ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
5.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the general principle of the right to a fair trial before a court or tribunal previously established by law be interpreted as meaning that the court of last instance of a Member State must reject an application for the transfer of a case file concerning a case in which a question has been referred for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice where such an application has been lodged by a person appointed to a judicial post under national legislation and in circumstances that result in a court or tribunal being formed which does not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality and is not a court established by law, without first having to exhaust the procedure referred to in the question referred for a preliminary ruling in Case C-508/19 or in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2019, C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and Others?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 November 2020 — A v Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto

(Case C-634/20)

(2021/C 44/34)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A

Other party: Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto

Questions referred

Having regard to the principle of proportionality, is Article 45 or 49 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding the competent authority of a host Member State from granting, on the basis of the national legislation, a person the right to pursue the profession of doctor for a limited period of three years and subject to the restriction that that person may practise only under the direction and supervision of a licensed doctor and must complete three years of special training in general medical practice during that same period in order to obtain authorisation to pursue the profession of doctor independently in the host Member State, taking account of the fact that:

(a) the person has obtained an undergraduate degree in medicine in the home Member State but, when applying for recognition of that professional qualification in the host Member State, he or she was unable to provide a certificate attesting to the completion of a professional traineeship of one year’s duration, which is required as a further condition for obtaining the professional qualification in the home Member State;

(b) for the purposes of Article 55a of the Professional Qualifications Directive, (1) in the host Member State, the person has been offered, as a preferential alternative, which was declined by him or her, the possibility of carrying out in the host Member State, for a period of three years, a professional traineeship that is in accordance with the guidelines of the home Member State and applying to the competent authority of the home Member State for recognition of that traineeship in order subsequently to be able to reapply in the host Member State for the right to pursue the profession of doctor through the system of automatic recognition referred to in the directive;

(c) the purpose of the national legislation of the host Member State is to promote patient safety and the quality of healthcare services by ensuring that healthcare professionals have the training required for their professional activity, other sufficient professional qualifications and other skills required for the professional activity?

(1) Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 1 December 2020 — VA, ZA v TP

(Case C-645/20)

(2021/C 53/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: VA, ZA

Defendant: TP

Question referred

Must Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death is not located in a Member State, the court of a Member State in which the deceased had not established his habitual residence but which finds that the deceased had the nationality of that State and held assets in it must, of its own motion, examine whether it has subsidiary jurisdiction under that article?

(1) OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 1 December 2020 — XG v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-647/20)

(2021/C 53/36)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: XG

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred for a preliminary ruling

May capital gains arising from a property transaction consisting in the sale of an immovable property purchased by a Portuguese national not resident in the European Union be subjected to a discriminatory system of taxation which is more onerous by comparison with that which is applied to residents, who benefit from a 50 % reduction of the capital gains forming the basis of the calculation of income tax, in accordance with the provisions of Article 65(1)(a) TFEU?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2020 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v LE

(Case C-629/20)

(2021/C 72/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: LE

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

(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).
Appeal brought on 24 November 2020 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-370/19 Spain v Commission

(Case C-632/20 P)

(2021/C 62/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 in Case T-370/19 brought against the European Commission;

— give judgment on the action for annulment by annulling Commission Decision of 18 March 2019 on the participation of the National Regulatory Authority of Kosovo in the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (1), and

— in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Kingdom of Spain appeals from the General Court’s judgment of 23 September 2020 in Case T-370/19 Kingdom of Spain v European Commission on the following grounds:

— error of law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘third country’ within the meaning of Article 35 of Regulation 2018/1971 (2), in the light of the EU Treaties and of international law;

— error of law in the interpretation and application of Article 111 of the Kosovo SAA, in conjunction with Article 35 of Regulation 2018/1971, by misinterpreting the consequences of the European Union not taking a position on Kosovo’s status in international law;

— error of law in the interpretation of Article 35 of Regulation 2018/1971, in conjunction with Article 111 of the Kosovo SAA, in so far as the cooperation concerned does not include participation in BEREC and the Management Board of the BEREC Office;

— error of law in that it was held in the judgment under appeal that Article 17 TEU was a valid legal basis for adopting the contested decision;

— error of law in the interpretation of Article 35(2) of Regulation 2018/1971 in that it was held in the judgment under appeal that working arrangements could be laid down unilaterally by the European Commission.

In the event that any of the abovementioned grounds are established the appeal should be allowed and consequently the action for annulment should be considered and upheld, thereby annulling Commission Decision of 18 March 2019 on the participation of the National Regulatory Authority of Kosovo in the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications.

(1) OJ 2019 C 115, p. 26

(2) Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ 2018 L 321, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 29 December 2020 — CT, Ferme de la Sarte SPRL v Région wallonne

(Case C-726/20)

(2021/C 79/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CT, Ferme de la Sarte SPRL

Defendant: Région wallonne

Question referred

Is Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) to be interpreted as excluding from its scope the production of turf or of green roofs?

(1) OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 December 2020 — Y GmbH v Hauptzollamt

(Case C-668/20)

(2021/C 72/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Y GmbH

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Hauptzollamt

Questions referred

1. Is subheading 1302 19 05 of the Combined Nomenclature (‘the CN’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an extracted vanilla oleoresin diluted with ethanol and water consisting of approximately 90 % (v/v) or 85 % (m/m) ethanol, up to 10 % (m/m) water, 4.8 % (m/m) dry residue and 0.5 % (m/m) vanilla is to be classified under that subheading even though, according to Note 1(ij) to Chapter 13 of the CN, heading 1302 of the CN does not apply to extracted oleoresins?

2. Do extracted oleoresins within the meaning of subheading 3301 90 30 of the CN include the goods described in the first question referred?

3. Is subheading 3302 10 90 of the CN to be interpreted as meaning that the goods described in the first question referred are to be classified as mixtures of odiferous substances and mixtures (including alcohol solutions) with a basis of one or more of these substances, of a kind used in the food industry?

4. Do flavours within the meaning of Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC (2) include goods of subheading 1302 19 05 of the CN or extracted oleoresins of subheading 3301 90 30 of the CN?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2015 L 285, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21).
2.

Does the contractual term described above satisfy the requirement, laid down in the judgment in Andriciuc and Others, C-186/16, that the consumer must be able to assess, on the basis of such a term, the potentially significant economic consequences of the assumption of foreign exchange risk with regard to his or her financial obligations, having regard to the fact that the document entitled [‘]Information on the general risks of foreign currency financing[’], which the consumer signed when entering into the contract, makes reference in identical wording to the favourable and unfavourable effects of changes in the exchange rate, and thereby suggests that the typical trend in a stable exchange rate — also communicated by the Hungarian Banking Association — is that those favourable and unfavourable economic effects are offset in the long run?
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Are the national civil courts permitted and required to conduct an assessment of abusive practices in the light of the criteria laid down in Article 102 TFEU and/or in national competition law, even where the rail transport undertakings have the possibility to request the competent regulatory body to review the fairness of the charges paid? Must the national civil courts wait for a decision in the matter by the regulatory body and, where applicable, if it is contested before the courts, for that decision to become enforceable?
2.

If interpretation must be in conformity with Union law, does a distinction [then] exist, when applying Directive 2003/109/EC, (1) between the various dependents’ residence rights to which third-country nationals are entitled on the basis of Union law, including the dependent’s right of residence granted to a family member of a Union citizen on the basis of the Residence Directive and the right of residence on the basis of Article 20 TFEU?
Official Journal of the European Union

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 22 December 2020 — Fenix International Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-695/20)

(2021/C 110/17)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fenix International Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Question referred

Is Article 9a of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 (1) of 15 March 2011, inserted by Article 1(1)(c) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1042/2013 (2) of 7 October 2013, invalid on the basis that it goes beyond the implementing power or duty on the Council established by Article 397 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (3) of 28 November 2006 insofar as it supplements and/or amends Article 28 of Directive 2006/112/EC?

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2011, L 77, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1042/2013 of 7 October 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 as regards the place of supply of services (OJ 2013, L 284, p. 1).

(3) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 7 December 2020 by Laboratorios Ern, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-51/19 Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler (apiheal)

(Case C-667/20 P)

(2021/C 217/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Laboratorios Ern, S.A. (represented by: T. González Martínez and R. Guerras Mazón, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ

By order of 18 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Laboratorios Ern bear its own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Raiffeisen Bank International AG v UI and MB

(Case C-329/20)

(2021/C 148/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raiffeisen Bank International AG

Defendants: UI and MB

By order of 11 February 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) ruled that the request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 is manifestly inadmissible.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 17 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 15 December 2020 — Administración General del Estado v Ayuntamiento de Les Cabanyes

(Case C-679/20)

(2021/C 252/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 17 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Administración General del Estado

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Les Cabanyes

By order of 6 May 2021, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) declared that it clearly had no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 17 de Barcelona by decision of 11 December 2020.
(D)

How is Regulation 1(b) [rectius Article 1(b)] of the SOLAS Convention — which is specifically referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2009/16/EC and for which a consistent EU interpretation is, therefore, necessary for the purposes of and in the context of PSC — to be interpreted in so far as it provides that ‘(b) The Contracting Governments undertake to promulgate all laws, decrees, orders and regulations and to take all other steps which may be necessary to give the present Convention full and complete effect, so as to ensure that, from the point of view of safety of life, a ship is fit for the service for which it is intended’? More specifically, regarding the ship’s fitness for the service for which it is intended, which the port States are required to assess by means of PSC inspections, are the requirements imposed in the light of the classification and the relevant safety certificates held, which were obtained on the basis of the theoretical activity declared, to be used as the sole assessment criterion, or may regard also be had to the service that the ship actually provides? Accordingly, with regard to the abovementioned international criterion, do the administrative authorities of port States have the power not only to ascertain the compliance of the equipment and appliances on board with the requirements of the certificates issued by the flag State, based on the theoretical classification of the ship, but also to assess the conformity of the ship’s certificates and the related equipment and appliances on board in the light of the activity carried out in practice, which is different from the one stated in the classification certificate? The same points must be made for paragraph 1.3.1 of International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Resolution A.1138(31) — Procedures for Port State Control, 2019, adopted on 4 December 2019, in so far as it provides that ‘Under the provisions of the relevant conventions set out in section 1.2 above, the Administration (i.e. the Government of the flag State) is responsible for promulgating laws and regulations and for taking all other steps which may be necessary to give the relevant conventions full and complete effect so as to ensure that, from the point of view of safety of life and pollution prevention, a ship is fit for the service for which it is intended and seafarers are qualified and fit for their duties.’
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v FL

(Case C-12/21)

(2021/C 88/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: FL

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

(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).
3.

If the first two questions are answered in the affirmative, does the direct effect of the abovementioned provisions confer entitlement, on the basis of the facts established in the present case, to reimbursement of the excise duty paid on the basis solely of the request and without any further formal requirements?
Appeal brought on 27 January 2021 by Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-814/17, Lietuvos geležinkeliai v Commission

(Case C-42/21 P)

(2021/C 98/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB (represented by: W. Deselaers, K. Apel, P. Kirst, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Orlen Lietuva AB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal, in whole or in part, in so far as the judgment dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment against the Commission Decision C(2017) 6544 final of 2 October 2017 in Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail (1);

— annul the Decision, in whole or in part;

— in the alternative, annul or further reduce the fine imposed on Lietuvos geležinkeliai; and

— order the Commission to pay all costs related to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal on four grounds.

First, the General Court has incorrectly interpreted and as a result incorrectly applied the Court’s jurisprudence by which a dominant undertaking only needs to grant access to an infrastructure if the refusal is likely to eliminate all competition on the market on the part of the person requesting access, if such refusal is incapable of being objectively justified, and if the access in itself is indispensable to carrying on that person’s business.

Second, the removal of a 19 kilometre rail track connecting Mažeikiai in north-western Lithuania with the Latvian border (the ‘Track’) ‘in great haste and without having first secured the necessary funds’ does not constitute an abuse of a dominant position.

Third, the General Court committed an error of law in qualifying the removal of the Track as capable of restricting competition.

Fourth, the General Court contradicted itself by referring to appellant’s allegedly anticompetitive intent for the purpose of determining whether a fine should be imposed and for the purpose of assessing the level of fine, despite having found that the alleged infringement is not based on the appellant’s intent, anticompetitive strategy or bad faith.

(1) Summary of Commission Decision of 2 October 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail) (notified under document number C(2017) 6544) (OJ 2017, C 383, p. 7).