Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1).

(3) Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities (OJ 2018 L 303, p. 69).
5.

If the legislation adopted to transpose clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC infringes Community law by failing to lay down any specific punitive measure which would ensure compliance with the objectives of that Community provision and bring to an end the job insecurity of public employees In the light of that situation, must the national judicial authorities proceed to order the conversion of an abusive temporary relationship into a permanent relationship which differs from that of a career civil servant but which gives the victim of the abuse job security to prevent that abuse from going unpunished and the undermining of the objectives of clause 5 of the Framework Agreement, even though such a conversion is not provided for in the domestic legislation, provided that the temporary relationship concerned was preceded by a selection process that was open to the public and complied with the principles of equality, merit and ability?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2022 — Maersk A/S v Allianz Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A.

(Case C-347/22)

(2022/C 368/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Maersk A/S

Defendant: Allianz Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A.

Questions referred

The facts and pleas in law are essentially the same and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling are identical to those in Case C-345/22.
2.

Will the answer to the first question be different it is considered that the post-clearance recovery has its origin in a transcript made, pursuant to a decision of 21 April 2017, of a criminal investigation initiated on the basis of evidence provided by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), within the framework of OLAF investigation CASE OF/2010/0697, AAA 2010/016-(2012)S01, in which it was concluded that the goods exported to the European Community in containers (…) and (…) on 3 April 2010 and in containers (…) and (…) on 24 April 2010 were of Chinese non-preferential origin?
1.

In light of the objective of the directive and Article 2(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on energy statistics, and in light of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 52(1) in conjunction with Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must the 33rd recital, Article 1, Article 3, Article 8 and Article 2(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2009/119/EC (2) of 14 September 2009 imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which persons who have made intra-Community acquisitions of petroleum coke for production purposes in accordance with point 3.4.23 of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 may be required to build up emergency stocks?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Lehliu-Gară (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against KN, LY, OC, DW

(Case C-230/22)

(2022/C 368/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Lehliu-Gară

Parties to the main proceedings

KN, LY, OC, DW

Question referred

Does Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (concerning respect for the principles of the rule of law and respect for human rights), in conjunction with Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, concerning the rights of the defence, and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, concerning the principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties, preclude national legislation which makes it a criminal offence to perform an act in breach of any law whatsoever, without expressly specifying the laws or legal provisions the breach of which gives rise to criminal liability?
1.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, does a municipality which, on the basis of municipal bylaws, imposes a ‘spa tax’ (of a certain amount per day’s stay) on visitors staying in the municipality (spa guests) for the provision of spa facilities (for example a spa park, a spa building, footpaths) carry out, by providing the spa facilities to the spa guests in return for a spa tax, an economic activity for the purposes of Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if the spa facilities are in any event freely accessible to everyone (and therefore also, for example, to residents not subject to the spa tax or to other persons not subject to the spa tax)?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire

(Case C-504/22)

(2022/C 424/31)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel)

Defendant: Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire

Questions referred

1. Is Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of 17 December 2013 (1) to be interpreted as authorising the extension of inter-trade agreements which establish more stringent standards than those laid down in Union rules not only in the case of ‘production rules’, mentioned in point (b) of Article 164(4), but also in all of the cases mentioned in points (a) and (c) to (n) thereof, in relation to which Article 164 provides that the extension of an inter-trade agreement may be requested?

2. Are rules fixing harvesting dates and marketing dates rules that can be laid down by inter-trade agreement and extended on the basis of Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of 17 December 2013 and, if so, are rules fixing harvesting dates and marketing dates ‘production rules’, as referred to in point (b) of Article 164(4) or, as Annex XVIa to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 (2) establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products[, as amended,] previously stipulated, ‘marketing rules’, as now referred to in point (d) of Article 164(4)?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 June 2022 — Criminal proceedings against PT, SD

(Case C-432/22)

(2022/C 408/38)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

PT, SD

Questions referred

In the context of criminal proceedings concerning charges brought for offences coming within the scope of EU law, is it compatible with the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU and the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter for a national law to impose a requirement under which a court other than the one hearing the case and before which all the evidence has been taken is to examine the substance of an agreement entered into between the public prosecutor and an accused person, whereby the reason behind that requirement is the fact that there are other co-accused persons who have not entered into an agreement?

Is a national law under which an agreement discontinuing criminal proceedings is to be approved only with the consent of all other co-accused persons and their defence counsel compatible with Article 5 of Framework Decision 2004/757, (1) Article 4 of Framework Decision 2008/841, (2) the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 52 of the Charter, in conjunction with Article 47 thereof?

Does the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter require a court, after having examined and approved an agreement, to decline to examine the charges against the other co-accused persons where it has ruled on that agreement in such a manner that it does not make any statement as to their involvement or express an opinion as to their guilt?

(1) Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking (OJ 2004 L 335, p. 8).

(2) Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime (OJ 2008 L 300, p. 42).
1.

Is Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) to be interpreted as authorising the extension of inter-trade agreements which establish more stringent standards than those laid down in Union rules not only in the case of ‘production rules’, mentioned in point (b) of Article 164(4), but also in all of the other cases, mentioned in points (a) and (c) to (n) thereof, in relation to which Article 164 provides that the extension of an inter-trade agreement may be requested?
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 September 2022 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-599/22)

(2022/C 424/45)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, B. Sasinowska and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that its designated air traffic service (ATS) provider complies with Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009, (1) the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Hellenic Republic has taken over three years to comply with Regulation No 29/2009 as regards ensuring the provision of data link services for the single European sky.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 of 16 January 2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky (Text with EEA relevance), OJ 2009 L 13, p. 3.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 25 August 2022 by YV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 June 2022 in Case T-533/16, YV and Others v Commission

(Case C-569/22 P)

(2022/C 441/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: YV (represented by: L. Levi, J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, YW, YZ, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 June 2022 in Case T-533/16, YV and Others v Commission;

— refer the present case to the Court of Justice for a ruling that the appellant’s action at first instance is well founded;

— order the defendant at first instance to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds:

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 45 TFEU, infringement by the General Court of its obligation to state reasons, error of legal characterisation and distortion of the contents of the file;

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of the purpose of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and breach of the general principle of proportionality.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 7 September 2022 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 June 2022 in Case T-657/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair II; Covid-19)

(Case C-588/22 P)

(2022/C 424/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: V. Blanc and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, D. Pérez de Lamo and S. Rating, abogados, E. Vahida, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that European Commission Decision C(2020) 3970 final of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 (2020/N) — Finland COVID-19: Recapitalisation of Finnair is void; and

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by the appellant, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

First, the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the existence of ‘serious doubts’ concerning the misapplication of the Temporary Framework and Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.

Second, the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the existence of ‘serious doubts’ concerning the infringement of the non-discrimination and proportionality principles.

Third, the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the existence of ‘serious doubts’ concerning the infringement of the fundamental freedoms of establishment and provision of services.

Fourth, the General Court and the Commission failed to adequately state reasons.