ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — EuroChem Agro Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-583/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 273 - Fight against fraud - Declaration obligation relating to the transport of goods - Road freight electronic monitoring system - Penalty regime applicable to high-risk taxpayers - Proportionality)

(2022/C 64/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EuroChem Agro Hungary Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the order

Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation under which taxpayers classified as ‘high-risk taxpayers’, within the meaning of national law, are required to pay a fine intended to penalise irregularities in shipment of goods declarations, the amount of which cannot in any circumstances be less than 30 % of 40 % of the value of the goods.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — proceedings brought by Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije, intervening parties: Državni zbor Republike Slovenije, Vlada Republike Slovenije

(Case C-486/20) (1)

(2023/C 15/37)

Language of the case: Slovenian

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

(1) OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 March 2022 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Lukovit — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against AZ

(Case C-454/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Transport - Directive 1999/37/EC - Registration documents for vehicles - Directive 2014/45/EU - Periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles - Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties - Driving a motor vehicle which is not duly registered - Penalties - No implementation of EU law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2022/C 359/15)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Lukovit

Criminal proceedings against

AZ

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Rayonen sad Lukovit (District Court, Lukovit, Bulgaria) by decision of 23 September 2020.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 31 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — EF v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-172/21) (1)

(2021/C 357/26)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
1.

Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the requirement of transparency of contractual terms in the context of a mortgage loan must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation and case-law which exempt the seller or supplier from providing to the consumer, at the time of conclusion of a mortgage loan agreement, information related to the previous fluctuations of the reference index over at least the previous two years by means of a comparison with at least one different index such as the Euribor index, provided that that national legislation and case-law nevertheless enable the court to satisfy itself that the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect was able, in the light of the publicly available and accessible information and, where appropriate, the information provided by the seller or supplier, to understand the specific functioning of the method used for calculating the reference index and thus evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the potentially significant economic consequences of such a term on his or her financial obligations.
Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret — Danmark) — Orion Corporation v Lægemiddelstyrelsen, in the presence of: Teva Danmark A/S

(Case C-165/21) (1)

(2021/C 368/32)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 206, 31.05.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Leonardo SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale del Lazio

(Case C-550/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Common system of value added tax - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 165/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leonardo SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale del Lazio

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Provincial Tax Court, Rome, Italy), by decision of 21 July 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) Date lodged: 6.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 26 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — E, F v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-456/21) (1)

(2022/C 84/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

(1) OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Rozhlas a televízia Slovenska v CI

(Case C-638/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Scope - Legal relationship between a national radio broadcaster and a natural person who is subject to the radio fee - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 244/12)

Language of the case: Slovak.

Referring court

Okresný súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rozhlas a televízia Slovenska

Defendant: CI

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling lodged by the Okresný súd Prešov (District Court, Prešov, Slovakia), by decision of 8 September 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) Lodged on: 19.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Járásbíróság — Hungary) — JH v Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)

(Case C-771/21) (1)

(2022/C 222/42)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

(1) OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 — Marie-Christine Arnautu v European Parliament

(Case C-573/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Law governing the institutions - Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament - Article 33(1) and (2) - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of undue payments - Plea of illegality - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Assessment of the evidence - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2022/C 368/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marie-Christine Arnautu (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

2. Ms Marie-Christine Arnautu shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — EUROBANK BULGARIA v NI, RZ, DMD DEVELOPMENTS

(Case C-445/21) (1)

(2022/C 359/66)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

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

(1) OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of 5 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — J.K., B.K. v Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe X

(Case C-452/21) (1)

(2023/C 24/42)

Language of the case: Polish

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

(1) OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.
Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 21 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — AB, AB-CD v Z EF

(Case C-265/21) (1)

(2022/C 408/46)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.
Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Passengers friend GmbH v British Airways plc

(Case C-89/22) (1)

(Air transport - Compensation of air passengers in the event of long delay of flights - Connecting flight consisting of two legs - Significant delay to final destination on the second leg operated by a non-European airline - Compensation claim against the European airline that operated the first leg)

(2022/C 207/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Passengers friend GmbH

Defendant: British Airways plc

Operative part of the order

Case C-89/22 is removed from the Register of the Court.

(1) Date lodged: 10 February 2022
Order of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 3 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Eilenburg — Germany) — YS, RW v Freebird Airlines Europe Ltd.

(Case C-302/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation for air passengers in the event of long delays to flights - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Extraordinary circumstances - Collision between an aircraft and birds - Emergency braking manoeuvre leading to damage to the tyres of that aircraft)

(2023/C 15/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Eilenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: YS, RW

Defendant: Freebird Airlines Europe Ltd.

Operative part of the order

Article 5(3) of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that

the interruption of the take-off phase of an aircraft caused by the collision of that aircraft with birds and resulting in an emergency braking manoeuvre damaging the tyres of that aircraft comes within the scope of the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, for the purposes of that provision.

(1) Filing date: 6. 5.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 20 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — F v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-208/22) (1)

(2022/C 368/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

(1) OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.
—

Is the envisaged agreement (1) compatible with the provisions of the Treaties (Article 16 TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 7, 8 and Article 52(1)) as regards the right of individuals to protection of personal data?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/3

Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 16 May 2017 — European Commission

(Opinion 2/15) (1)

((Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore - ‘New generation’ trade agreement negotiated after the entry into force of the EU and FEU Treaties - Competence to conclude the agreement - Article 3(1)(e) TFEU - Common commercial policy - Article 207(1) TFEU - Trade in goods and services - Foreign direct investment - Public procurement - Commercial aspects of intellectual property - Competition - Trade with third States and sustainable development - Social protection of workers - Environmental protection - Article 207(5) TFEU - Services in the field of transport - Article 3(2) TFEU - International agreement which may affect common rules or alter their scope - Rules of secondary EU law concerning freedom to provide services in the field of transport - Non-direct foreign investment - Article 216 TFEU - Agreement necessary in order to achieve one of the objectives of the Treaties - Free movement of capital and of payments between Member States and third States - Succession of treaties concerning investment - Replacement of the investment agreements between Member States and the Republic of Singapore - Institutional provisions of the agreement - Investor-State dispute settlement - Dispute settlement between the Parties))

(2017/C 239/03)

Language of the procedure: all the official languages

Requested by

European Commission (represented by: U. Wölker, B. De Meester, R. Vidal-Puig and M. Kocjan, acting as Agents)

Operative part

The Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore falls within the exclusive competence of the European Union, with the exception of the following provisions, which fall within a competence shared between the European Union and the Member States:

— the provisions of Section A (Investment Protection) of Chapter 9 (Investment) of that agreement, in so far as they relate to non-direct investment between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore;

— the provisions of Section B (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) of Chapter 9; and

— the provisions of Chapters 1 (Objectives and General Definitions), 14 (Transparency), 15 (Dispute Settlement between the Parties), 16 (Mediation Mechanism) and 17 (Institutional, General and Final Provisions) of that agreement, in so far as those provisions relate to the provisions of Chapter 9 and to the extent that the latter fall within a competence shared between the European Union and the Member States.

(1) OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Actions - Conditions of admissibility - Public policy - Examination of its own motion - Act adversely affecting an official - Preparatory measure - Exclusion

( Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91 )

2 . Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Time-limits - Public policy

( Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91 )

Operative part

hereby :

( 1 ) Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

( 2 ) Orders the parties to bear their own costs .
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Decision of an internal nature providing that a consultative procedure not prescribed by the Staff Regulations should take place - Compulsory nature of the consultation

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 45 )

2 . Officials - Promotion - Administration' s discretion - Judicial review - Limits

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 45 )

3 . Officials - Actions - Submissions - Misuse of powers - Concept

Operative part

hereby :

1 . Dismisses the application;

2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs .
Case T-63/89

Edward Patrick Latham

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Staff repon — Compensation for damage’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 24 January 1991 21

Summary of the Judgment

Delay in completing the reporting procedure cannot in any event, of itself, affect the validity of the periodic report or, in consequence, justify the annulment thereof.

Value judgments in respect of officials in staff reports are not open to review by the Court; such review is limited to any irregularities of form, manifest errors of fact vitiating the assessments made by the administration and any misuse of power.

A decision of a Community institution communicated to all its staff and intended to guarantee the officials concerned the same treatment regarding the reporting procedure, such as a guide to staff reports, even though it cannot be regarded as a general implementing provision within the meaning of Article 110 of the Staff Regulations, constitutes an internal directive and must, as such, be regarded as a rule of conduct, indicating the practice to be followed, which the administration imposes on itself and from which it may not depart without specifying the reasons for doing so, since otherwise the principle of equality of treatment would be infringed.

The primary function of the staff report is to provide the administration with periodic information, which is as complete as possible, on the performance of their duties by officials. The staff report cannot truly fulfil that function if the superiors in the other departments in which the official in question discharged his duties during the reference period are not consulted in advance by the assessor and given an opportunity to make any comments. The absence of such consultation constitutes a substantial procedural irregularity of such a kind as to render the staff report invalid.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Recruitment - Competition - Competition based on qualifications and tests - Admission requirements - Laid down by the notice of competition - Introduction by the Selection Board of requirements not mentioned in the notice of competition - Not permissible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 30; Annex III, Art. 5)

2. Officials - Action - Action for damages - Annulment of the contested unlawful act - Appropriate reparation for non-material damage

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

Summary

1. Although it is for the Selection Board for a competition based on qualifications and tests to assess in each case whether the certificates or work experience of each candidate correspond to the level required by the Staff Regulations and by the notice of competition, it is still bound by the wording of the notice of competition as published. According to the Staff Regulations, the basic function of the notice of competition is precisely to give those interested the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for the post to enable them to judge, first, whether they should apply for it and, secondly, what supporting documents are important for the proceedings of the Selection Board and must therefore be enclosed with the application form.

The system laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations would be deprived of its substance if, in selecting the candidates to be admitted to the tests, the Selection Board could apply requirements which do not appear in the notice of competition and, therefore, go beyond a comparative examination of the candidates on the basis of the qualifications required. Such a power would be incompatible with the division of powers between, on the one hand, the appointing authority, which has a broad discretion in drawing up the requirements of the competition, and, on the other, the Selection Board, which is bound by these requirements in carrying out its task under Article 30 of the Staff Regulations.

Consequently, in a competition based on qualifications and tests the Selection Board may not exclude a candidate from the tests of the competition on the ground that he does not meet a requirement which was not mentioned in the notice of competition.

2. The annulment of an administrative act challenged by an official constitutes appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation for any non-material damage which he may have suffered.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Adverse effect on competition ° Criteria for assessment ° Anti-competitive object ° Finding to that effect sufficient

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(1))

2. Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Effect on trade between Member States ° Criteria

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(1))

3. Competition ° Fines ° More than one infringement ° Imposition of a single fine ° Permissible

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15)

4. Competition ° Fines ° Amount ° Determination ° Criteria ° Turnover of the undertaking concerned ° Infringement involving only some of the various types of the same product making up a single market ° Possibility of adopting the aggregate turnover on the relevant market

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15)

Summary

1. For the purposes of applying Article 85(1) of the Treaty, there is no need to take account of the concrete effects of an agreement when it is apparent that it has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market.

2. Article 85(1) of the Treaty does not require the restrictions of competition ascertained actually to have appreciably affected trade between Member States but merely requires that it be established that they were capable of having that effect.

3. The Commission may, under Article 15 of Regulation No 17, impose a single fine for several infringements. That applies particularly where several infringements were concerned with the same type of conduct on different markets, in particular the fixing of prices and of quotas and exchange of information, and the undertakings involved in those infringements were largely the same.

Moreover, the imposition of a single fine does not prevent the undertaking concerned from verifying whether the Commission has correctly appraised the gravity and duration of the infringements or the Community judicature from carrying out its review of legality provided that the decision in question, read as a whole, provides the undertaking with the indications necessary for it to identify the different infringements for which it is criticized and the specific features of its conduct.

4. In the case of an infringement of the competition rules concerning only some of the various types of the same product making up a single market, the Commission may, in fixing the amount of the fine under Article 15 of Regulation No 17, take account of the turnover of the undertaking concerned in that market as a whole, since that figure may give an indication of the extent of the infringement, which must have had an impact on the prices of the types of product to which it did not relate.