ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — LM v Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing

(Case C-402/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/CE - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Parent of an adult child suffering from a serious illness - Return decision - Judicial remedy - Automatic suspensory effect - Safeguards pending return - Basic needs - Articles 7, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2020/C 399/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LM

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5, 13 and 14 of Directive 2008/115 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, read in the light of Article 7, Article 19(2) and Articles 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide, as far as possible, for the basic needs of a third-country national to be met where:

— that national has appealed against a return decision made in respect of him or her;

— the adult child of that third-country national is suffering from a serious illness;

— the presence of that third-country national with that adult child is essential;

— an appeal was brought on behalf of that adult child against a return decision taken against him or her, the enforcement of which may expose that adult child to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in his or her state of health, and

— that third-country national does not have the means to meet his or her needs himself or herself.

(1) OJ C 255, 29.7.2019
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Souruh SA v Council of the European Union

(Case C-350/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Action for annulment)

(2020/C 399/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Souruh SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Souruh SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Société Eco TLC v Ministre d’État, ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-556/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘State resources’ - Increased responsibility of producers - Eco-body approved by the public authorities to collect financial contributions from those who place on the market certain products in order to be able to fulfil, on their behalf, their legal obligation to treat waste from those products - Financial support paid by that eco-body to contractually bound sorting operators)

(2020/C 423/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Eco TLC

Defendants: Ministre d’État, ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Intervening party: Fédération des entreprises du recyclage

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a system whereby a private, non-profit eco-body, approved by the public authorities, receives contributions from those who place on the market a particular category of product and who enter into a contract with it to that effect, in return for a service consisting in the organisation on their behalf of the treatment of the waste from those products, and redistributes to operators responsible for the sorting and recovery of that waste, subsidies the amount of which is set out in the approval, in the light of environmental and social targets, does not constitute an intervention through State resources within the meaning of that provision, as long as those subsidies are not constantly under public control, which is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Limited, United Biscuits Pension Investments Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-235/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(a) - Exemption of insurance transactions - Supply of pension fund management services to trustees by investment fund managers - Exclusion of any risk indemnity - Occupational pension scheme - National tax practice - Exercise of an insurance activity - Authorised entities - Entities not holding such authorisation - Concept of ‘insurance transactions’)

(2020/C 414/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Limited, United Biscuits Pension Investments Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that investment fund management services supplied for an occupational pension scheme, which do not provide any indemnity from risk, cannot be classified as ‘insurance transactions’, within the meaning of that provision, and thus do not fall within the value added tax (VAT) exemption laid down in that provision in favour of such transactions.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — BY v CX

(Case C-637/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Notion of ‘public’ - Transmission by electronic means to a court of a protected work as evidence in court proceedings)

(2020/C 433/16)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BY

Defendant: CX

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘communication to the public’, referred to in that provision, does not cover the transmission by electronic means of a protected work to a court, as evidence in judicial proceedings between individuals.

(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — WV v Landkreis Harburg

(Case C-540/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 3(b) - Court for the place where the maintenance creditor is habitually resident - Action for recovery brought by a public body subrogated to the claims of a maintenance creditor)

(2020/C 423/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: WV

Respondent: Landkreis Harburg

Operative part of the judgment

A public body which seeks to recover, by way of an action for recovery, sums paid in place of maintenance to a maintenance creditor, and to which the claims of that maintenance creditor against the maintenance debtor have been transferred by way of subrogation, may validly invoke the jurisdiction of the court for the place where the creditor is habitually resident, as provided in Article 3(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations.

(1) OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz — France) — Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle v Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle

(Case C-463/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation - Articles 14 and 28 - National collective agreement granting the right to leave following the statutory maternity leave for female workers who bring up their children on their own - Exclusion of male workers from the right to that leave - Protection of female workers as regards both the consequences of pregnancy and the condition of maternity - Conditions under which applicable)

(2021/C 28/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle

Defendant: Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle

Intervening party: Mission nationale de contrôle et d’audit des organismes de sécurité sociale

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 14 and 28 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, read in the light of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a provision of a national collective agreement which reserves to female workers who bring up their child on their own the right to leave after the expiry of the statutory maternity leave, provided that such leave is intended to protect workers in connection with the effects of pregnancy and motherhood, which is for the referring court to ascertain, taking into account, inter alia, the conditions for entitlement to the leave, its length and modalities of enjoyment, and the legal protection that attaches to that period of leave.

(1) OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
1.

Article 274 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), as amended by Directive 2013/58/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision of the competent authority to withdraw the authorisation of the insurance undertaking concerned and to appoint a provisional liquidator cannot constitute a ‘decision to open winding-up proceedings with regard to an insurance undertaking’ within the meaning of that article, unless the law of the home Member State of that insurance undertaking provides either that that provisional liquidator is empowered to realise the assets of that insurance undertaking and distribute the proceeds among its creditors or that the withdrawal of the authorisation of that insurance undertaking has the effect of opening automatically the winding-up proceedings, without a separate authority being required to adopt a formal decision to that end.
—

a staggered flat-rate system is used to determine which proportion of the musical works performed were taken from the repertoire of that collecting society, provided that another method does not exist which enables those works to be identified and quantified more precisely and which is capable of achieving the same legitimate aim, namely the protection of the interests of authors, composers and music publishers, without however leading to a disproportionate increase in the costs incurred in relation to the management of the contracts and the supervision of the use of musical works protected by copyright; it is for the national court to verify that, in the light of the particular case before it and taking into account all the relevant circumstances, including the availability and reliability of the data provided as well as the existing technological tools.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — BONVER WIN, a.s. v Ministerstvo financí ČR

(Case C-311/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - National legislation prohibiting the operation of gambling in certain places - Applicability of Article 56 TFEU - Existence of a cross-border element)

(2021/C 35/15)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: BONVER WIN, a.s.

Respondent: Ministerstvo financí ČR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the situation of a company established in a Member State which has lost its licence to operate games of chance following the entry into force, in that Member State, of legislation determining the places in which it is permitted to organise such games, which is applicable without distinction to all service providers operating in that Member State, regardless of whether those services are provided to nationals of that Member State or to those of other Member States, where some of its customers come from a Member State other than the Member State in which it is established.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
1.

Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which prescribes three methods for determining the equitable price at which the offeror must buy back a company’s shares, including the method resulting from the application of the first subparagraph of Article 5(4) of that directive, and which provides that the method which leads to the highest price must always be used, provided that the methods for determining the equitable price other than that resulting from the application of the first subparagraph of Article 5(4) are applied by the supervisory authority in compliance with the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) of that directive and under circumstances and criteria that are defined by a clear, precise and transparent legal framework.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Bundeszentralamt für Steuern v Y-GmbH

(Case C-346/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Refund of VAT - Directive 2008/9/EC - Article 8(2)(d) - Article 15 - Indication of number of the invoice - Refund application)

(2021/C 53/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Defendant: Y-GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(2)(d) and Article 15(1) of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State, as amended by Council Directive 2010/66/EU of 14 October 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an application for a refund of value added tax does not contain a sequential number of the invoice, but does contain another number which allows that invoice, and thus the good or service in question, to be identified, the tax authority of the Member State of refund must consider that application ‘submitted’ within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/9, as amended by Directive 2010/66, and proceed with its assessment. In making that assessment, and save where that authority already has available to it the original invoice or a copy thereof, it may request that the applicant produce a sequential number which uniquely identifies the invoice and, if that request is not satisfied within the deadline of one month laid down in Article 20(2) of that directive, as amended by Directive 2010/66, it is entitled to reject the application for a refund.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP) v LN

(Case C-655/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2 - Article 9 - Concepts of ‘economic activity’ and ‘taxable person’ - Transactions which seek to obtain income from goods on a continuing basis - Acquisition by a creditor of immovable property in the context of an enforcement procedure carried out for the purpose of the recovery of loans secured by mortgage guarantees and the sale of those buildings - Simple exercise of right of ownership by its holder)

(2021/C 79/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP)

Defendant: LN

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(a) and Article 9(1) 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 transaction by which a person acquires immovable property in the context of an enforcement procedure undertaken for the purpose of recovery of a loan which had previously been granted and, consequently, sells that property does not constitute, in itself, an economic activity, where that transaction falls within the scope of a simple exercise of the right of ownership and of the sound management of private assets, such that that person cannot, in the context of that transaction, be considered a taxable person.

(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 January 2021 — European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) v Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis

(Case C-280/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Minatran contract concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme - Eligible costs - Debit note issued by the ERCEA - Recovery of amounts advanced - Personnel costs and indirect expenditure relating to those personnel costs - Obligation to carry out work solely on the premises of the beneficiary of the grant - Supervision by the beneficiary - Normal practices of the beneficiary)

(2021/C 72/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (represented by: F. Sgritta and M. Pesquera Alonso, acting as Agents, and by E.Κourakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (represented by: V. Christianos, dikigoros)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
2.

The second part of the alternative referred to in Article 2(1)(4)(c) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as meaning that where a national sports federation has management autonomy under national law, that federation may be regarded as being subject to management supervision by a public authority only if it emerges from an overall analysis of the powers which that authority has in relation to that federation that there is active management control which, in practice, calls into question that autonomy to such an extent as to allow the authority to influence the federation’s decisions with regard to public contracts. The circumstance that the various national sports federations exert an influence over the activity of the public authority concerned on account of their majority participation in that authority’s main deliberative and collegiate bodies is relevant only if it can be established that each federation, considered individually, is in a position to exert a significant influence over the public supervision exercised by that authority over it with the result that that supervision would be offset and such a national sports federation would thus regain control over its management, notwithstanding the influence of the other national sports federations in a similar situation.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie — Poland) — VL v Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie

(Case C-16/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and (b) - ‘Concept of discrimination’ - Direct discrimination - Indirect discrimination - Discrimination on grounds of disability - Difference in treatment within a group of workers with disabilities - Grant of an allowance to workers with disabilities who have submitted disability certificates after a date chosen by the employer - Exclusion of workers with disabilities who have submitted their certificates before that date)

(2021/C 88/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: VL

Defendant and respondent: Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej w Krakowie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that:

— the practice adopted by an employer and consisting in the payment of an allowance to workers with disabilities who have submitted their disability certificates after a date chosen by that employer, and not to workers with disabilities who have submitted those certificates before that date, may constitute direct discrimination if it is established that that practice is based on a criterion that is inextricably linked to disability, inasmuch as it is such as to make it impossible for a clearly identified group of workers, consisting of all the workers with disabilities whose disabled status was necessarily known to the employer when that practice was introduced, to satisfy that temporal condition;

— that practice, although apparently neutral, may constitute discrimination indirectly based on disability if it is established that, without being objectively justified by a legitimate aim and without the means of achieving that aim being appropriate and necessary, it puts workers with disabilities at a particular disadvantage depending on the nature of their disabilities, including whether they are visible or require reasonable adjustments to be made to working conditions.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.