ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — S v Familienkasse Niedersachsen-Bremen der Bundesagentur für Arbeit

(Case C-411/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Freedom of movement of persons - Equal treatment - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(1) and (2) - Social security benefits - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 4 - Family benefits - Exclusion of nationals of other Member States who are economically inactive during the first three months of residence in the host Member State)

(2022/C 408/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S

Defendant: Familienkasse Niedersachsen-Bremen der Bundesagentur für Arbeit

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 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 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a Union citizen, who is a national of another Member State, who has established his or her habitual residence on the territory of the first Member State and who is economically inactive in so far as he or she is not in gainful employment in that State, is refused an entitlement to ‘family benefits’, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(j) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 1(z) thereof, during the first three months of his or her residence in the territory of that Member State, whereas an economically inactive national of that Member State is entitled to such benefits, including during the first three months following his or her return to the same Member State after having made use, under EU law, of his or her right to move and reside in another Member State.

Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to such legislation.

(1) OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
2.

Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that a defeat device, which guarantees compliance with the emission limits laid down by that regulation only where the outside temperature is between 15 and 33 oC and the driving altitude is less than 1 000 metres, cannot fall within the exception to the prohibition on the use of such devices, laid down in that provision, solely because that device contributes to the protection of parts such as the exhaust gas recirculation valve, the exhaust gas recirculation cooler and the diesel particulate filter, unless it is established that that device strictly meets the need to avoid immediate risks of damage or accident to the engine, caused by a malfunction of one of those parts, of such a serious nature as to give rise to a specific hazard when a vehicle fitted with that device is driven. In any event, a defeat device which, under normal driving conditions, operated during most of the year in order to protect the engine from damage or accident and ensure the safe operation of the vehicle could not fall within the exception provided for in Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation No 715/2007.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. v Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala

(Case C-597/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 16 - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Task of the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation - National legislation conferring on that body the power to order an air carrier to pay compensation due to a passenger - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to seek remedy before a tribunal)

(2022/C 432/02)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A.

Defendant: Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91

must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States have the power to authorise the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation to compel an air carrier to pay compensation, within the meaning of Article 7 of that regulation, due to passengers under that regulation, where an individual complaint has been made to that national body by a passenger, provided that it is open to that passenger and that air carrier to bring proceedings before the courts.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 — Colin Brown v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-675/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 4(1)(a) and (b) - EU official who is a national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and who during the 10 years before his entry into service habitually resided within the territory of the State in which he is employed - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Acquisition by that EU official of the nationality of the State in which he is employed - Withdrawal of the entitlement to receive an expatriation allowance - Action for annulment)

(2022/C 418/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Colin Brown (represented by: I. Van Damme, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Alver and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Colin Brown to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Decides that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v C, B (C-704/20), X v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (C-39/21)

(Joined Cases C-704/20 and C-39/21) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Detention of third-country nationals - Fundamental right to liberty - Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Conditions governing the lawfulness of detention - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 15 - Directive 2013/33/EU - Article 9 - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Article 28 - Review of the lawfulness of detention and of the continuation of a detention measure - Ex officio review - Fundamental right to an effective judicial remedy - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2023/C 7/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring courts

Raad van State, Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (C-704/20), X (C-39/21)

Defendants: C, B (C-704/20), Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (C-39/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, Article 9(3) and (5) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection, and Article 28(4) 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 conjunction with Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that

a judicial authority’s review of compliance with the conditions governing the lawfulness of the detention of a third-country national which derive from EU law must lead that authority to raise of its own motion, on the basis of the material in the file brought to its attention, as supplemented or clarified during the adversarial proceedings before it, any failure to comply with a condition governing lawfulness which has not been invoked by the person concerned.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — ‘Nikopolis AD Istrum 2010’ EOOD (C-160/21), ‘Agro — eko 2013’ EOOD (C-217/21) v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

(Joined Cases C-160/21 and C-217/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Direct support schemes - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Payments to beneficiaries - Article 75 - Time limit for payment - Compliance - None - Tacit refusal of the application for aid)

(2022/C 237/21)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:‘Nikopolis AD Istrum 2010’ EOOD (C-160/21), ‘Agro — eko 2013’ EOOD (C-217/21)

Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 75(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2017/2393 of the European Parliament of the Council of 13 December 2017, must be interpreted as meaning that failure by the paying agency of a Member State to pay, before the end of the time limit set down in that provision, aid applied for by a farmer, should not be regarded as constituting a tacit decision to reject the aid application in question, irrespective of whether the farmer concerned has or has not been informed of any additional checks which would justify such an overrun of that time limit.

(1) OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bremen — Germany) — DM v CTS Eventim AG & Co. KGaA

(Case C-96/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Right of withdrawal for distance and off-premises contracts - Exceptions to the right of withdrawal - Article 16(l) - Provision of services related to leisure activities - Contract providing for a specific date or period of performance - Provision of ticket agency services - Intermediary acting in its name but on behalf of the organiser of a leisure activity - Risk associated with the exercise of the right of withdrawal)

(2022/C 207/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DM

Defendant: CTS Eventim AG & Co. KGaA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(l) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the exception to the right of withdrawal provided for in that provision may be relied on against a consumer who has concluded, with an intermediary acting in its name, but on behalf of the organiser of a leisure activity, a distance contract for acquiring a right of access to that activity, provided that, first, the termination of the obligation to perform that contract vis-à-vis the consumer by means of withdrawal, in accordance with Article 12(a) of that directive, would place the risk linked to the setting aside of the capacity thus released on the organiser of the activity concerned and, second, the leisure activity to which that right gives access is scheduled to take place on a specific date or within a specific period.

(1) OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 — Laure Camerin v European Commission

(Case C-63/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Former official - Sums deducted from retirement pension - Enforcement of a decision of a national court - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2022/C 318/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Laure Camerin (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Laure Camerin to bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 March 2021, EM v Parliament (T-599/19, not published, EU:T:2021:111), to the extent that the General Court rejected the claims for compensation in the action, in so far as they sought reparation for the loss or harm suffered by the appellant as a result of being prevented from carrying out tasks during the period from 8 December 2016 to 1 June 2018, the date of his retirement;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Sense Visuele Communicatie en Handel vof (also trading under the name De Scharrelderij) v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-36/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Direct support schemes - Common rules - Article 30(6) and Article 50(2) - Application for payment entitlements from the national reserve for young farmers - National administrative authority which has given incorrect information about the classification of a person as a ‘young farmer’ - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Action seeking reparation for loss or harm based on the failure to comply with the national law principle of legitimate expectations)

(2022/C 340/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sense Visuele Communicatie en Handel vof (also trading under the name De Scharrelderij)

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Operative part of the judgment

EU law and, in particular, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding an injured party from obtaining, by virtue of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations recognised by national law and solely on the basis of that law, compensation for loss or harm resulting from a misinterpretation by a national authority of an unambiguous provision of EU law, provided that that compensation is not equivalent to the grant of an advantage contrary to EU law, that it is not borne by the EU budget and that it is not such as to give rise to distortions of competition between Member States.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Sector 1 a Finanţelor Publice v VB, Direcţia Generalā Regionalā a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1

(Case C-146/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Implementing Decisions 2010/583/EU and 2013/676/EU authorising Romania to derogate from Article 193 of that directive - Reverse charge mechanism - Supplies of wood products - National legislation imposing a condition of registration for VAT purposes for the application of that mechanism - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

(2022/C 318/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Sector 1 a Finanţelor Publice

Defendants: VB, Direcţia Generalā Regionalā a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality do not preclude national legislation under which the reverse charge mechanism is not applicable to a taxable person who had neither applied for nor obtained on his or her own initiative, before carrying out the taxable transactions, his or her registration for the purposes of VAT.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Venezia — Italy) — Agecontrol SpA v ZR, Lidl Italia Srl

(Case C-319/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Packed fresh fruit and vegetables - Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 - Conformity check - Transport to a point of sale of the same company - Accompanying document - Indication of country of origin)

(2022/C 408/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Venezia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agecontrol SpA

Defendant: ZR, Lidl Italia Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011, laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, read in the light of Article 8 of that regulation and of Articles 113 and 113a of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 of 14 April 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the check for conformity with the marketing standards for products in the fruit and vegetables sector does not require the holder of those products to issue an accompanying document. However, where that holder issues such a document, it must, at all stages of the marketing of those products, indicate the name and the country of origin of those products, irrespective of the fact that the external information particulars required by Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 already appear, obviously and indelibly, on one side of their packaging, on a notice placed in an obvious position inside the means of transport by which they are transported and on the invoices issued by the supplier of those products.

(1) OJ C 310, 2.8.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 — Puma SE and Others v European Commission

(Case C-507/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam - Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 - Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Competence ratione temporis - Principle of non-discrimination)

(2022/C 408/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Puma SE, Puma United Kingdom Ltd, Puma Nordic AB, Austria Puma Dassler GmbH, Puma Italia Srl, Puma France SAS, Puma Denmark A/S, Puma Iberia SL, Puma Retail AG (represented by: J. Cornelis and E. Vermulst, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Luengo and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Puma SE, Puma United Kingdom Ltd, Puma Nordic AB, Austria Puma Dassler GmbH, Puma Italia Srl, Puma France SAS, Puma Denmark A/S, Puma Iberia SL and Puma Retail AG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Raiffeisen Leasing, trgovina in leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-235/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 203 - Sale-and-lease back agreement - Persons liable for payment of VAT - Possibility of treating a written contractual agreement as an invoice)

(2022/C 432/06)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raiffeisen Leasing, trgovina in leasing d.o.o.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 203 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 contractual sale-and-lease back agreement, the conclusion of which was not followed by the issue of an invoice by the parties, may be regarded as an invoice, within the meaning of that provision, where that contractual agreement contains all the information necessary for the tax authorities of a Member State to be able to establish whether the substantive conditions for the right to deduct value added tax are satisfied in the case, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
4.

Article 19 of Directive 2009/16, as amended by Directive 2017/2110, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that it is established that ships which are, in practice, being systematically used for activities relating to the search for and rescue of persons in danger or distress at sea, despite having been classified and certified as cargo ships by a Member State which is the flag State, have been operated in a manner posing a danger to persons, property or the environment, the Member State which is the port State may not make the non-detention of those ships or the lifting of such a detention subject to the condition that those ships hold certificates appropriate to those activities and comply with all the corresponding requirements. By contrast, that State may impose predetermined corrective measures relating to safety, pollution prevention and on-board living and working conditions, provided that those corrective measures are justified by the presence of deficiencies which are clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment and which make it impossible for a ship to sail under conditions capable of ensuring safety at sea. Such corrective measures must, in addition, be suitable, necessary, and proportionate to that end. Furthermore, the adoption and implementation of those measures by the port State must be the result of sincere cooperation between that State and the flag State, having due regard to the respective powers of those two States.