ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov — Romania) — SR v EW

(Case C-196/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Article 5 - Translation of the document - Translation costs borne by the applicant - Concept of ‘applicant’ - Service, by the court before which proceedings have been brought, of judicial documents on interveners in the proceedings)

(2022/C 284/10)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Ilfov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SR

Defendant: EW

Interveners: FB, CX, IK

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court orders the transmission of judicial documents to third parties that apply for leave to intervene in the proceedings, that court cannot be regarded as being the ‘applicant’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 August 2022 — Petrus Kerstens v European Commission

(Case C-447/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Disciplinary proceedings - Requests for assistance - Rejection - Notification of decisions by electronic means - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Point from which time starts to run - Action brought out of time)

(2022/C 359/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (represented by: C. Mourato, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Petrus Kerstens to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg — Austria) — LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG v CB, DF, GH

(Case C-7/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of documents - Regulation (EC) 1393/2007 - Article 8(1) - One-week period within which the right to refuse to accept a document is to be exercised - Enforcement order made in one Member State and served in another Member State in the language of the first Member State only - Legislation of that first Member State laying down an eight-day period to lodge an objection to that order - Period for lodging an objection starting to run at the same time as the period laid down for the purpose of exercising the right to refuse to accept the document - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy)

(2022/C 318/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Bleiburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG

Defendants: CB, DF, GH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79), read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

must be interpreted as precluding legislation of the Member State of the authority which issued a document to be served, pursuant to which the starting point of the one-week period referred to in Article 8(1) of that regulation, within which the addressee of such a document may refuse to accept it on one of the grounds set out in that provision, is the same as the starting point for the period within which a remedy is to be sought against that document in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
1.

Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2365 of 18 December 2017, read in conjunction with the third subparagraph of Article 80(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2364 of 18 December 2017, must be interpreted as meaning that the optional ground for exclusion provided for in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 57(4) covers cases where there are sufficiently plausible indications to conclude that economic operators have entered into an agreement prohibited by Article 101 TFEU, but is not limited solely to the agreements provided for in that article.
1.

Both Article 5(2)(b) 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 and the principle of equal treatment must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which a legal person established and controlled by intellectual property rights management organisations is entrusted with the management of (i) exemptions from payment in respect of compensation for private copying and (ii) reimbursements in respect of such compensation, where that national legislation provides that exemption certificates and reimbursements must be granted in good time and in accordance with objective criteria which do not allow that legal person to refuse an application for the granting of such a certificate or of reimbursement on the basis of considerations involving the exercise of discretion and that the decisions of that legal person refusing such an application may be challenged before an independent body.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — flightright GmbH v American Airlines Inc.

(Case C-436/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 3(1)(a) - Scope - Article 2(f) to (h) - Concept of ‘ticket’ - Concept of ‘reservation’ - Concept of ‘connecting flight’ - Reservation through a travel agency - Article 7 - Compensation for air passengers in the event of a long delay to a flight - Transport operation consisting of a number of flights operated by separate operating air carriers - Connecting flight departing from an airport located in a Member State with a stop in Switzerland and final destination in a third country)

(2022/C 451/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: American Airlines Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(h) 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 concept of a ‘connecting flight’ covers a transport operation made up of a number of flights operated by separate operating air carriers which do not have a specific legal relationship, where those flights have been combined by a travel agency which has charged an overall price and issued a single ticket for that operation, with the result that a passenger departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State who suffers a long delay to the arrival at the destination of the last flight may rely on the right to compensation pursuant to Article 7 of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 452, 8.12.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — LB v TO

(Case C-120/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual leave - Allowance in lieu of leave not taken after the termination of the employment relationship - Three-year limitation period - Starting point - Adequate information provided to the worker)

(2022/C 424/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: LB

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: TO

Operative part of the judgment

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 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the right to paid annual leave acquired by a worker in respect of a given reference period is time-barred after a period of three years which begins to run at the end of the year in which that right arose, where the employer has not actually put the worker in a position to exercise that right.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — UP v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège

(Case C-825/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Asylum application - Rejection - Order to leave the territory - Article 6(4) - Application for leave to remain for the purpose of medical treatment - Admissible application - Issuance of temporary leave to remain while the application is being examined - Dismissal of application - Social assistance - Refusal - Condition relating to the legality of the stay - No return decision - Effect of temporary leave to remain on the order to leave the territory)

(2022/C 472/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UP

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Liège

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(4) 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,

must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which, where a right to stay is granted to a third-country national staying illegally on its territory pending the outcome of the processing of an application for leave to remain for one of the reasons covered by that provision, on account of the admissibility of that application, the grant of that right entails the implicit withdrawal of a return decision previously adopted in respect of that national after the rejection of his or her application for international protection.

(1) OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.
2.

Article 183 of Directive 2006/112, read in the light of the principle of neutrality of VAT, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person to whom another taxable person has provided a service can claim directly from the tax authority a refund of the amount corresponding to the VAT in respect of which that service provider has unduly invoiced that taxable person and which that service provider has paid to the Treasury, that authority is obliged to pay interest on that amount where it has not made that refund within a reasonable period of time after having been requested to do so. The rules for applying interest on that amount fall within the procedural autonomy of the Member States, circumscribed by the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, it being understood that the national rules relating in particular to the calculation of any interest due must not result in the taxable person being deprived of adequate compensation in respect of the loss caused by the late refund of that amount. It is for the referring court to do whatever lies within its jurisdiction to give full effect to that Article 183 by interpreting national law in conformity with EU law.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Zenith Media Communications SRL v Consiliul Concurenţei

(Case C-385/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Penalty imposed by the national competition authority - Determination of the amount of the fine - Consideration of turnover in the profit and loss account - Request for the national competition authority to take into account a different turnover - Refusal by the Competition Council - Real situation of the undertaking concerned - Principle of proportionality)

(2023/C 7/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zenith Media Communications SRL

Defendant: Consiliul Concurenţei

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) TEU and Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice under which, for the purposes of calculating the fine imposed on an undertaking for infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the national competition authority is required, in all circumstances, to take into account the turnover of that undertaking as shown in its profit and loss account, without having the possibility of examining evidence put forward by that undertaking to show that that turnover does not reflect its real economic situation and that, consequently, another amount which reflects that situation should be taken into account as turnover, provided that that evidence is precise and documented.

(1) OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.
1)

Article 5(1)(b) 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), must be interpreted as meaning that: the principle of ‘purpose limitation’, laid down in that provision, does not preclude the recording and storage by the controller, in a database set up for the purpose of testing and correcting errors, of personal data previously collected and stored in another database, where such further processing is compatible with the specific purposes for which the personal data were initially collected, which must be determined in the light of the criteria referred to in Article 6(4) of that regulation.
1.

Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, read in the light of the principle of the prohibition of fraud, must be interpreted as meaning that the second purchaser of goods may be refused the benefit of deducting input value added tax (VAT) on the ground that he or she knew or ought to have been aware of the existence of VAT fraud committed by the original seller at the time of the first sale, even if the first purchaser was also aware of that fraud.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — ‘TOYA’ sp. z o.o., Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

(Case C-243/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Telecommunications - Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) - Article 8(3) - Directive 2014/61/EU - Articles 1(3), 1(4) and 3(5) - Power of the national regulatory authority to impose ex ante regulatory conditions relating to access to the physical infrastructure of a network operator not having significant market power - Absence of a dispute relating to access)

(2023/C 15/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘TOYA’ sp. z o.o., Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Intervener: Polska Izba Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(3), 1(4) and 3(5) of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks, read in conjunction with (i) Articles 1(1), 5(1) and 8(3) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and (ii) Articles 8 and 12 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) as amended by Directive 2009/140,

must be interpreted as not precluding a competent national regulatory authority in the field of electronic communications from imposing on a network operator which has not been designated as having significant market power the obligation to apply the conditions for access to that operator’s physical infrastructure by the undertakings active in that area, as determined ex ante by that authority, including the rules and procedures for entering into contracts and the applicable access fees, irrespective of the existence of a dispute relating to that access and effective competition.

(1) OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
1.

Article 23(1) and Article 46(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that: they do not preclude a national administrative practice whereby the administrative authority which has decided on an application for international protection provides the applicant’s representative with a copy of the electronic file relating to that application in the form of a series of separate files in PDF (Portable Document Format) format, without consecutive page numbering, and the structure of which can be viewed by means of free software readily accessible on the internet, provided, first, that that method of disclosure guarantees access to all the information in the file relevant to the applicant’s defence, and on the basis of which the decision on that application was taken, and that, secondly, that that method of communication offers as faithful a representation as possible of the structure and chronology of that file, subject to cases where public interest objectives prevent the disclosure of certain information to the applicant’s representative.
1.

Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 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 by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) and Article 6 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that (i) the processing of personal data serves a purpose other than that for which those data were collected, where such data were collected for the purposes of the detection and investigation of a criminal offence, but that processing is carried out for the purpose of prosecuting a person following the conclusion of the criminal investigation at issue, irrespective of the fact that that person was considered to be a victim at the time of that collection, and that (ii) such processing is permitted pursuant to Article 4(2) of that directive, provided that it meets the conditions laid down in that provision.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora — Portugal) — Criminal proceedings against TL

(Case C-242/22 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2010/64/EU - Right to interpretation and translation - Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) - Concept of an ‘essential document’ - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Article 3(1)(d) - Scope - Not implemented in domestic law - Direct effect - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 and Article 48(2) - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Article 6 - Suspended prison sentence with probation - Breach of the probation conditions - Failure to translate an essential document and absence of an interpreter when that document was being drawn up - Revocation of the suspension of the prison sentence - Failure to translate the procedural acts relating to that revocation - Consequences for the validity of that revocation - Procedural defect resulting in relative nullity)

(2022/C 359/13)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Évora

Party in the main proceedings

TL

Intervening parties: Ministério Público

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and Article 3(1)(d) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, read in the light of Article 47 and Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the infringement of the rights provided for by those provisions of those directives must be invoked by the beneficiary of those rights within a prescribed period, failing which that challenge will be time-barred, where that period begins to run before the person concerned has been informed, in a language which he or she speaks or understands, first, of the existence and scope of his or her right to interpretation and translation and, secondly, of the existence and content of the essential document in question and the effects thereof.

(1) OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/23

Order of the President of the Court of 21 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-496/06) (1)

(2008/C 79/41)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.