ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 –

FU

(Case C‑554/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Regulation (EU) 2016/399 – Schengen borders code – Articles 22 and 23 – Abolition of internal border controls in the Schengen area – Checks within the territory of a Member State – Measures having an effect equivalent to border checks – Identity checks in the vicinity of an internal border of the Schengen area – Possibilities of checks irrespective of the behaviour of the person concerned or of the existence of specific circumstances – National framework concerning the intensity, frequency and selectivity of the checks)

1. Border controls, asylum and immigration – Community code on movement across borders – Abolition of border control at internal borders – Checks within the territory – National legislation conferring on the police authorities the power to check the identity of any person within an area of 30 kilometres from the land border of the Member State concerned with States parties to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Admissibility – Conditions – Verification by the national court (Art. 67(2) TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2016/399, Arts 22 and 23) (see paras 26, 27, 38, 40, 53-57, operative part)

2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Examination of the compatibility of national law with EU law – Not included – Providing the national court with full guidance on the interpretation of European Union law – Included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 28-31)

Operative part:

Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) must be interpreted as not precluding a national legislative provision which confers on the police authorities of the Member State in question the power to check the identity of any person, within an area of 30 kilometres from that Member State’s land border with other Schengen States, with a view to preventing or terminating unlawful entry into or residence in the territory of that Member State or preventing certain criminal offences which undermine the security of the border, irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned or the existence of specific circumstances, provided that that power is framed by sufficiently detailed specifications and limitations on the intensity, frequency and selectivity of the checks carried out, thereby guaranteeing that the practical exercise of that power cannot have an effect equivalent to border checks, which is, however, a matter for the referring court to verify.

( 1 ) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
3

Recitals 21 and 22 of Directive 2011/83 are worded as follows: ‘(21) An off-premises contract should be defined as a contract concluded with the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader, for example at the consumer’s home or workplace. In an off-premises context, the consumer may be under potential psychological pressure or may be confronted with an element of surprise, irrespective of whether or not the consumer has solicited the trader’s visit. The definition of an off-premises contract should also include situations where the consumer is personally and individually addressed in an off-premises context but the contract is concluded immediately afterwards on the business premises of the trader or through a means of distance communication. … Purchases made during an excursion organised by the trader during which the products acquired are promoted and offered for sale should be considered as off-premises contracts. (22) Business premises should include premises in whatever form (such as shops, stalls or lorries) which serve as a permanent or usual place of business for the trader. Market stalls and fair stands should be treated as business premises if they fulfil this condition. Retail premises where the trader carries out his activity on a seasonal basis, for instance during the tourist season at a ski or beach resort, should be considered as business premises as the trader carries out his activity in those premises on a usual basis. Spaces accessible to the public, such as streets, shopping malls, beaches, sports facilities and public transport, which the trader uses on an exceptional basis for his business activities as well as private homes or workplaces should not be regarded as business premises. …’
3

That application has been made in an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU brought by the Commission on 25 October 2019 (‘the action for failure to fulfil obligations') seeking a declaration that the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations: – under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU: – by allowing the content of judicial decisions to be treated as a disciplinary offence so far as concerns judges of the ordinary courts (Article 107(1) of the ustawa- Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts) of 27 July 2001 (Dz. U. No 98, item 1070), as amended (Dz. U. of 2019, item 1495) (‘the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts’) and Article 97(1) and (3) of the Law on the Supreme Court); – by failing to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Disciplinary Chamber, which has jurisdiction for the review of decisions issued in disciplinary proceedings against judges (Article 3(5), Article 27 and Article 73(1) of the Law on the Supreme Court, in conjunction with Article 9a of the ustawa o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa (Law on the National Council of the Judiciary) of 12 May 2011 (Dz. U. No 126, item 714), as amended by the ustawa o zmianie ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Law amending the Law on the National Council of the Judiciary and certain other laws) of 8 December 2017 (Dz. U. of 2018, item 3) (‘the Law on the KRS’)); – by conferring on the President of the Disciplinary Chamber the discretionary power to designate the competent disciplinary court of first instance in cases concerning the judges of the ordinary courts (Article 110(3) and Article 114(7) of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts) and, therefore, by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases are adjudicated on by a court ‘established by law’, and – by conferring on the Minister for Justice the power to appoint a Disciplinary Representative of the Minister for Justice (Article 112b of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts) and, therefore, by failing to guarantee that disciplinary cases against judges of the ordinary courts are heard within a reasonable period, and by providing that acts connected with the designation of counsel for the defence and that counsel’s conduct of the defence do not have a suspensory effect on the course of the disciplinary proceedings (Article 113a of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts) and that the disciplinary court is to conduct the proceedings despite the justified absence of the notified accused or his or her defence counsel (Article 115a(3) of the Law on the organisation of the ordinary courts) and, therefore, by failing to guarantee the rights of the defence of accused judges of the ordinary courts; – under the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU, by allowing the right of courts to refer questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court to be limited by the possibility of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 9)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 – Sarantos and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case C‑84/20 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – EU citizenship – Strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement – Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 – Action for annulment – Legal standing – Lack of individual concern – Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Obligation for a party to be represented by a lawyer – Applicant, also a lawyer, acting in his own name by signing the application himself, without engaging the services of a third-party lawyer to represent him – Appeal manifestly unfounded)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU – Any act of general scope other than legislative acts (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 29)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation on strengthening the security of identity documents of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to those citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement – Action of Greek citizens – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2019/1157) (see paras 31, 32)

3. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Absolute bar to proceeding – Seriousness of the failure of the institution concerned to fulfil obligations – Irrelevant (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 34)

4. Fundamental rights – Right to effective judicial protection – Review of legality of EU measures – Procedures – Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure – Possibility of using an annulment action or reference for a preliminary ruling on validity (Arts 19(1) TEU; Art. 263, fourth para., 267 and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paras 36-39)

5. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer – Applicant with the status of lawyer authorised to practise before a national court – Irrelevant – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras.) (see paras 52-56)

Operative part

1. Dismisses the appeal brought by Mr Christos Papasotirou as inadmissible;

2. Dismisses the appeal brought by Mr Sarantis Sarantos, Mr Ioannis Fotopoulos, Mr Antonios Bousdekis, Mr Vasileios Kokolakis, Mr Estia Paterikon Meleton and Mr Charalampos Andralis as manifestly unfounded;

3. Orders Mr Sarantis Sarantos, Mr Ioannis Fotopoulos, Mr Antonios Bousdekis, Mr Vasileios Kokolakis, Mr Estia Paterikon Meleton, Mr Christos Papasotirou and Mr Charalampos Andralis to pay their own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see paragraph 14)
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 17 December 2020 – Anglo Austrian AAB and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB

(Case C‑114/20 P(R))

(Appeal – Interim order – Economic and monetary policy – Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Conferral of specific tasks on the European Central Bank (ECB) – Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation)

1. Appeal – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 36)

2. Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 37, 38)

3. Application for interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Damage foreseeable with a reasonable degree of probability (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 45, 49, 50, 56)

4. Application for interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Irreparable nature of the damage – Damage which cannot be quantified – Withdrawal of a credit institution’s authorisation – Precluded (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 51, 52)

5. Application for interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3)) (see paras 64, 65)

6. Appeal – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – Scope of the obligation to state reasons – Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 119) (see paras 86, 87)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 May 2021 – PONS HOLDING

(Case C‑703/20)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – National legislation laying down the imposition of a financial penalty on a legal person which has been enriched as a result of an offence committed by a natural person without the latter necessarily incurring criminal liability – Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 47 and 48 – Lack of connection to EU law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Subject matter of the national dispute not having any connection with EU law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1) and (2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

(see paragraphs 11, 15-18, operative part)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria) by decision of 9 December 2020.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 – Koppány 2007

(Case C‑523/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Social security – Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 – Applicable legislation – A1 certificate – Article 1 – Extension of A1 certificate to nationals of third countries residing legally in the territory of a Member State – Legal residence – Concept)

Social security – Migrant workers – EU rules – Scope ratione personae – Broadening to include third-country nationals who are not covered by those rules due to their nationality – Condition – Legal residence – Concept – Scope – Third-country nationals temporarily residing legally in a Member State and working lawfully in various Member States for an employer established in the first Member State – Included – Determination of the social security legislation according to the rules of EU law

(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 883/2004, No 987/2009 and No 1231/2010, Recitals 10 and 11 and Art. 1)

(see paras 23-29, 31, 32, operative part)

Operative part

Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality, must be interpreted as meaning that nationals of third countries who reside temporarily and have a residence permit in a Member State, and who have a document stating their place of accommodation issued by the immigration authority and work in different Member States for an employer established in that Member State, may rely on the coordination rules laid down by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004, in order to determine the social security legislation to which they are subject, provided that they are legally residing and working in the territory of the Member States.

( 1 ) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded – Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paras 9, 10)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Subject matter of the national dispute not having any connection with EU law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Arts 4(2) and 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 11, 51(1) and (2) and 52(3); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

(see paras 24-30, operative part)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2021 – Liberty Seguros

(Case C‑375/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles – Directive 2009/103/EC – Insurance contract concluded on the basis of false statements – International transport of persons and goods without authorisation – Nullity of the insurance contract – Enforceability against third-party victims and the body responsible for compensating victims)

1. Approximation of laws – Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Obligations of the Member States – General obligation to insure vehicles having their usual parking on their territory – Scope – Limits (European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103, Recitals 1, 2 and 20, and Art. 3) (see paras 54-57)

2. Approximation of laws – Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Extent of cover for third parties under compulsory insurance – Exclusion clauses – Scope – Limits – Obligation to interpret strictly (European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103, Arts 3(1) and 13(1), paras. 1 and 2) (see paras 58-63)

3. Approximation of laws – Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Extent of cover for third parties under compulsory insurance – National legislation providing for the nullity of insurance contracts concluded on the basis of false statements by the policyholder to be invoked against third party victims – International transport of persons and goods without authorisation – Inadmissibility (European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103, Arts 3, 1st para. and 13(1) and (2)) (see paragraphs 64-68, 70, 71, operative part)

4. Approximation of laws – Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Directive 2009/103 – Intervention of the body ensuring compensation to victims of road traffic accidents – Conditions – Limits (European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103, Arts 3 and 10(1)) (see para. 69)

Operative part

The first paragraph of Article 3 and Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which would have the effect of making it possible to invoke against third parties who are victims of a motor vehicle accident the nullity of a contract for motor vehicle insurance against civil liability that arises as a result of the policyholder conducting a commercial activity of international transport without authorisation and of the omissions or false statements of that person with regard to the insurance company at the time that contract was concluded, even though the third-party victims are passengers who could not have been unaware of that lack of authorisation.

( 1 ) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 November 2021 – AKZ – Burgas

(Case C‑602/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security contributions – Repayment of contributions wrongly paid – Limitation of interest on repayment – National procedural autonomy – Principle of equivalence – Principle of effectiveness – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context – Statement of the reasons for requiring an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Absence of explanations as regards the link between the provisions and principles of EU law relied on by the referring court and the national legislation applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94(a))

(see paras 20-28, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria) by decision of 30 September 2020 is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
14

In that context, the referring court states that the Austrian criminal authorities had indeed brought proceedings against two former members of the management board of Hypo Alpe Adria Bank International AG (‘Hypo Alpe Adria Bank’), a banking institution situated in Austria, and against GR and HS as accomplices of those two former members. According to the indictment drawn up by the Staatsanwaltschaft Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Public Prosecutor’s Office, Austria), brought before the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Regional Court, Austria) on 9 January 2015, those former members of the management board were accused of breach of trust within the meaning of the Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code) for having approved, between September 2002 and July 2005, the grant of loans to Rezidencija Skiper and Skiper Hoteli, in a total amount of at least EUR 105 million, without having either complied with the requirements relating to the provision of sufficient own funds and the monitoring of the use of the funds or taken into account, first, the lack of documentation relating to the implementation of the projects justifying the grant of those loans and, second, the inadequacy of both the payment guarantee instruments and the repayment capacity of the companies concerned. GR and HS were also accused of having incited, by having sought the grant of those loans, those former members to commit the alleged breach of trust or of having aided in its commission.