ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

If the Court answers the first question in the affirmative, must Article 41(17) of the Directive be interpreted, in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as meaning that where that article is applied to a case such as that in the main proceedings, an actor in the natural gas market in a situation such as that of the applicant, which, under a decision by the regulatory authority of the Member State setting the system usage charges, remuneration for any services provided by system operators under a special tariff and connection fees, is charged a tariff by the system manager for a service that can be provided under a special tariff, must be found to be a party affected by that decision and, as such, to have a right of appeal against it?
1.

Do Articles 2(1)(a) and (c), 14(1), 24(1), 98(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, 11 December 2006, p. 1; ‘the VAT Directive’), (1) read in conjunction with Article 6(1) and (2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (recast; OJ L 7, 23 March 2011, p. 1) (2) and with points 1 and 12a of Annex III to that directive, the fourth and seventh recitals in the preamble to the VAT Directive, the principle of sincere cooperation, the principle of fiscal neutrality, the principle of fiscal legality and the principle of legal certainty preclude national legislation, such as that applicable in the present case, which provides for a reduced rate of VAT of 5 % for food products including beverages containing milk, with reference to CN 2202, from excluding from that rate food products, including beverages containing milk, which are classified as food and beverage service activities on the basis of the Polish statistical classification (PKWiU 56), and applying to such goods (their supply or services) the reduced VAT rate of 8 % if the average consumer, when purchasing such goods or services, treats them as meeting the same need?
1.

In the case of a supply of services by a taxable person established in one Member State to another taxable person acting as such, whose business is established outside the European Union, where those persons are separate and legally independent entities but form part of the same group, where the service provider contractually undertakes to use its equipment and its staff exclusively for the production of products for the recipient of the services and where those products are then sold by that recipient, giving rise to taxable supplies of goods for which the service provider renders logistical assistance and which take place in the Member State in question; are Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) and Article 11 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/[2011] of 15 March 2011 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the taxable person established outside the European Union must be deemed to have a fixed establishment in that Member State?
4.

Must Article 3(1), Article 6 […] and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC … be interpreted as meaning that, where more than one consumer concludes the same contract with a single seller or supplier, the same contractual terms may be regarded as unfair to the first consumer and fair to the second and, if so, may the consequence be that the contract is invalid as far as the first consumer is concerned and valid as far as the second consumer is concerned, such that he or she is subject to all the obligations arising from that contract?
4.

the consumer’s claim for the return of payments which he or she made under the invalid loan agreement (loan instalments, fees, commissions and insurance premiums) must be reduced by the equivalent of the interest on principal to which the bank would have been entitled if the loan agreement had been valid, whereas the bank can demand the return of the payments which it made under the same invalid loan agreement (loan principal) in full?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-682/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-154/22 P)

(2022/C 303/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Rieker Schuh AG

By order of 22 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 13 April 2022 — VITOL SA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-268/22)

(2022/C 318/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VITOL SA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Is Implementing Regulation No 1194/2013, (1) as amended by Regulation 2017/1578, (2) contrary to the basic regulation No 1225/2009, (3) inter alia because:

— it has not been demonstrated that the conditions were met for disregarding, in the context of calculating the normal value of the like product, the costs associated with the production and sale of that product, as reflected in the records of the Argentinian exporting producers examined, in accordance with the rule laid down in Article 2(5) of the basic regulation,

— the effects of the imports were erroneously assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic regulation and it was thus not adequately demonstrated that dumped imports had caused injury within the meaning of the basic regulation, as referred to in Article 3(6) and (7) of that regulation,

— and there was thus no question of dumping and no anti-dumping duty could be imposed as referred to in Article 1 of the basic regulation?

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2).

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1578 of 18 September 2017 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2017 L 239, p. 9).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 11 April 2022 by Calrose Rice against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2022 in Case T-459/21, Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite)

(Case C-253/22 P)

(2022/C 311/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Calrose Rice (represented by: H. Raychev, адвокат)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Ricegrowers Ltd

By order of 6 July 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Calrose Rice should bear its own costs.
4.

Do Articles 3(1), 4 and 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC preclude national case-law, in the light of the specific rules of the IRPH, [according to which] a failure to apply a negative margin [does not] constitute an unfair practice, despite the requirement to do so laid down in the preamble to the Bank of Spain notice, and the fact that the IRPH, which is less advantageous than all the existing annual percentage rates of charge, has been marketed as if it were a product as advantageous as the EURIBOR, even though it does not take into account the requirement to add a negative margin and, [consequently], contracts may cease to be concluded because the clauses providing for its application are considered to be void, banks may in future refrain from using those clauses because marketing this service to vulnerable consumers may affect [their] economic behaviour and it may be found that these clauses must be excluded from commercial contracts because they are unfair in view of the fact that they have been included in the price of the interest, contrary to Directive 2005/29/EC?
2.

Does Article 4(1)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 permit the payment of compensation to the transport undertaking for the discharge of a public service obligation where the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is to be calculated were not established in advance in a public service contract, but in general rules, and the net financial effect or the amount of compensation due was determined in accordance with the mechanism provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007?
Action brought on 5 July 2022 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-439/22)

(2022/C 326/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: U. Małecka, L. Malferrari, E. Manhaeve, J. Samnadda, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to it, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 124 paragraph 1 of the Directive; or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

— order Ireland to pay to the Commission a lump sum based on a daily amount of EUR 5 544,9 per day with the minimum lump sum of EUR 1 376 000.

— if the failure to fulfil obligations found in paragraph 1 has continued until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, order Ireland to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 24 942,9 per day from the date of the judgment in the present proceedings to the date of compliance with its obligations under the Directive; and

— to order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code lays down rules on telecommunications markets. Article 124 paragraph 1 of the Directive lays down the date of 21 December 2020 as the transposition deadline for the Member States.

By letter of 3 February 2021, the Commission addressed a letter of formal notice to Ireland in circumstances where the Commission had not received from Ireland any notification concerning the adoption of the necessary provisions to comply with the Directive. By letter of 23 September 2021, in the absence of any further notification regarding the transposition of the Directive, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Ireland. Nevertheless, the transposing measures have not yet been adopted by Ireland and, in any event, they have not been notified to the Commission.

(1) OJ 2018, L 321, p. 36.
1.

Do Articles 62[(2)], 63, 167, 206, 250 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and the principle of proportionality, as interpreted, in particular, in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 May 2019, EN.SA (C-712/17), taken together with the principle of neutrality, preclude provisions of national legislation such as Article 70[(1)] of the VAT Code, Article 1 of and part V of Table G in the annex to Royal Decree No 41 setting the amounts of the proportionate tax penalties in relation to value added tax, pursuant to which: — in the event of errors as to content discovered on the inspection of accounts, — and in order to sanction the failure, in whole or in part, to enter taxable transactions in relation to which the amount of tax due is greater than EUR 1 250 euros, that infringement is penalised by a flat-rate fine at a reduced rate of 20 % of the tax due, without it being possible, for the purposes of calculating the fine, to deduct therefrom any input tax paid, on account of the fact that it has not been deducted because no return was submitted, where, pursuant to [Article 1(2) of] Royal Decree No 41, the scale of reductions set out in Tables A to J of the annex to that decree applies only where the infringements sanctioned have been committed without any intention to evade or to facilitate the evasion of the tax?
2

(a) Does observance of the rights of the defence, including the right to present observations before any measure adversely affecting a person, which is a fundamental principle of EU law, mean that where, in the case of non-payment of the customs debt by the debtor within the prescribed period, its recovery is sought from the guarantor, the customs administration must first place the guarantor in a position in which it can effectively make known its views as regards the information on which the customs administration intends to base its decision to enforce payment? (b) Is the fact that the debtor of the customs debt has itself been placed in a position in which it can effectively make known its views before the communication of the duties relevant to the answer to Question 2(a)? (c) If Question 2(a) is answered in the affirmative, what is the decision adversely affecting the guarantor before which there must be an inter partes phase: the decision of the customs administration to enter the duties in the accounts and to notify them to the debtor of the customs debt or the decision to enforce payment from the guarantor?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 1 June 2022 — Criminal proceedings against A.

(Case C-352/22)

(2022/C 359/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Hamm

Parties to the main proceedings:

Requested person: A.

Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm

Questions referred

Must Article 9(2) and (3) of Directive 2013/32/EU, (1) in conjunction with Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the final recognition of a person as a refugee within the meaning of the Geneva Convention on Refugees in another Member State of the European Union is binding for the purposes of the extradition procedure in the Member State requested to extradite such a person on account of the obligation under EU law to interpret national law in conformity with the directives (third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU), that is to say, is binding in such a way that extradition of the person to the third country or country of origin is thereby necessarily precluded until his or her recognition as a refugee has been revoked or has expired?

(1) Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

(2) Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 8 July 2022 — VX and AT v Gemeinde Ummendorf

(Case C-456/22)

(2022/C 359/57)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Ravensburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: VX, AT

Defendant: Gemeinde Ummendorf

Question referred

Is the concept of non-material damage in Article 82(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the assumption of non-material damage requires a noticeable disadvantage and an objectively comprehensible impairment of personal interests, or is the mere short-term loss of the data subject’s unfettered control over his or her data due to the publication of personal data on the internet for a period of a few days, which did not have any noticeable or adverse consequences for the data subject, sufficient for that purpose?

(1) Regulation 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) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2022 — IT v État belge

(Case C-365/22)

(2022/C 380/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IT

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Is Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as meaning that end-of-life motor vehicles purchased from persons referred to in Article 314 of the directive by an undertaking selling second-hand vehicles and wrecks, which are intended to be sold ‘for parts’ without the parts having been removed from them, constitute second-hand goods within the meaning of that provision?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
2.

Where the bill of lading is delivered to a third-party consignee of the goods who was not involved in the conclusion of the contract between the shipper and the maritime carrier, is a rule such as that in Article 251 of the Ley de Navegación Marítima (Shipping Law), which requires that, in order to be enforceable against that third party, the jurisdiction clause must have been negotiated ‘individually and separately’ with that party, compatible with Article 25 of Regulation 1215/2012 and with the case-law of the European Court of Justice interpreting that article?
2.

Are [the first subparagraph of] Article 1[(1)(b)] and Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, read in the light of recitals 2 and 6 of the preamble to that directive, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances described above, the employer is required to inform and consult all the employees affected by the collective redundancy procedure?
3.

In the event that the Court answers the first question in the negative: In the event that the passenger may also claim reimbursement in money or is reimbursed in money, must Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004, in conjunction with Article 7(3) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, as reimbursement of the cost of the ticket (…) at the price at which it was bought, the passenger is reimbursed by the operating air carrier the amount in money which would enable, or would have enabled, him or her to purchase, without using frequent flyer miles, re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to his or her final destination at the earliest opportunity or at a later date at his or her convenience, subject to availability of seats?
1.

Error of law due to an erroneous interpretation of the criterion of doubt entitling the administration to intervene in the electoral process to elect the Bureau of the Staff Committee — Contradictory reasoning — Infringement of the right to freedom of association and assembly (Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) as reflected in the prohibition of any unjustified interference by the administration in that electoral process.
5.

If Question 4 is answered in the negative, must Article 101(1) TFEU, as interpreted in the judgment in Joined Cases C-427/16 and C-428/16, CHEZ Elektro Bulgaria, be understood as meaning that the court must assess the legitimate objectives justifying the application of a rule of national law under which the court is not entitled to order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs for lawyers’ remuneration in an amount which is less than a minimum amount set by a regulation adopted by a professional association of lawyers, such as the Supreme Bar Council (Bulgaria), and the proportionality of those objectives, with regard to the effect on the amount specifically provided for in respect of the case concerned, and to disapply that amount where it exceeds what is necessary to achieve the objectives, or must the court investigate, in principle, the nature of the criteria provided for in the regulation for the determination of the amount and the manner in which those criteria manifest themselves, and, if it finds that in certain cases they might exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives, to disapply the rule in question in all cases?
2.

Does the interpretation of [Article] 110 TFEU preclude national rules, such as those laid down by Article 1 of OUG No 52/2017, under which a refund of a tax prohibited by EU law may be made only to the taxpayer who paid the tax and not — where the tax has not been refunded to the person who paid it — to subsequent purchasers of the vehicle in respect of which the tax was paid?
5.

In the light of the aforementioned articles of the VAT Directive and the fundamental principle of legal certainty, may the finding, reached in connection with due diligence, that the issuer of the invoice was not engaged in any economic activity at all, constitute an objective fact, in the case where the tax authority takes the view that there has been a failure to demonstrate the actual performance (and, therefore, the genuine existence) of an economic transaction — as documented by means of invoices, contracts and other supporting accounting documentation, and by correspondence, and as confirmed by the statements of the warehousing undertaking and the taxable person’s director and employee —, and bases that view exclusively on the statement of the supplier undertaking’s director denying the existence of that transaction, without taking into account the circumstances in which that statement was made, the interests of the person making the statement or the fact that, according to the documents in the case file, that undertaking had been founded by the very person making the statement and, according to the information available, an agent was acting on its behalf?
2.

How is the content of the ‘instrument … in any form … by which the right to carry out the business is granted’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(42) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 to be interpreted, and does it include both the authorisation scheme and the registration scheme which grant approval for credit operations?
Directive 2009/28/EC, (1) in so far as it seeks to promote intra-Community trade in green electricity, thus promoting, moreover, the production capacity of individual Member States,

preclude national legislation such as the one described above, which imposes on importers of green electricity a financial burden that does not apply to domestic producers of the same product?