ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 — Mitnitsa Burgas

(Case C‑652/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Article 3(1) — Infringement of the obligation to declare — Article 9(1) — Penalties provided for by national law — National legislation — Fine and confiscation of the undeclared sum by the State — Proportionality)

Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation No 1889/2005 — Obligation to declare — Infringement — Penalties — National legislation providing for the imposition of an administrative fine and the confiscation of the undeclared sum by the State — Not permissible — Breach of principle of proportionality

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1889/2005, Arts 3, 4(2) and 9(1))

(see paras 29, 31-34, 36, operative part 1)

Operative part

Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of penalising an infringement of the obligation to declare provided for in Article 3 of that regulation, provides that, in addition to the imposition of an administrative fine, the undeclared sum is to be confiscated by the State.

( 1 ) JO C 4 du 7.1.2019.
5

Directive 85/303 made certain substantive amendments to Directive 69/335, in particular to Articles 4(2) and Article 7 of that directive. The second and third recitals of Directive 85/303 stated: ‘Whereas the economic effects of capital duty are detrimental to the regrouping and development of undertakings; whereas such effects are particularly harmful in the present economic situation in which there is a paramount need for priority to be given to stimulating investment; Whereas the best solution for attaining these objectives would be to abolish capital duty; whereas, however, the losses of revenue which would result from such a measure are unacceptable for certain Member States; whereas the Member States must therefore be given the opportunity to exempt from or subject to capital duty all or part of the transactions coming within its scope, it being understood that a single rate of tax must be charged within one and the same Member State.’
4

Article 6 of the same directive, entitled ‘Compensation for recovery costs’, provides: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that, where interest for late payment becomes payable in commercial transactions in accordance with Article 3 or 4, the creditor is entitled to obtain from the debtor, as a minimum, a fixed sum of EUR 40. 2. Member States shall ensure that the fixed sum referred to in paragraph 1 is payable without the necessity of a reminder and as compensation for the creditor’s own recovery costs. 3. The creditor shall, in addition to the fixed sum referred to in paragraph 1, be entitled to obtain reasonable compensation from the debtor for any recovery costs exceeding that fixed sum and incurred due to the debtor’s late payment. This could include expenses incurred, inter alia, in instructing a lawyer or employing a debt collection agency.’
Appeal — Pleas in law — Pleas against the grounds of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part — Appeal inadmissible

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 30-33, 37)
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 21 March 2019 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission

(Case C‑4 /19 P(R)]

(Appeal — Application for interim measures — Competition — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives sector — European Commission decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision 2011/695/EU — Dismissal of an application for confidential treatment of the decision — Information claimed to be confidential — Publication — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Prima facie case )

1. Application for interim measures — 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 — Assessment in litigation of the protection of confidential information — Condition of prima facie case not satisfied (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) (see paras 12, 13, 18-23)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Professional secrecy — Establishing whether information is covered by professional secrecy — Balancing of the public interest in the transparency of EU action and legitimate interests opposed to disclosure — An undertaking’s interest in the non-disclosure of certain information in relation to its conduct — Interest not deserving any particular protection in the case of undertakings which participated in an infringement of EU competition rules (Arts 101 and 102 TFUE; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 28 and 30) (see paras 33-36)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 10 September 2019 — Lantmännen and Lantmännen Agroetanol v Commission

(Case C‑318/19 P(R))

(Appeal — Order for interim measures — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for biofuels — Manipulation of ethanol benchmarks — Settlement procedure — Access to allegedly confidential documents — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Prima facie case)

1. Applications for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Assessment in litigation on the protection of confidential information — Burden of proving the confidential nature of the information in question (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 48, 49)

2. Applications for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Damage resulting from the publication of confidential information — Burden of proving the irreparable nature of the damage despite the irreversible nature of the disclosure of the information (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 55-58, 66-68)

3. Applications 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 — Assessment in litigation on the protection of confidential information — Condition relating to urgency not met (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 73-77)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
1.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Similarity of the marks concerned — Degree of similarity required (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 6)
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 para. 11)
1.

The concept of ‘school or university education’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover surfing and sailing courses given by surfing and sailing schools, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, for schools or universities, in which that teaching may fall under the sporting activities programme or physical education teacher training and count towards grading.
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 8, 16, 17)
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 paras 6, 7)
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Burden of proof

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

(see para. 10)
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)
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 16, 17, 43, 44)
1.

Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning the failure to discharge financial obligations imposed by national law on the co-owners of a building must be regarded as falling within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation.
Appeal – Grounds – Error of law by the judge hearing the application for interim measures – Grounds in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded – Rejection

(Art. 17(1) TEU; Arts 256 and 265 TFEU; EC-Switzerland Agreement on Free Movement of Persons)

(see paras 44, 46-49)
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 para. 26)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Whether admissible – Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 19-28, 33, 35-38, operative part)
4

In support of their application, the JPMC companies state, in essence, that they brought an action, registered at the Registry of the General Court as Case T‑106/17, against the contested decision, which is also addressed to them, and that that action relates to the same issues as those at issue in the present appeal. They point out that the General Court decided, on the basis of Article 69(1)(b) of its Rules of Procedure, to stay the proceedings in that case pending the judgment of the Court of Justice in the present appeal. It is clear from the latter decision that Case T‑106/17 was stayed because of the existence of common pleas in law with those raised in Case T‑105/17 and, consequently, in the appeal present case. They argue that the existence of common pleas in law is further confirmed by the judgment under appeal. The JPMC companies infer from this that the judgment to be delivered in the present case on appeal will have a direct impact on the outcome of their own action for annulment. In those circumstances, the JPMC companies stress that it would be unfair for the Court to rule on issues which will be decisive for the resolution of their action without hearing them on those issues.
13

Real Decreto Legislativo 2/2015 (Royal Legislative Decree 2/2015) of 23 October 2015 (BOE No 255 of 24 October 2015, p. 100224) approved the consolidated text of the Ley del Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Law on the Workers’ Statute) (‘the Workers’ Statute’). Article 33(1), (2) and (5) of that statute is worded as follows: ‘1. [Fogasa], an autonomous body accountable to the Ministry of Employment and Social Security, which has legal personality and the capacity to act in order to achieve its objectives, shall pay to workers any remuneration which is unpaid on account of the insolvency or administration of the employer. For the purposes of the preceding paragraph, remuneration shall be deemed to include the amount which the conciliation agreement or the judicial decision recognises as such by virtue of the definition in Article 26(1), as well as outstanding remuneration falling due during proceedings challenging a dismissal in cases where this is payable in accordance with the law, although [Fogasa] cannot pay, in one capacity or another, jointly or separately, an amount greater than the product of two times the minimum daily interprofessional wage, including the proportional share of any bonus, and the number of days of unpaid remuneration, up to a maximum of 120 days. 2. In the cases referred to in the previous paragraph, [Fogasa] shall pay the compensation fixed by a judgment, an order, a judicial conciliation settlement or an administrative decision in favour of workers by reason of the dismissal or the termination of contracts in accordance with Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the present Law or by reason of the termination of contracts in accordance with Article 64 of Law 22/2003 of 9 July 2003 on insolvency, and also the compensation for the termination of temporary or fixed‑term contracts in cases provided by the law. In all cases, a maximum of one year’s remuneration shall be paid, taking into account that the daily wage, taken as the basis for that computation, may not exceed two times the minimum interprofessional wage, including the proportional share of any bonus. The amount of compensation, for the sole purpose of its payment by [Fogasa] in cases of dismissal or the cancellation of a contract in accordance with Article 50 of this Law, shall be computed on the basis of 30 days per year of employment and may not exceed the ceiling fixed in the previous paragraph.’ … 5. [Fogasa] shall be funded by the contributions paid by all employers […] whether public or private. The contribution rate shall be set by the government on the salaries on which the calculation of the contribution, intended to cover the risks in relation to accidents at work, occupational diseases and unemployment in the social security system, is based.’
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 4 June 2020 – Société des produits Nestlé v Amigüitos pets & life and EUIPO

(Case C‑97/20 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

1. 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 Union law – Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 13)

2. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a and 170b) (see paras 14-16)

3. 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 Union law – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed failing to show the significance of the issue – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a and 170b) (see paras 17-19, 21, 23-25)

4. 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 Union law – Incompatibility with the Court’s case-law – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed failing to show the significance of the issue – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a(1) and 170b) (see para. 20)

5. 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 Union law – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Precluded (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para. and 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a(1) and 170b) (see para. 22)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context – Existence of certain cross-border interest – Existence of information enabling a useful answer – None – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/24, Art. 4; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

(see paras 36-39)
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 para. 13)
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. 11)
1.

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 – Plea alleging distortion of the facts – Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 36, 37, 85, 86)
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – 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. 11)
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 – Requirement that the distortion be obvious from the documents in the file

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 4, 14-16)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 July 2021 –

XX and Others, members of the Uniunea Revoluţionarilor din România v Romania and Others

(Case C‑728/20)

(Action for damages brought by natural persons against a Member State – Action seeking a declaration that the European Parliament and the European Commission failed to act – Application for recognition of the status of politically persecuted persons – Declaration that rights guaranteed by national rules have been infringed – Purely internal situation – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court )

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Interpretation of national law – Precluded (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 13)

2. Judicial proceedings – Action brought by a natural or legal person against a Member State seeking compensation for damage and recognition of the status of a politically persecuted person – No jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Inadmissibility (see para. 14)

3. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Failure of the Parliament and of the Commission to define their position on the adoption of national rules penalising the failure by certain actors to comply with EU law – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 265, third para., TFEU) (see para. 15)

4. 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; 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 paras 16, 17)

Operative part

1. The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to rule on the action in so far as it seeks an order requiring Romania to pay compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by XX and Others, members of the Uniunea Revoluţionarilor din România, and recognition of the latter as politically persecuted persons in Romania.

2. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so far as it seeks a declaration as to the alleged failure to act on the part of the European Parliament and of the European Commission.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context – Extent of the obligation in the sphere of competition – Insufficient information regarding that context – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 18-21, 32-36, 38)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 – J.P.

(Case C‑521/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Directive 1999/62/EC – Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures – Tolls – Non-payment – Penalties – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 50 – Ne bis in idem principle – Article 94(c) of the Rules of Procedure – Lack of sufficient information – No link between the interpretation of EU law that is sought and the actual facts of the main action or its purpose – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer – Imposition of an administrative fine for non-payment of the toll for the use of a motorway section by a heavy goods vehicle – Subsequent imposition of other fines for identical offences that occurred on different dates – No link between the interpretation of EU law that is sought and the actual facts of the main action or its purpose – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 50; European Parliament and Council Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2011/76)

(see paras 17-18, 21-26, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Regional Administrative Court, Upper Austria, Austria), by decision of 15 October 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see paragraph 48)