ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — G.M.A. v État belge

(Case C-710/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 45 TFEU - Citizenship of the Union - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of residence for more than three months - Article 14(4)(b) - Jobseekers - Reasonable period of time to acquaint themselves with potentially suitable employment opportunities and take the necessary steps to obtain employment - Requirements imposed by the host Member State on the jobseeker during that period - Conditions governing the right of residence - Obligation to continue seeking employment and to have a genuine chance of being engaged)

(2021/C 62/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: G.M.A.

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a host Member State is required to grant a reasonable period of time to a Union citizen, which starts to run from the time when that Union citizen registered as a jobseeker, in order to allow that person to acquaint himself or herself with potentially suitable employment opportunities and take the necessary steps to obtain employment.

During that period, the host Member State may require the jobseeker to provide evidence that he or she is seeking employment. It is only after the expiry of that period that that Member State may require the jobseeker to show not only that he or she is continuing to seek employment but also that he or she has a genuine chance of being engaged.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Adina Onofrei v Conseil de l’ordre des avocats au barreau de Paris, Bâtonnier de l’ordre des avocats au barreau de Paris, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Paris

(Case C-218/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of persons - Freedom of establishment - Access to the profession of lawyer - Exemption from training and diploma requirements - Grant of the exemption - Conditions - National legislation providing for an exemption for category A civil servants and former category A civil servants or for persons treated as such with experience in the professional practice of national law, on national territory, in the national civil service of the Member State concerned or in an international organisation)

(2021/C 53/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Adina Onofrei

Defendants: Conseil de l’ordre des avocats au barreau de Paris, Bâtonnier de l’ordre des avocats au barreau de Paris, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Paris

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as:

— precluding national legislation which restricts an exemption from the requirements of professional training and holding a certificate of competence to exercise the profession of lawyer laid down, in principle, for entry to the profession of lawyer, to certain members of the civil service of a Member State who have performed legal work in that capacity in that Member State, in an administration or a public service or an international organisation, and which excludes from the scope of that exemption officials, members or former members of the EU civil service who have performed legal work in that capacity in an EU institution and outside French territory;

— not precluding national legislation which makes such an exemption contingent on the person concerned having performed legal work in the field of national law, and excluding from the scope of that exemption officials, members or former members of the EU civil service who have performed legal work in that capacity, in one or more fields of EU law, provided that that national legislation does not exclude account from being taken of legal work involving the practice of national law.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — TQ v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-441/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 5(a), Article 6(1) and (4), Article 8(1) and Article 10 - Return decision issued against an unaccompanied minor - Best interests of the child - Obligation for the Member State concerned to be satisfied, before the adoption of a return decision, that that minor will be returned to a member of his or her family, a nominated guardian or adequate reception facilities in the State of return - Distinction on the basis solely of the criterion of the age of the minor in order to grant a right of residence - Return decision not followed by removal measures)

(2021/C 79/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TQ

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 6(1) 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, read in conjunction with Article 5(a) of that directive and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, before issuing a return decision against an unaccompanied minor, the Member State concerned must carry out a general and in-depth assessment of the situation of that minor, taking due account of the best interests of the child. In this context, that Member State must ensure that adequate reception facilities are available for the unaccompanied minor in question in the State of return.

2. Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 5(a) of that directive and in the light of Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not distinguish between unaccompanied minors solely on the basis of the criterion of their age for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are adequate reception facilities in the State of return;

3. Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, after it has adopted a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor and has been satisfied, in accordance with Article 10(2) of that directive, that that minor will be returned to a member of his or her family, a nominated guardian or adequate reception facilities in the State of return, from refraining from subsequently removing that minor until he or she reaches the age of 18 years.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) v BT

(Case C-843/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4(1) - Voluntary early retirement - Early retirement pension - Eligibility - Requirement for the pension amount to be received to be at least as much as the legal minimum amount - Proportion of workers of each sex excluded from the benefit of early retirement - Justification of a potential particular disadvantage to female workers - Social policy objectives of the Member State concerned)

(2021/C 79/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Defendant: BT

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7 of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which, in the event of voluntary early retirement of a worker enrolled in the general social security scheme, makes that worker’s right to an early retirement pension contingent on the condition that the amount of that pension must be at least as much as the minimum pension to which that worker would be entitled at the age of 65, even if that law puts at a particular disadvantage female workers compared with male workers, which is for the referring court to verify, in so far as that consequence is justified by legitimate social policy objectives which are unrelated to any discrimination based on sex.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bartosch Airport Supply Services GmbH v Zollamt Wien

(Case C-772/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Tariff heading 8701 and Tariff heading 8705 - Interpretation - Aircraft tractor)

(2021/C 138/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bartosch Airport Supply Services GmbH

Defendant: Zollamt Wien

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016, must be interpreted as meaning that heading 8705 of that nomenclature does not cover vehicles designed to tow and push aircraft, referred to as ‘aircraft tractors’, since those aircraft tractors fall within heading 8701 of that nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — DQ v Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics

(Case C-903/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Civil service - Transfer of retirement pension rights - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 11 of Annex VIII - Officials and temporary staff reinstated in their national administration of origin after a period of non-active status and the performance of duties in an EU institution)

(2021/C 110/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DQ

Defendant: Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer of the actuarial equivalent of retirement pension rights may be requested both by officials and members of the contract staff who enter a national administration for the first time after having been employed in an EU institution and by those who return to a national administration after having performed duties in an EU institution in the context of a period of non-active status or leave on personal grounds.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
2.

Article 1 and Article 3(1), (2) and (3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, the latter paragraph being read in conjunction with subparagraph (k) of the second subparagraph of Article 2 of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for the levying of a tax at a single rate on the production of electricity and its incorporation into the electricity system, including where that electricity is produced from renewable sources and which does not have as its objective the protection of the environment but to increase the volume of budgetary revenue;
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, by the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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 and, therefore, by failing to notify those measures to the European Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of that directive;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 March 2021 — European Commission v Hungary, Republic of Poland

(Case C-596/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 107(1) TFEU - State aid - Hungarian tax on turnover linked to advertisements - Information used to determine the reference system - Progressivity of tax rates - Transitional measure for the partial deductibility of losses carried forward - Existence of a selective advantage - Burden of proof)

(2021/C 182/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, P.-J. Loewenthal and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs, including those incurred by the Republic of Poland.

(1) OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 — European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — ITS Europe) v European Commission

(Case C-572/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Decision of the Validation Panel of the European Commission on classification as a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) - Decision 2012/838/EU, Euratom - Annex - Sections 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 - Request for review - Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 - Article 22 - No administrative proceedings - Link between request for review and administrative proceedings - Refusal of SME status despite formal observance of the Recommendation 2003/361 criteria - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Handicaps usually faced by SMEs - None)

(2021/C 182/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — ITS Europe) (represented by: M. Wellinger and K. T’Syen, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, O. Serdula and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — ITS Europe) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
1.

The combined provisions of Article 8(2) to (4), Article 17(1) and (2) and Article 19 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 must be interpreted as permitting the issue of an aggregate sentence covering not only one or more previous sentences handed down against the person concerned in the Member State in which that aggregate sentence is delivered, but also one or more sentences handed down against him or her in another Member State, which are enforced under that framework decision in the first Member State. Such an aggregate sentence cannot, however, lead to an adaptation of the duration or nature of those sentences which goes beyond the strict limits laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) of that framework decision, a breach of the obligation, imposed by Article 17(2) of that framework decision, to deduct the full period of deprivation of liberty already served, where appropriate, by the sentenced person in the issuing State, from the total duration of the deprivation of liberty to be served in the executing Member State, or to a review of the sentences imposed in another Member State, in breach of Article 19(2) of that framework decision;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission, Slovanet a.s.

(Case C-152/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Slovak market for broadband internet access services - Regulatory obligation on the part of operators with significant market power to grant access to the local loop - Conditions laid down by the incumbent operator for unbundled access by other operators to the local loop - Indispensability of the access - Imputability of a subsidiary’s conduct to the parent company - Rights of the defence)

(2021/C 206/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Telekom AG (represented by: D. Schroeder and K. Apel, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, M. Farley, L. Malferrari, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents), Slovanet a.s. (represented by: P. Tisaj, advokát)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Deutsche Telekom AG, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
1.

Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed time limit, all the measures necessary to recover from Telecom Castilla-La Mancha SA the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1385 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.27408 (C 24/10) (ex NN 37/10, ex CP 19/09) implemented by the authorities of Castilla-La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas, by failing to demonstrate that all outstanding payments of that aid have been cancelled and by failing to notify the European Commission, within the prescribed time limit, of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 3 and 4 of that decision
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland — United Kingdom) — TKF v Department of Justice for Northern Ireland

(Case C-729/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Temporal scope - Article 75 - Decisions given by a court of a Member State prior to accession to the European Union)

(2021/C 217/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TKF

Respondent: Department of Justice for Northern Ireland

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 75(2)(a) 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 must be interpreted as applying only to decisions given by national courts in States which were already members of the European Union on the date of adoption of those decisions.

2. Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that no provision of that regulation enables decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations, given in a State before its accession to the European Union and before the date of application of that regulation, to be recognised and enforced, after that State’s accession to the European Union, in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Watford Employment Tribunal — United Kingdom) — K and Others, L, M, N and Others, O, P, Q, R, S, T v Tesco Stores Ltd

(Case C-624/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal pay for male and female workers - Article 157 TFEU - Direct effect - Concept of ‘work of equal value’ - Claims seeking equal pay for work of equal value - Single source - Workers of different sex having the same employer - Different establishments - Comparison)

(2021/C 289/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring tribunal

Watford Employment Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: K and Others, L, M, N and Others, O, P, Q, R, S, T

Respondent: Tesco Stores Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 157 TFEU must be interpreted as having direct effect in proceedings between individuals in which failure to observe the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for ‘work of equal value’, as referred to in that article, is pleaded.

(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
2.

The provisions 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 the light of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, signed on 19 June 1990, and of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as not precluding the processing of personal data appearing in a red notice issued by the International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol) in the case where it has not been established in a final judicial decision taken in a State that is a party to the Agreement between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen on 14 June 1985, or in a Member State that the ne bis in idem principle applies in respect of the acts on which that notice is based, provided that such processing satisfies the conditions laid down by that directive, in particular in that it is necessary for the performance of a task carried out by a competent authority, within the meaning of Article 8(1) of that directive.