ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Agrimotion S.A. v ADAMA Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-912/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Article 52(1) - Parallel trade permit - Personal nature of that permit)

(2021/C 163/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrimotion S.A.

Defendant: ADAMA Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that only the holder of a parallel trade permit may place a plant protection product on the market in the Member State which granted that permit.

(1) OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2021 — John Dalli v European Commission

(Case C-615/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Allegedly illegal conduct of the European Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Termination of office of a Member of the Commission - Procedural rules governing the OLAF investigation - Opening of an investigation - Right to be heard - OLAF Supervisory Committee - Presumption of innocence - Assessment of the alleged damage)

(2021/C 138/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: John Dalli (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr John Dalli to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — RJ v Stadt Offenbach am Main

(Case C-580/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘working time’ - Period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system - Professional firefighters - Directive 89/391/EEC - Articles 5 and 6 - Psychosocial risks - Obligation to prevent)

(2021/C 182/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RJ

Defendant: Stadt Offenbach am Main

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) 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 a period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system, during which a worker must be able to reach the town boundary of his or her workplace within a 20 minute response time, in uniform with the service vehicle made available to him or her by his or her employer, using traffic regulations privileges and rights of priority attached to that vehicle, constitutes, in its entirety, ‘working time’, within the meaning of that provision, solely if it follows from an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the case, in particular the consequences of such a response time and, where appropriate, the average frequency of interventions during that period, that the constraints imposed on that worker during that period are of such a nature as to constrain objectively and very significantly the ability that he or she has to freely manage, during the same period, the time during which his or her professional services are not required and to devote that time to his or her own interests.

(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — X v Kuoni Travel Ltd

(Case C-578/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 90/314/EEC - Article 5(2), third indent - Package travel, package holidays and package tours - Contract concerning package travel concluded between a travel organiser and a consumer - Liability of the travel organiser for the proper performance of obligations arising from the contract by other suppliers of services - Damage resulting from the acts of an employee of a supplier of services - Exemption from liability - Event that cannot be foreseen or forestalled by the travel organiser or the supplier of services - Concept of a ‘supplier of services’)

(2021/C 182/13)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X

Respondent: Kuoni Travel Ltd

Intervener: ABTA Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The third indent of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours, in so far as it provides for a ground for exemption from liability of an organiser of package travel for the proper performance of the obligations arising from a contract relating to such travel, concluded between that organiser and a consumer and governed by that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of non-performance or improper performance of those obligations, which is the result of the actions of an employee of a supplier of services performing that contract:

— that employee cannot be regarded as a supplier of services for the purposes of the application of that provision, and

— the organiser cannot be exempted from its liability arising from such non-performance or improper performance, pursuant to that provision.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos — Greece) — AB v Olympiako Athlitiko Kentro Athinon — Spyros Louis

(Case C-511/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Workers placed under a labour reserve system until termination of their contract of employment - Wage reduction and reduction or loss of severance pay - System applicable to public-sector workers close to full-time retirement - Reduction of public-sector wage costs - Article 6(1) - Legitimate social policy objective - Economic crisis)

(2021/C 217/07)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Areios Pagos

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AB

Defendant: Olympiako Athlitiko Kentro Athinon — Spyros Louis

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which public-sector workers who, during a given period, fulfil the conditions for drawing a full pension are placed under a labour reserve system until the termination of their contract of employment, which entails a reduction in their pay, the loss of their possible advancement and the partial or even total cancellation of the severance pay to which they would have been entitled on termination of their employment relationship, where that legislation pursues a legitimate employment-policy objective and the means to achieve that objective are appropriate and necessary.

(1) OJ C 319, 23.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 March 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Prefettura Ufficio territoriale del governo di Firenze v MI (C-870/19), TB (C-871/19)

(Joined Cases C-870/19 and C-871/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Recording equipment in road transport - Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 - Article 15(7) - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Control proceedings - Administrative penalty - Failure to produce the record sheets for the tachograph relating to the current day and the previous 28 days - Single or multiple infringement)

(2021/C 189/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prefettura Ufficio territoriale del governo di Firenze

Defendants: MI (C-870/19), TB (C-871/19)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(7) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 and Article 19 of Regulation No 561/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that, should the driver of a road transport vehicle subject to an inspection fail to produce the record sheets of the recording equipment relating to several days of activity during the period covering the day of the inspection and the previous 28 days, the competent authorities of the Member State where the inspection was carried out must make a finding of a single infringement by that driver and impose on him or her only a single penalty for that infringement.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 April 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-537/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/18/EC - Public works contracts - Contract between a public body and a private undertaking for the lease of building not yet constructed - Article 1 - Realisation of a work corresponding to requirements specified by the tenant - Article 16 - Precluded)

(2021/C 228/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, M. Noll-Ehlers and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented: initially by M. Fruhmann, and subsequently by J. Schmoll, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd v Commissioner for Environmental Information

(Case C-470/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/4/EC - Right of access to environmental information held by public authorities - Article 2, point 2 - Notion of ‘public authority’ - Bodies or institutions when acting in a judicial or legislative capacity - Information in the file of closed court proceedings)

(2021/C 217/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd

Defendant: Commissioner for Environmental Information

Intervening party: Courts Service of Ireland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2, point 2, of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not govern access to environmental information contained in court files, where neither the courts nor the bodies or institutions under their control, which thus have close links with those courts, constitute ‘public authorities’ within the meaning of that provision and therefore do not fall within the scope of that directive.

(1) OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2021 — ABLV Bank AS (C-551/19 P), Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA (C-552/19 P) v European Central Bank

(Joined Cases C-551/19 P and C-552/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) and a Single Resolution Fund - Article 18 - Resolution procedure - Conditions - Entity failing or likely to fail - Declaration by the European Central Bank (ECB) that an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Preparatory measure - Act not open to judicial review - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 278/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: ABLV Bank AS (C-551/19 P), Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA (C-552/19 P) (represented initially by O. Behrends and M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte, and subsequently by O. Behrends)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented initially by E. Koupepidou and G. Marafioti, acting as Agents, and also by J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, abogado, then by E. Koupepidou, G. Marafioti and R. Ugena, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the European Central Bank: European Commission (represented initially by D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis, K.-P. Wojcik and A. Steiblytė, and subsequently by D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Dismisses as being inadmissible the claim by the European Commission that the Court should replace the reasoning set out in paragraph 34 of the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 6 May 2019, ABLV Bank v ECB (T-281/18, EU:T:2019:296), and of 6 May 2019, Bernis and Others v ECB (T-283/18, not published, EU:T:2019:295), the subject of those appeals;

3. Orders ABLV Bank AS to pay the costs in Case C-551/19 P;

4. Orders Mr Ernests Bernis, Mr Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA and Cassandra Holding Company SIA to pay the costs in Case C-552/19 P;

5. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.
2.

EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, does not preclude a procedural rule of national administrative law which provides that, in order for a requirement contrary to EU law, imposed by an administrative decision which in principle is legally unchallengeable by a category of persons, to be annulled on the ground that it would be unenforceable if it were implemented by a subsequent decision, the person must establish that the requirement at issue clearly could not, on the basis of a summary examination leaving no room for doubt, have been adopted in the light of EU law, subject, however, to the proviso, which it is for the referring court to verify, that that rule is not applied so strictly that in practice the possibility for an individual of obtaining the effective annulment of the requirement at issue would be illusory.
3.

Point (f) of subparagraph 1 of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), read in conjunction with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes in principle, neither the systematic recording, by the holder of intellectual property rights as well as by a third party on his or her behalf, of IP addresses of users of peer-to-peer networks whose internet connections have allegedly been used in infringing activities, nor the communication of the names and of the postal addresses of those users to that rightholder or to a third party in order to enable it to bring a claim for damages before a civil court for prejudice allegedly caused by those users, provided, however, that the initiatives and requests to that effect of that rightholder or of such a third party are justified, proportionate and not abusive and have their legal basis in a national legislative measure, within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, which limits the scope of the rules laid down in Articles 5 and 6 of that directive, as amended.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna

(Case C-784/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Legislation applicable - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 12(1) - Posting of workers - Temporary agency workers - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 14(2) - A1 certificate - Determination of the Member State in which the employer normally carries out its activities - Concept of ‘substantial activities, other than purely internal management activities’ - No assignment of temporary agency workers in the territory of the Member State in which the employer is established)

(2021/C 289/11)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that a temporary-work agency established in a Member State must, in order for it to be considered that it ‘normally carries out its activities’, within the meaning of Article 12(1) of 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, in that Member State, carry out a significant part of its activities of assigning temporary agency workers for the benefit of user undertakings established and carrying out their activities in the territory of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — XX v Tartu Vangla

(Case C-795/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability - Article 2(2)(a) - Article 4(1) - Article 5 - National legislation laying down requirements in respect of the auditory acuity of prison officers - Failure to meet the standards of sound perception required - Absolute bar to remaining in employment)

(2021/C 349/07)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XX

Defendant: Tartu Vangla

Interveners: Justiitsminister, Tervise- ja tööminister, Õiguskantsler

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a), Article 4(1) and Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which imposes an absolute bar to a prison officer remaining in employment when his or her auditory acuity does not meet the minimum standards of sound perception prescribed by that legislation, without allowing it to be ascertained whether that officer is capable of fulfilling those duties, where appropriate after the adoption of reasonable accommodation measures within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive.

(1) OJ C 19, 20.01.2020.
1.

Article 2 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 times must be interpreted as meaning that the break granted to a worker during his or her daily working time, during which the worker must be ready to respond to a call-out within a time limit of two minutes if necessary, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of that provision, where it is apparent from an overall assessment of all the relevant circumstances that the limitations imposed on that worker are such as to affect objectively and very significantly the worker’s ability to manage freely the time during which his or her professional services are not required and to devote that time to his or her own interests;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 — Ja zum Nürburgring eV v European Commission

(Case C-647/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid in favour of the Nürburgring complex (Germany) - Decision declaring the aid in part incompatible with the internal market - Sale of the assets of the beneficiaries of the State aid declared to be incompatible - Open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional tender process - Decision declaring that the reimbursement of the incompatible aid did not concern the new owner of the Nürburgring complex and that the latter did not receive new aid for the acquisition of that complex - Admissibility - Status as an interested party - Person individually concerned - Infringement of the procedural rights of the interested parties - Difficulties requiring the initiation of a formal investigation procedure - Justification - Distortion of the evidence)

(2021/C 431/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Ja zum Nürburgring eV (represented by: D. Frey and M. Rudolph, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, B. Stromsky and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 June 2019, Ja zum Nürburgring v Commission (T-373/15, EU:T:2019:432), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action for annulment of the last indent of Article 1 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/151 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring;

2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3. Annuls the last indent of Article 1 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/151 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring;

4. Orders Ja zum Nürburgring eV and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.