ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 4 March 2022 by Plataforma de Trabajador@s Temporales del Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza (PTTAZ) against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 January 2022 in Case T-736/21, PTTAZ v Commission

(Case C-195/22 P)

(2022/C 408/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Plataforma de Trabajador@s Temporales del Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza (PTTAZ) (represented by: B. González González, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 6 September 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
2.

If the answer to the first question is that the making of the gift is a supply of goods made free of charge, is the setting of an annual ceiling on the overall value of gifts of 0.5 % of the turnover of the taxable person in the preceding year (in addition to the limit on the unitary value) compatible with the concept of ‘the application of goods … as gifts of small value’ referred to in the second paragraph of Article 16 of the VAT Directive?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Fondi (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2022 — M.M. v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-548/22)

(2022/C 424/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Fondi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.M.

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Questions referred

Must Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 17, 31, 34 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 7 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, (1) Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997, which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, (2) as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, (3) and Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, (4) be interpreted as meaning that those provisions preclude a national provision, such as that laid down in Article 29 of [decreto legislativo 13] luglio 2017, n. 116 ([Legislative Decree No 116 of 13] July 2017), as replaced by Article 1(629) of Legge 30 dicembre 2021, n. 234 (Law No 234 of 30 December 2021), which provides for the automatic waiver by law of all claims concerning the implementation of the abovementioned directives, with the loss of all other remuneration, employment and social welfare benefits guaranteed by European law:

— in the case where an honorary judge, as a fixed-term, part-time European worker comparable to a professional judge classified as a permanent, full-time European worker, merely submits an application to participate in stabilisation procedures that only formally implement Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70,

— or, if these procedures are not successfully concluded or no application is submitted, with the receipt of a payment in an amount that is manifestly inadequate and disproportionate in relation to the damage suffered as a result of the failure to transpose those directives?

(1) OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

(2) OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.

(3) Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998 on the extension of Directive 97/81/EC on the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1998 L 131, p. 10).

(4) OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
2.

If the response to the previous question is in the negative, in the present case, where the calving percentage achieved is less than that required by the national legislation, having regard to the requirements for a graded and proportionate approach established in recitals 28 and 31 of the aforesaid regulation and the articles of EU law cited in the first question referred for a preliminary ruling, must the number of eligible animals within the meaning of point 18 of Article 2(1) and Article 30(3) of the regulation be determined: (a) by classing as eligible animals only those which have calved; or (b) by classing as eligible animals those animals from among the declared animals which comprise the group in which the calving rate stipulated in the national legislation is reached?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 15 August 2022 — Air Europa Lineas Aereas v VO, GR

(Case C-545/22)

(2022/C 424/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Air Europa Lineas Aereas

Respondents: VO, GR

Question referred

Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the cancellation of a flight is caused by extraordinary circumstances where, as a result of the collapse of global air traffic from March 2020, following the outbreak of the global Covid-19 pandemic, the airline drastically reduces its flight schedule and cancels numerous flights due to a lack of economically effective capacity utilisation of flights and in order to protect the health of the crew and the pilot, without having been forced to cancel the flight by measures of authorities such as airport closures, flight bans or entry bans?

(1) 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
1.

Must the first sentence of Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (‘the Package Travel Directive’) be interpreted as providing for a further right of termination — in addition to that provided for in Article 12(1) of that directive — the legal consequences of which apply only if the traveller invokes that right in his or her declaration of termination?
In the event that the Court of Justice answers the first question in the negative:

Must Article 4(3), in conjunction with Article 2(j), of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that denied boarding against the will of the passenger may also be expressed by the contractual air carrier — which has concluded a code-share agreement with the operating air carrier in relation to the flight — to the passenger with effect to the detriment of the operating air carrier?
2.

Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) and points 17(a) and 24 of Annex I to that directive, be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which, where a. an installation for the intensive rearing of broilers is added to an already authorised installation of that kind, b. the new installation (29 990 places) and the already authorised installation (84 000 places) together exceed the threshold of 85 000 places for broilers referred to in point 17(a) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92, c. the new installation falls below both the national threshold for a site-specific preliminary assessment under national law (30 000 places) and the national threshold for a general preliminary assessment under national law (40 000 places), and d. although no environmental impact assessment was carried out for the already authorised installation, a case-by-case examination within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92 (in the form of a general preliminary assessment under national law) concluded that no environmental impact assessment was required for the already authorised installation, an environmental impact assessment must be carried out for the new installation only if a case-by-case examination within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92 (in the form of a general preliminary assessment under national law) reveals that the addition of the new installation is likely to have significant adverse or other significant adverse effects on the environment?
2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, then, for the purposes of interpreting the phrase ‘the place where those events actually take place’, appearing in Article 53 of the VAT Directive, is the place where the performers appear in front of the webcam relevant, or the place where the organiser of the sessions is established, or the place where customers see the images, or should some other place be taken into account?
Appeal brought on 15 September 2022 by Jean-Marc Colombani against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2022 in Case T-129/21, Colombani v EEAS

(Case C-595/22 P)

(2022/C 482/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean-Marc Colombani (represented by: N. de Montigny, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2022 in Case T-129/21, Colombani v EEAS;

Hear the case and:

— annul the EEAS decision of 17 April 2020 rejecting the appellant’s application for the post of Director for North Africa and Middle East (vacancy notice 2020/48);

— annul the EEAS decision of 6 July 2020 rejecting the appellant’s application for the post of Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Canada (vacancy notice 2020/134);

Order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs incurred by the appellant on appeal and at first instance.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds.

By his first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court committed several errors when it ruled that the application for annulment of the decision of 17 April 2020 was inadmissible.

When it considered that the appellant, by way of the mutual agreement of 9 February 2021 concluded with the EEAS in Case T-507/20, Colombani v EEAS, agreed to waive the right to challenge the decision rejecting his application for the post of Director, the General Court (i) erred in law in its interpretation of the agreement; (ii) ruled infra petita; (iii) failed to have regard to the appellant’s interest in obtaining an annulment of the contested decision; and (iv) erred in its analysis of the conditions to be fulfilled in order to claim that there was a defect in the appellant’s consent at the time when the agreement was signed.

By his second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed his procedural rights by limiting the examination of the merits of the case to the decision of 6 July 2020 alone, thereby excluding an analysis of the substantive pleas in so far as they also concern the decision of 17 April 2020.
4.

If article 11(1)(a) of EIA directive 2011/92/EU read in conjunction with article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or article 9(2) to (4) of the Aarhus Convention as approved on behalf of the European Community by Council decision 2005/370/EC does not have the effect set out in the first question in general circumstances, does it have that effect where the conditions set by the law of the member state concerned in order to enable an NGO to qualify for the purpose of article 1(2)(e) are such that the required period of existence of an NGO in order to so qualify is longer than the statutory period for determination of an application for development consent, thus having the consequence that an unincorporated NGO formed in response to a particular planning application would normally never qualify for the purposes of the legislation implementing article 1(2)(e).
1.

Is it compatible with EU law, in particular Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘Directive 2000/78/EC’) (1) in light of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), if a national provision provides that a private organisation whose ethos is based on religious principles (a) may deem unsuitable for employment in its establishment persons who have left a particular religious community prior to the establishment of the employment relationship, or (b) may require of its staff that they have not left a particular religious community prior to the establishment of the employment relationship, or (c) may make it a condition of employment that a member of staff who has left a particular religious community prior to the establishment of the employment relationship rejoin said community, if it does not also require its staff to belong to that religious community?
1.

Is Article 1(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a rule of national law such as Paragraph 371(1)(4) of the Estonian Code of Civil Procedure (under which a court may not admit an action inter alia where an order terminating proceedings which was made by an Estonian court in a dispute between the same parties concerning the same subject matter and on the same basis and which precludes further recourse to the courts in the same matter has become final) is an obstacle to the hearing of an action regarding a claim in respect of which a European order for payment has been issued and declared enforceable by a court of a Member State?
2.

If the first question is to be answered in the negative: Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the procedure for the grant of the retention permit, no conditions may be laid down as a result of which an individual assessment of the situation of the person concerned and that of his or her family with regard to the consequences of the loss of citizenship of the Union does not take place or is superseded by other requirements?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 16 September 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2022 in Case T-408/21, HB v European Commission

(Case C-597/22 P)

(2023/C 24/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and B. Araujo Arce, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: HB (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2022 in Case T-408/21 HB v Commission, in so far as it annuls Commission Decisions C(2021) 3339 final of 5 May 2021 and C(2021) 3340 final of 5 May 2021;

— refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance in relation to the application for annulment;

— order HB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on a single plea in law, alleging an error of law.

According to the Commission, the General Court erred in considering that Decisions C(2019) 7318 final and C(2019) 7319 were contractual.

Consequently, the incorrect characterisation of those two claims as contractual includes, in accordance with the case-law ADR (C-584/17), the wrongful annulment of Commission Decisions C(2021) 3339 final of 5 May 2021 and C(2021) 3340 final of 5 May 2021, which are the subject of the present case.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 10 November 2022 — I. sp. z o.o. v M.W.

(Case C-693/22)

(2023/C 35/43)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: I. sp. z o.o.

Defendant: M.W.

Question referred

Should Article 5(1)(a) 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), (1) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(a), (c) and (e) of that regulation, as well as Article 6(3) thereof, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law that permits the sale, in enforcement proceedings, of a database, within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, (2) which contains personal data, if the data subject did not consent to such a sale?

(1) OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1.

(2) OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20.
1.

Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard: — whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results? — what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is? — to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 18 November 2022 — Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. v The Treasury — Chief Pharmaceuticals Inspector

(Case C-711/22)

(2023/C 45/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Advance Pharma sp. z o.o.

Defendant: The Treasury — Chief Pharmaceuticals Inspector

Question referred

In the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and (2) TEU, does a remedy available in certain legal systems of the Member States of the European Union, in the form of the possibility of seeking revision of proceedings which led to a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights finding a breach of the provisions of the Convention, constitute an essential element of the right to effective judicial protection in civil matters where the legal system of a Member State provides for another legal remedy for the purpose of protecting the judicial rights of a party to proceedings which have resulted in a final judgment?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 18 October 2022 — J. P. Mali Kerékpárgyártó és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-653/22)

(2023/C 45/10)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J. P. Mali Kerékpárgyártó és Forgalmazó Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Must Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’) (1) be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 42(1) thereof is satisfied by Article 84(8) of the az uniós vámjog végrehajtásáról szóló 2017. évi CLII. törvény (Law CLII of 2017 on the application of EU customs law; ‘the Law on customs’) which, in the case of the customs administrative fine which has to be imposed where a customs deficit has been incurred as a result of an offence relating to the correctness of information in the customs declaration, does not allow the customs authorities to assess all the circumstances of the case or the conduct attributable to the trader who lodged the customs declaration, but requires, as a mandatory rule, the imposition of a customs administrative fine equal to 50 % of the established customs deficit, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence committed and the examination and assessment of the liability attributable to that trader?

(1) OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) — Federconsumatori, Adiconsum, ADOC, Ercole Pietro Zucca (C-463/04) and Associazione Azionariato Diffuso dell'AEM SpA, Filippo Cuccia, Giacomo Fragapane, Pietro Angelo Puggioni, Annamaria Sanchirico, Sandro Sartorio (C-464/04) v Comune di Milano

(Joined Cases C-463/04 and C-464/04) (1)

(Article 56 EC - Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Privatised undertakings - National provision under which the Articles of association of a company limited by shares may confer on the State or a public body holding shares in that company the power to appoint directly one or more directors to the board)

(2008/C 22/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Federconsumatori, Adiconsum, ADOC, Ercole Pietro Zucca (C-463/04) and Associazione Azionariato Diffuso dell'AEM SpA, Filippo Cuccia, Giacomo Fragapane, Pietro Angelo Puggioni, Annamaria Sanchirico, Sandro Sartorio (C-464/04),

Defendant: Comune di Milano

Interested parties: AEM SpA (C-463/04 and C-464/04), Edison SpA (C-463/04)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Article 56 EC — National law allowing public entities to appoint directors or auditors in privatised undertakings — Application by a territorial entity which retains a substantial holding in the privatised undertaking.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as Article 2449 of the Italian Civil Code, under which the Articles of association of a company limited by shares may confer on the State or a public body with a shareholding in that company the power to appoint directly one or more directors which, on its own or, as in the main proceedings, in conjunction with a provision such as Article 4 of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, which became, after amendment, Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, as amended by Law No 350 of 24 December 2003, which grants that State or public body the right to participate in the election on the basis of lists of the directors it has not appointed directly, is such as to enable that State or public body to obtain a power of control which is disproportionate to its shareholding in that company.

(1) OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.