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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 9 November 2020 — Ligebehandlingsnævnet as representative of A v HK/Danmark and HK/Privat

(Case C-587/20)

(2021/C 44/30)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ligebehandlingsnævnet as representative of A

Defendant: HK/Danmark and HK/Privat

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Fagbevægelsens Hovedorganisation (FH)

Question referred

Must Article 3(1)(a) of the Employment Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that a politically elected sector convenor of a trade union is covered by the scope of the directive in the circumstances described [in the request for a preliminary ruling]?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Överklagandenämnden för studiestöd (Sweden) lodged on 25 November 2020 — MCM v Centrala studiestödsnämnden

(Case C-638/20)

(2021/C 53/33)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Överklagandenämnden för studiestöd

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MCM

Defendant: Centrala studiestödsnämnden

Questions referred

May a Member State (the country of origin), in respect of a returning migrant worker’s child, notwithstanding Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation [No] 492/2011, (1) and taking into consideration the budgetary interests of the country of origin, lay down a requirement for the child to have a connection with the country of origin in order to grant that child student financial aid to study abroad in the other EU Member State where the child’s parent previously worked (the host country), where

(i) after returning from the host country, the child’s parent has lived and worked in the country of origin for at least eight years,

(ii) the child did not accompany his or her parent to the country of origin, but has remained since birth in the host country, and

(iii) the country of origin lays down the same requirement of a connection for other nationals in the country of origin who do not satisfy the residence requirement and who apply for student financial aid for studies abroad in another country in the EU?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).
1.

Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirement of protection against arbitrary interference by public authority in the sphere of a person's private activity, Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, in that the General Court held (i) that these provisions did not require the Commission to record oral statements by suppliers and (ii) that the ‘summaries’ of these interviews drawn up unilaterally by the Commission services constituted valid proof that the Commission had evidence justifying European Commission Decision C(2017) 1054;
Action brought on 17 December 2020 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-683/20)

(2021/C 53/37)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal, M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to draw up action plans and by failing to send the Commission a summary of the action plans for 445 major road sections, the Slovak Republic has infringed Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, in conjunction with Annex VI thereto;

— Declare that, by failing to draw up action plans and by failing to send the Commission a summary of the action plans for 16 major rail sections, the Slovak Republic has infringed Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, in conjunction with Annex VI thereto; and

— order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Slovak Republic was to ensure that action plans were drawn up for major road sections (roads with more than three million vehicle passages per year) and major rail sections (railways with more than 30000 train passages per year) within its territory by 18 July 2013. Under Article 10(2) of that directive, in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, the Slovak Republic was then to ensure that the summaries of the action plans were sent to the Commission by 18 January 2014.

The Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations stemming from Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of the Directive, in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, so far as concerns 445 major road sections and 16 major rail sections which it had previously notified to the Commission.

(1) OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 December 2020 — Comune di Lerici v Provincia di La Spezia

(Case C-719/20)

(2021/C 79/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Comune di Lerici

Respondents: Provincia di La Spezia

Questions referred

Does Article 12 of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of 26 February 2014 preclude national legislation which imposes a concentration of companies providing local public services of economic interest, as a result of which the economic operator succeeding the initial concession holder following transparent corporate transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, continues to operate the services until the agreed date, if:

(a) the initial concession holder is a company awarded the contract in-house on the basis of similar control where several other public authorities are shareholders in that company;

(b) the new economic operator has been selected by means of a public call for tenders;

(c) as a result of the concentration, the requirements for similar control where several other public authorities are shareholders in that company no longer apply in relation to some of the local authorities which originally awarded the service in question.

(1) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2020 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v OP

(Case C-627/20)

(2021/C 72/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: OP

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

(1) 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 December 2020 — Veridos GmbH v Ministar na vatreshnite raboti na Republika Bulgaria, Mühlbauer ID Services GmbH — S&T

(Case C-669/20)

(2021/C 88/18)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Veridos GmbH

Respondents in the appeal on a point of law: Ministar na vatreshnite raboti na Republika Bulgaria, Mühlbauer ID Services GmbH — S&T

Questions referred

1. Is Article 56 of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 69 thereof, or, respectively, Article 38 of Directive 2009/81/EC (2) in conjunction with Article 49 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority, where it is objectively impossible to apply the criterion laid down in national law for the evaluation of an abnormally low tender and in the absence of a different criterion selected by the contracting authority and announced in advance, is not required to verify whether an abnormally low tender exists?

2. Is Article 56 of Directive [2014/24] in conjunction with Article 69 thereof, or, respectively, Article 38 of Directive [2009/81] in conjunction with Article 49 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority is required to verify whether abnormally low tenders exist only if there is a suspicion regarding any tender; or, conversely, is the contracting authority required to always ensure that the received tenders are genuine, and state the relevant reasons?

3. Does such a requirement apply to the contracting authority if only two tenders have been received during the procedure for the award of a public contract?

4. Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority’s assessment as regards a lack of suspicion that an abnormally low tender exists, or, respectively, that contracting authority’s conviction that the first-ranked tenderer has submitted a genuine tender, is subject to judicial review?

5. Should the previous question be answered in the affirmative: Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority in a procedure for the award of a public contract which has not verified whether an abnormally low tender exists is required to provide justification and reasons as to why there is no suspicion that an abnormally low tender has been submitted, in other words, that the first-ranked tender is genuine?

(1) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(2) Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC (OJ 2009 L 216, p. 76).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 15 June 2020 by ZU against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2020 in Case T-499/19, ZU v EEAS

(Case C-266/20 P)

(2021/C 88/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

By order of 20 January 2021, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) decided that the appeal is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto Este — Penafiel — Juízo Trabalho (Portugal) lodged on 21 December 2020 — B v O, P, OP, G, N

(Case C-691/20)

(2021/C 110/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto Este — Penafiel — Juízo Trabalho

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B

Defendants: O, P, OP, G, N

Question referred

Is it contrary to EU law, specifically Article 18 TFEU, to exclude from the application of the rules laid down in Article 334 of the Código de Trabalho (Employment Code) undertakings established in another Member State, in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 481(2) of the Código das sociedades comerciais (Code on commercial companies)?
1.

Must the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, as amended), (1) in particular Articles 9, 295 and 296, be interpreted as precluding a national practice laid down in Article 15(4) and (5) of the Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów i usług (Law of 11 March 2004 on the tax on goods and services) (Journal of Laws [Dz. U.] of 2011, No 177, item 1054, as amended), which excludes the option of treating as separate VAT taxable persons spouses who engage in agricultural activity within an agricultural holding using their marital joint property?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 23 December 2020 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v C, B

(Case C-704/20)

(2021/C 128/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Respondents: C, B

Question referred

Does European Union law, more particularly Article 15(2) of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC; OJ 2008 L 348) (1) and Article 9 of the Reception Directive (2013/33/EU; OJ 2013 L 180), (2) read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2007 C 303/01), require a court of its own motion (ex officio) to assess whether all the conditions pertaining to detention have been met, including those where the foreign national has not disputed that compliance occurred, despite having had the opportunity to do so?

(1) Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

(2) Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96).
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Nysie (Poland) lodged on 21 December 2020 — Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v AP

(Case C-699/20)

(2021/C 310/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Nysie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB)

Defendant: AP

By order of 8 June 2021, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) declared the request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Nysie, II Wydział Karny (District Court, Nysa, 2nd Criminal Division) (Poland) to be manifestly inadmissible.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 12 November 2020 by Validity Foundation — Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Center for Independent Living Association against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 September 2020 in Case T-613/19, ENIL Brussels Office e.a. v Commission

(Case C-622/20 P)

(2021/C 217/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Validity Foundation — Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and Center for Independent Living Association (represented by: B. Van Vooren, advocaat, P. Bogaert, advocaat, L. Gorywoda, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Network on Independent Living Brussels Office (ENIL Brussels Office)

By order of 15 April 2021, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) decided that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and ordered appellants to bear their own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Germanwings GmbH v KV

(Case C-8/21)

(2021/C 88/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Germanwings GmbH

Defendant: KV

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

(1) 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
3.

Is an administrative practice under which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the supplier of immovable property is required to adjust the deduction of input tax on the acquisition/production of the immovable property, since the transaction for the sale of that property is regarded as a VAT-exempt supply of immovable property owing to the absence of a right to opt to charge VAT (the purchaser not having a VAT identification number at the time of conclusion of the transaction), although at the time of conclusion of the transaction the purchaser of the immovable property had applied for registration as a VAT payer, and was registered as a VAT payer one month after the conclusion of the transaction, consistent with the provisions of the Directive governing the supplier’s right to deduct VAT and adjustment of the deduction and with the principle of neutrality of VAT? In such a case is it important to determine whether the purchaser of the immovable property who registered as a VAT payer after the transaction really used the acquired property in activities subject to VAT and there is no evidence of fraud or abuse?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 22 January 2021 — Sense Visuele Communicatie en Handel vof (also trading under the name De Scharrelderij) v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-36/21)

(2021/C 128/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sense Visuele Communicatie en Handel vof (also trading under the name De Scharrelderij)

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Question referred

Does EU law preclude an assessment on the basis of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations under national law of whether a national administrative body has created expectations contrary to a provision of EU law and has thus acted unlawfully under national law in failing to compensate the injured party for the damage suffered as a result, where the injured party cannot successfully invoke the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations under EU law because it involves an unambiguous provision of EU law?
Action brought on 12 March 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-166/21)

(2021/C 148/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Perrin and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by depriving importers of ethyl alcohol used for the production of medicines who do not opt for the application of a duty suspension arrangement of the possibility of relying on the mandatory exemption from excise duty, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, (1) and has infringed the principle of proportionality;

— order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Poland introduced national legislation according to which importers of ethyl alcohol used for the production of medicines who do not opt for the application of a duty suspension arrangement are deprived of the possibility of relying on the exemption from excise duty.

In the Commission’s view, this constitutes a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 27(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, and has infringed the principle of proportionality.

According to that provision of the directive, where alcohol is used for the production of medicines, Member States are obliged to exempt it from excise duty under the conditions laid down by them for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of such exemptions and of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse. In the Commission’s view, making the exemption from excise duty dependent on the application of a duty suspension arrangement is not necessary for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of that exemption or of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse. It is also contrary to the principle of proportionality.

(1) OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.
2.

if the answer to the first question is yes, then in circumstances where a claim for social security is made incorrectly to a Member State of origin, when It should have been made to a second Member State, is the obligation of the second Member State pursuant to art. 81 of regulation 883/2004 (specifically, the obligation to treat a claim to the Member State of origin as being admissible in the second Member State) to be interpreted as being entirely independent of the applicant's obligation to give correct information regarding her place of residence pursuant to art, 76(4) of regulation 883/2004, such that a claim made incorrectly to the Member State of origin must be accepted as admissible by the second Member State for the purposes of art. 81, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to provide correct information as to her place of residence in accordance with art. 76(4), within the period for making a claim prescribed by the law of the second Member State;
1.1.

If that question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for an act consisting in not having registered the sale of goods and not having recorded it by issuing a document evidencing the sale, administrative proceedings for the ordering of a coercive administrative measure and administrative penalty proceedings for the imposition of an assets penalty may be brought against the same person in a cumulative manner, taking account of the fact that that legislation does not at the same time impose on the authorities competent for conducting the two sets of proceedings and on the courts the obligation to ensure the effective application of the principle of proportionality with regard to the overall severity of all the cumulated measures in relation to the seriousness of the specific offence?