ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Article 4(3) TEU and Article 101 TFEU, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by the national courts having jurisdiction, according to which the decision to initiate an investigation, adopted by the national competition authority, concerning an infringement of EU competition law rules, is the final action of that authority which may have the effect of interrupting the limitation period relating to its power to impose penalties and excludes any subsequent action, for the purpose of proceedings or investigation, from interrupting that period, where it becomes apparent, having regard to all elements of the limitation rules at issue, that such an exclusion presents a systemic risk that acts constituting such infringements may go unpunished, which it is for the referring court to verify.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — eurocylinder systems AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg

(Case C-324/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common commercial policy - Anti-dumping duties - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 3(9) - Threat of material injury - Factors - Article 9(4) - Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China - Invalidity)

(2021/C 110/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: eurocylinder systems AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China is invalid.

(1) OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
1.

The provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a term in a risk-weighted contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, such as share leasing agreements, must be regarded as unfair, since, having regard to the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the contract in question and by reference to the date of its conclusion, that term may create a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties during the performance of the contract, even though that imbalance could occur only if certain circumstances were to arise and, in other circumstances, that term could even benefit the consumer. In those circumstances, it is for the referring court to ascertain, in the light of the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract, whether a term fixing in advance the advantage which the seller or supplier is to enjoy in the event of premature termination of the contract was, from the time that contract was concluded, liable to create such an imbalance.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket

(Case C-193/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Consultation of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the examination of an application for a residence permit made by a third-country national for whom an alert has been issued in the SIS for the purposes of refusing entry - Article 25(1) - Schengen Borders Code - Entry conditions for third-country nationals - Article 6(1) and (5) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 7 and Article 24(2) - Refusal to renew a residence permit for the purposes of family reunification on the ground that the applicant’s identity cannot be established with certainty)

(2021/C 163/03)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 25(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990 and entering into force on 26 March 1995, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 265/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 March 2010, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which permits the issue, extension or renewal of a residence permit for the purposes of family reunification, requested from within the territory of that Member State by a third-country national who is the subject of an alert in the Schengen Information System for the purposes of refusing entry in the Schengen area and whose identity has not been able to be established by means of a valid travel document, only where the interests of the Member State which issued the alert and which has first been consulted have been taken into account and where the residence permit is issued, extended or renewed only for ‘substantive reasons’ within the meaning of that provision;

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) and, in particular, Article 6(1)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a third-country national who is in such a situation.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2021 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, European Parliament, European Chemicals Agency

(Case C-389/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals - European Commission decision authorising certain uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulfate red, substances listed in Annex XIV of that regulation - Substances of very high concern - Conditions of authorisation - Assessment of the lack of suitable alternatives)

(2021/C 138/03)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal, K. Mifsud-Bonnici and G. Tolstoy, and subsequently by R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents, and K. Nordlander, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev, J. Lundberg, H. Eklinder and A. Falk, and subsequently by: O. Simonsson, C. Meyer-Seitz, M. Salborn Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson, H. Shev and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by: J. Nymann-Lindegren, M.S. Wolff and P.Z.L. Ngo, and subsequently by: J. Nymann-Lindegren and M.S. Wolff, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent), European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard, A. Tamás and C. Biz, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and C. Schultheiss, and subsequently by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and J. Löfgren, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of 7 March 2019, Sweden v Commission (T-837/16, EU:T:2019:144);

2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3. Orders the effects of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5644 final of 7 September 2016 authorising certain uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulfate red in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council to be maintained until the European Commission has adopted a fresh decision on the application for authorisation submitted by DCC Maastricht BV;

4. Orders the European Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the European Parliament and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) each to bear their own costs relating to the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Firma Z v Finanzamt Y

(Case C-802/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90(1) - Reduction of the taxable amount - Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400) - Supplies of medicinal products - Granting of discounts - Hypothetical nature of the question referred - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2021/C 182/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Firma Z

Defendant: Finanzamt Y

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a pharmacy established in one Member State may not reduce its taxable amount where it carries out intra-Community supplies of pharmaceutical products, those supplies being exempt from value added tax in that Member State, to a statutory health insurance fund established in another Member State and it grants a discount to those persons covered by that insurance.

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — Academia de Studii Economice din Bucureşti v Organismul Intermediar pentru Programul Operaţional Capital Uman — Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale

(Case C-585/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 2 - Definition of ‘working time’ - Article 3 - Minimum period of daily rest - Workers having concluded several employment contracts with the same employer - Application by worker)

(2021/C 182/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Academia de Studii Economice din Bucureşti

Defendant: Organismul Intermediar pentru Programul Operaţional Capital Uman — Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 3 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that, where an employee has concluded several contracts of employment with the same employer, the minimum daily rest period provided for in Article 3 thereof applies to those contracts taken as a whole and not to each of those contracts taken separately.

(1) OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.
1.

Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS), read in conjunction with Article 8(1) and (3) of that decision, must be interpreted as meaning that a mobile satellite system does not have to be principally based, in terms of capacity of transmitted data, on the satellite component of that system and that complementary ground components of mobile satellite systems may be installed so as to cover the entire territory of the European Union, on the basis that that satellite component cannot ensure communications at any point of that territory with the ‘required quality’, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of that decision, understood as the level of quality necessary to provide the service offered by the operator of that system, provided that there is no distortion of competition and that that satellite component has real and specific usefulness, in that such a component must be necessary for the functioning of the mobile satellite system, save where there is independent operation of the complementary ground components, in the case of failure of the satellite component, which must not exceed 18 months;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A

(Case C-950/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 2006/43/EC - Statutory audit of annual and consolidated accounts - Article 22a(1)(a) - Recruitment of a statutory auditor by an audited entity - Waiting period - Prohibition on taking up a key management post in the audited entity - Infringement - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Expression ‘taking up a post’ - Scope - Conclusion of an employment contract with the audited entity - Independence of statutory auditors - External appearance)

(2021/C 189/04)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

A

Intervening party: Patentti- ja rekisterihallituksen tilintarkastuslautakunta

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22a(1)(a) of Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, as amended by Directive 2014/56/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 must be interpreted as meaning that a statutory auditor, such as a key audit partner, appointed by an audit firm in the context of a statutory audit engagement, must be regarded as holding a key management position in an audited entity, within the meaning of that provision, as soon as he or she concludes an employment contract with the latter relating to that post, even if he or she has not yet begun to actually perform his or her duties in that post.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili — Ġurisdizzjoni Kostituzzjonali — Malta) — Repubblika v Il-Prim Ministru

(Case C-896/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 2 TEU - Values of the European Union - Rule of law - Article 49 TEU - Accession to the European Union - No reduction in the level of protection of the values of the European Union - Effective judicial protection - Article 19 TEU - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Scope - Independence of the members of the judiciary of a Member State - Appointments procedure - Power of the Prime Minister - Involvement of a judicial appointments committee)

(2021/C 228/08)

Language of the case: Maltese

Referring court

Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili — Ġurisdizzjoni Kostituzzjonali

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Repubblika

Defendant: Il-Prim Ministru

Intervening party: WY

Operative part of the judgment

1. The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied in a case in which a national court is seised of an action provided for by national law and seeking a ruling on the conformity with EU law of national provisions governing the procedure for the appointment of members of the judiciary of the Member State to which that court belongs. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be duly taken into consideration for the purposes of interpreting that provision.

2. The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which confer on the Prime Minister of the Member State concerned a decisive power in the process for appointing members of the judiciary, while providing for the involvement, in that process, of an independent body responsible for, inter alia, assessing candidates for judicial office and giving an opinion to that Prime Minister.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — H. A. v État belge

(Case C-194/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 27 - Remedy - Whether account should be taken of circumstances subsequent to the transfer decision - Effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 217/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H. A.

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 thereof, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that the court or tribunal seised of an action for annulment of a transfer decision may not, in the context of the examination of that action, take account of circumstances subsequent to the adoption of that decision which are decisive for the correct application of that regulation, unless that legislation provides for a specific remedy entailing an ex nunc examination of the situation of the person concerned, the results of which are binding on the competent authorities, a remedy which may be exercised after such circumstances have arisen and which, in particular, is not made conditional on the deprivation of that person’s liberty or on the fact that implementation of that decision is imminent.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija — Latvia) — ‘CV-Online Latvia’ SIA v ‘Melons’ SIA

(Case C-762/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal protection of databases - Directive 96/9/EC - Article 7 - Sui generis right of makers of databases - Prohibition on any third party to ‘extract’ or ‘re-utilise’, without the maker’s permission, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of the database - Database freely accessible on the internet - Meta search engine specialising in job advertisement searches - Extraction and/or re-utilisation of the contents of a database - Risk to the substantial investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the content of a database)

(2021/C 289/10)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Rīgas apgabaltiesas Civillietu tiesas kolēģija

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘CV-Online Latvia’ SIA

Defendant:‘Melons’ SIA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that an internet search engine specialising in searching the contents of databases, which copies and indexes the whole or a substantial part of a database freely accessible on the internet and then allows its users to search that database on its own website according to criteria relevant to its content, is ‘extracting’ and ‘re-utilising’ that content within the meaning of that provision, which may be prohibited by the maker of such a database where those acts adversely affect its investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of that content, namely that they constitute a risk to the possibility of redeeming that investment through the normal operation of the database in question, which it is for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Natumi GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-815/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture and fisheries - Organic production and labelling of organic products - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Article 19(2) - Articles 21 and 23 - Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - Article 27(1) - Article 28 - Annex IX, point 1.3 - Processing of organic food - Non-organic ingredients of agricultural origin - Lithothamnium calcareum alga - Powder obtained by cleaning, grinding and drying the sediment of that alga - Classification - Use in organic foodstuffs for the purpose of calcium enrichment - Authorisation - Conditions)

(2021/C 278/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Natumi GmbH

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

intervener: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1584 of 22 October 2018, must be interpreted as precluding the use of a powder obtained from the cleaned, dried and ground sediment of the alga Lithothamnium calcareum, as a non-organic ingredient of agricultural origin, within the meaning of Article 28 of Regulation No 889/2008, as amended by Implementing Regulation 2018/1584, in the processing of organic foodstuffs, such as rice- and soya-based organic drinks, for the purpose of their enrichment with calcium.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 June 2021 — Czech Republic v European Commission, Republic of Poland

(Case C-862/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Social Fund (ESF) - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Partial cancellation of assistance for operational programmes in the Czech Republic - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 16(b) - Specific exclusion - Public service contracts relating to programme material intended for broadcasting)

(2021/C 310/05)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, O. Serdula, J. Vláčil and I. Gavrilová, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and P. Arenas, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — Titanium Ltd v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien

(Case C-931/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 43 and 45 - Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/8/EC - Articles 44, 45 and 47 - Provision of services - Point of reference for tax purposes - Concept of a ‘fixed establishment’ - Letting a property in a Member State - Owner of a property with its registered office on the island of Jersey)

(2021/C 289/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Titanium Ltd

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Wien

Operative part of the judgment

A property which is let in a Member State, in the circumstance where the owner of that property does not have his or her own staff to perform services relating to the letting does not constitute a fixed establishment within the meaning of Article 43 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and of Articles 44 and 45 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.