ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

a) Do Articles 1(3), 2(1)(a) and (b) and 2a(2) of Council Directive 92/13/ΕEC (1)of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14), interpreted in light of the judgments in Fastweb (C-100/12), PFE (C-689/13), Archus and Gama (C-131/16) and Lombardi (C-333/18), conflict with national judicial practice whereby if, by decision of the contracting authority, one competitor is excluded from, and another interested party (competitor) is admitted to, a stage of the procurement procedure prior to the final contract award stage (for example the stage for the examination of technical bids) and the court with jurisdiction dismisses the part of its application for suspension contesting its exclusion, the excluded competitor retains a legal interest in contesting the admission of the other competitor, by the same application for suspension, only if the other competitor was admitted in breach of the same criterion? b) If the answer to Question 1a is in the affirmative, do the above provisions mean that the tenderer excluded as described above may, by its application for suspension, raise any complaint against the participation of its competitor in the procurement procedure; in other words, it may also complain of other, separate, shortcomings in the competitor’s bid which have no bearing on the shortcomings for which its bid was excluded, in order to obtain suspension of the competition and of the award of the contract to its competitor in a decision to be adopted at a later stage of the procedure, so that if the main remedy (application for annulment) is subsequently upheld, its competitor will be excluded, the contract award will be cancelled and the only remaining possibility will be to launch a new contract award procedure in which the excluded applicant will participate?
Appeal brought on 26 November 2019 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2019 in Case T-629/17 Czech Republic v Commission

(Case C-862/19 P)

(2020/C 27/34)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-629/17;

— annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017)4682;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward one ground in support of the appeal, alleging infringement of Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18. (1)

It argues that the judgment under appeal must be set aside on the ground that the General Court erred in law in concluding that the exception contained in Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18 relates to public contracts for programme material only when the contracting authority is a broadcaster. It claims that it is nevertheless apparent from the wording, purpose, scheme and legislative history of the provision concerned that the exception in question must also be applied in the situation where the broadcaster is a contracting party in the position of a provider of programme material, as was the case with the contract at issue in the Czech Republic.

Having regard to the fact that the financial correction implemented by Commission Decision C(2017) 4682 was founded exclusively on the fact that the contracting authority for the contract at issue was not a broadcaster, that decision must be annulled in addition to the judgment under appeal of the General Court being set aside.

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
2.

Question 2, in the event that question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Are deviations from the general obligation to use the state-of-the-art technology available at the time of the type approval admissible for other reasons, such as a lack of long-term experience or disproportionately high costs of the state-of-the-art technology in relation to other technologies with considerable effects on the retail price? Question 2, in the event that question 1 is answered in the negative: Even with the use of technological components which are in principle admissible, does a prohibited defeat device exist in the form of the so-called ‘thermal window’, if the parameters set in this regard in the engine control unit are chosen such that the exhaust gas purification is not activated or only activated to a limited extent (a) because of the chosen temperatures, taking into account the temperatures usually to be expected for a large part of the year (b) because of other parameters — such as the current altitude of the vehicle above sea level — in relevant regions of Germany or the European internal market.
1.

Are Paragraphs 6(1) and 27(1) of the EG-FGV (1) and/or Articles 18(1) and 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the manufacturer is in breach of its obligation to issue a valid certificate pursuant to Paragraph 6(1) of the EG-FGV (and/or of its obligation to deliver a certificate of conformity pursuant to Article 18(1) of Directive 2007/46), if it has installed in the vehicle an impermissible defeat device within the meaning of Articles 5(2) and 3.10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, (3) and that the placing of such a vehicle on the market is in breach of the prohibition on placing a vehicle on the market without a valid certificate of conformity pursuant to Paragraph 27(1) of the EG-FGV (and/or of the prohibition of sale without a valid certificate of conformity pursuant to Article 26(1) of Directive 2007/46)? If that question is to be answered in the affirmative: 1 a. Are Paragraphs 6 and 27 of the EG-FGV and/or Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46 aimed at protecting another person within the meaning of Paragraph 823(2) of the BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch; German Civil Code), including in particular in relation to that person’s freedom of disposal and assets? Does an end customer’s acquisition of a vehicle that has been placed on the market without a valid certificate of conformity come within the scope of the risks for the prevention of which those provisions were adopted?
1.

Must Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted to the effect that factual circumstances, such as those in the present case, in which a natural person who finds himself in financial difficulties and under time pressure and whose intention is to obtain credit for retaining his ownership of immovable property, which constitutes his sole residence, is presented with a contract by a business providing credit which permanently deprives him of ownership of immovable property, even when the wish of that person was to transfer immovable property to the creditor only temporarily for the purposes of securing a credit contract, constitute an unfair commercial practice?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 26 November 2019 — Prefettura Ufficio territoriale del governo di Firenze v TB

(Case C-871/19)

(2020/C 54/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prefettura Ufficio territoriale del governo di Firenze

Defendant: TB

Question referred

May Article 15 [(7) of Regulation No 3821/85] (1) be interpreted, in the specific case of the driver of the motor vehicle, as a rule which prescribes a single, overall form of conduct and, therefore, entails the commission of a single infringement and the imposition of a single penalty, or may it result, through the cumulation of penalties for each act of omission, in as many infringements and penalties as the number of days in relation to which the record sheets for the tachograph have not been produced in the context of the timeframe laid down (‘current day and the previous 28 days’)?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8).
Appeal brought on 24 September 2019 by Ramón Guiral Broto against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-774/17 Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (C del M)

(Case C-715/19 P)

(2020/C 45/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Ramón Guiral Broto (represented by: A. Sirimarco, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Café del Mar, SC, José Les Viamonte, Carlos Andrea González and European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 12 December 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs.
Appeal brought on 19 November 2019 by DK against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2019 in Case T-217/18 DK v EEAS

(Case C-851/19 P)

(2020/C 68/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: DK (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:

— set aside the judgment of 10 September 2019 in DK v EEAS (T-217/18);

— annul the decision of 23 May 2017 imposing a disciplinary measure on the appellant;

— order the EEAS to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant asks the Court to set aside the judgment of 10 September 2019 (T-217/18), in which the General Court dismissed his action for annulment and ordered him to pay the costs.

In that regard, the appellant raises a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law (paragraphs 28 to 53 of the judgment under appeal), in so far as the General Court interpreted Article 10(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations as allowing damage in respect of which compensation has already been paid to be taken into account in order to justify imposing a stricter disciplinary measure on a civil servant as compared to the measure recommended by the Disciplinary Committee.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 10 December 2019 — DQ v Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’action et des comptes publics

(Case C-903/19)

(2020/C 61/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DQ

Defendants: Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’action et des comptes publics

Question referred

Is the benefit of the provisions of Article 11(1) of Annex VIII to the Regulation laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, (2) reserved exclusively to officials and contract staff posted for the first time within a national administration after having been employed as officials, contract staff or temporary staff in an EU institution, or does that benefit also extend to officials and contract staff returning to the service of a national administration after having performed duties in an EU institution and having been assigned non-active status or granted leave for personal reasons during that period?

(1) Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants) (OJ 1968 L 56, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).
4.

Are Articles 5, 7 and 8(3) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a passenger has suffered a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours within the meaning of the judgment … of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, Sturgeon and Others, (2) the delay must be calculated on the basis of the point in time at which the flight lands at the alternative airport of destination or the point in time at which the passenger is transferred to the airport of destination for which the booking was made or to another close-by destination agreed with the passenger?
2.

Which entities (temporary-work agency, user undertaking, at least one of them, or possibly both) are subject, according to Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/104, to the criterion of being engaged in economic activities? Are the areas of activity and functions of EIGE, as defined in Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006, (2) to be regarded as economic activities as that term is defined (understood) within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/104?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 11 December 2019 — Q-GmbH v Z Tax Office

(Case C-907/19)

(2020/C 87/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Q-GmbH

Defendant: Z Tax Office

Question referred

Does a service related to insurance and reinsurance transactions that is performed with exemption from tax by insurance brokers and insurance agents within the meaning of Article 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) exist if a taxable person who carries out intermediary work for an insurance company also provides that insurance company with the mediated insurance product?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Appeal brought on 28 November 2019 by FV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 in Case T-153/17, FV v Council

(Case C-877/19 P)

(2020/C 77/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: FV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Conclusions

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of 19 September 2019 (T-153/17);

— consequently, grant the order sought at first instance and therefore annul the 2014 and 2015 staff reports adopted definitively on 5 December 2016;

— order the respondent to pay the entire costs of the proceedings at first instance and in the appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The judgment under appeal dismissed the action for the annulment of the 2014 and 2015 staff reports.

In the appellant’s ground of appeal, he claims, first, that the General Court infringed the duty to review and the obligation to state reasons and distorted the file and, second, that it infringed the Guide to staff reports, the obligation to state reasons and the duty to care for staff, and manifestly erred in its assessment.

The appellant claims that the General Court manifestly erred in its assessment and distorted the facts in taking the view that his allegedly inappropriate conduct was the only reason why the administration had granted him a passable assessment for sense of responsibility, despite the fact that that section is defined by the Guide to staff reports as the individual’s engagement with his or her work and availability to complete his or her tasks in an active and constructive spirit.

In addition, the appellant claims that the General Court did not review the decrease in the appellant’s tasks correctly. His state of health and part-time work for medical reasons cannot justify reducing part of an official’s tasks, in particular, without his consent.

Furthermore, the appellant contests the General Court’s assessment of his change of office and position and of his conduct during the 2014 assessment period, claiming that they constitute distortion of the file.

Lastly, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal failed to criticise the failure to care for staff, in particular in respect of an official suffering from mental health problems, and to apply the third subparagraph Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2019 in Case T-491/18, Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas

(Case C-887/19 P)

(2020/C 95/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas (represented by: F. Lichtnecker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Vafo Praha s.r.o.

By order of 11 February 2020 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Ms Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas shall bear her own costs.
2.

(a) If Question 1 (a) is to be answered in the affirmative: In a situation such as that in question in the present proceedings, is the first subparagraph of Article 6b(1) of Regulation No 531/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that a fair use policy for the use of regulated roaming services at retail level can also be provided for the tariff option as such? (b) If Question 1 (a) is to be answered in the affirmative and Question 2 (a) is to be answered in the negative: In a situation such as that in question in the present proceedings, is the first subparagraph of Article 6b(1) of Regulation No 531/2012 to be understood as meaning that a common fair use policy for the use of regulated roaming services at retail level can be provided both for the mobile communications tariff and the tariff option with the result that the overall domestic retail price of the mobile communications tariff and/or the sum of the overall domestic retail prices of the mobile communications tariff and the tariff option is to form the basis of the calculation of the data volume to be provided within the scope of a common fair use policy? (c) If Question 1 (a) is to be answered in the affirmative and Question 2 (a) and Question 2 b) are to be answered in the negative: In a situation such as that in question in the present proceedings, is the first subparagraph of Article 6b(1) of Regulation No 531/2012 in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Implementing Regulation No 2016/2286 (2) applicable by analogy in such a way that a fair use policy can be provided for the tariff option as such?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 25 November 2019 by NHS, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2019 in Case T-378/18, NHS v EUIPO

(Case C-858/19 P)

(2020/C 103/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: NHS, Inc. (represented by: P. Olson, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 6 February 2020 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that NHS, Inc. shall bear its own costs.
5.

In the event of an affirmative answer to the third and fourth questions, in a situation such as that in the case at issue, in which the issuer of the invoice knew at the time of supplying the goods that they had been purchased for the purposes of resale but the foreign buyer nonetheless wished to remove them from the territory under the scheme applicable to foreign travellers, with the result that the issuer of the invoice acted in bad faith in issuing the tax refund application form available for that purpose under that scheme, and in refunding the output VAT pursuant to the exemption for foreign travellers, is it compatible with Articles 146 and 147 of the VAT Directive and the EU law principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality for a Member State to operate a practice whereby the tax authority refuses to refund tax incorrectly declared and paid on supplies of goods to foreign travellers without classifying such transactions as supplies for goods for export and without making a correction to that effect, notwithstanding that it is indisputable that the goods left Hungary as traveller’s luggage?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 15 September 2019 by BP against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-917/16 REV, BP v FRA

(Case C-682/19 P)

(2020/C 201/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BP (represented by: E. Lazar, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

By order of 19 March 2020 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was, in part inadmissible and part, manifestly unfounded.

Ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 May 2019 — MAK TURS AD v Direktor na Direktsiya ‘Inspektsiya po truda’ — Blagoevgrad

(Case C-376/19)

(2020/C 161/19)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad — Blagoevgrad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MAK TURS AD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsiya ‘Inspektsiya po truda’ — Blagoevgrad

By order of 13 February 2020, the Court (Sixth Chamber) declared that the Court of Justice of the European Union lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 10 October 2019 by Jorge Minguel Rosellò against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2019 in Case T-524/19

(Case C-747/19 P)

(2020/C 287/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Jorge Minguel Rosellò (represented by: V. Falcucci and G. Bonavita, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Italian Republic

By order of 29 April 2020 the Court (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly ineffective.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2019 — Flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-939/19)

(2020/C 209/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flightright GmbH

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

The case was decided by order of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2020.