ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought on 17 November 2021 by Brunswick Bowling Products LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2021 in Case T-152/19, Brunswick Bowling Products LLC v Commission

(Case C-694/21 P)

(2022/C 37/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Brunswick Bowling Products LLC (represented by: R. Martens, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

— and refer the case back to the General Court,

— or, in the alternative, set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal and rule on the action at first instance and annul, in its entirety, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1960 (1);

— and, in any case, order the European Commission to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263 juncto 256(1) TFEU and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of good administration, because, the General Court committed an error of law by omitting to appraise the information on which the Commission relied or failed to rely upon to adopt its final decision, and by therefore failing to take into account all relevant factors, whereas, where the Commission has the duty to ensure that it has at its disposal the most complete and reliable information possible, an adequate review of the legality of the Commission Decision by the General Court implies a review as to whether the Commission relied on all relevant information and whether, where applicable, the information relied on by the Commission is factually accurate, reliable, complete and consistent.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU, Article 41(1) and 41(2)(c) of the Charter and the duty to state reasons, because, the General Court failed to provide a sufficiently detailed and reasoned statement of reasons, whereas, in conformity with its duty to state reasons the General Court should disclose its reasoning in such a way as to enable the Appellant to ascertain the reasons for the decision taken.

(1) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1960 of 10 December 2018 on a safeguard measure taken by Sweden pursuant to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to prohibit the placing on the market a type of pinsetter machine and a supplementary kit to be used together with that type of pinsetter machine, manufactured by Brunswick Bowling & Billiards, and to withdraw those machines already placed on the market (OJ 2018, L 315, p. 29).
Appeal brought on 25 November 2021 by Gerardo Galeote (T-243/20) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Joined Cases T-240/20 to T-245/20, Arnaoutakis and Others v Parliament

(Case C-715/21 P)

(2022/C 37/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Gerardo Galeote (represented by: J. M. Martínez Gimeno, abogado, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, abogado, E. Arnaldos Orts, abogado, and F. Doumont, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

— rule on the dispute and annul the Parliament’s decision in so far as it rejects the appellant’s application to be granted a voluntary additional pension on the ground that he has not reached the required age of 65;

— order the Parliament to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-243/20.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The grounds of appeal allege: (i) the Bureau’s lack of competence to take the decision of the Bureau of 2018, inter alia in so far as it lays down substantive conditions for rights conferring prospective entitlement before the entry into force of the Staff Regulations; (ii) infringement of the first sentence of Article 27(2) of the Staff Regulations by reason of non-observance of rights conferring prospective entitlement prior to the entry into force of the Staff Regulations; (iii) infringement of the principle of equality and non-discrimination and of the principle of proportionality; and (iv) infringement of the principle of legal certainty (lack of transitional measures) and the principle of legitimate expectations.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 5 November 2021 — NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS AG v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-664/21)

(2022/C 64/23)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS AG

Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

Question referred

Do the provisions of the VAT Directive, (1) in particular Articles 131 and 138(1) thereof, and the principles of EU law, in particular the principles of tax neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality, preclude national legislation which prohibits the submission and acceptance of new evidence to demonstrate satisfaction of the substantive requirements laid down in Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive, already during the administrative procedure at first instance, and more specifically in the context of the observations submitted on the tax inspection report issued before a tax assessment notice has been issued?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — FZ v BA, DA, DV and CG

(Case C-586/21)

(2022/C 51/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FZ

Defendants: BA, DA, DV and CG

Question referred

Does Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, (1) and consequently the contents of the directive, apply to a situation in which the notary in post in a notary’s office — who is both a public official and also the private-sector employer of the office’s employees, with the employment relationship being governed by general employment legislation and by a sectoral Collective Agreement — succeeds the outgoing post-holder, takes on the previous notary’s Protocol, continues to provide services at the same place of work using the same material facilities, and takes on the staff who had worked for the previous notary who had held that post?

(1) OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 18 November 2021 — Cafpi SA, Aviva assurances SA v Enedis SA

(Case C-691/21)

(2022/C 64/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Cafpi SA, Aviva assurances SA

Respondent: Enedis SA

Question referred

Are Articles 2 and 3(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an electricity distribution system operator may be regarded as a ‘producer’ if it alters the voltage of the electricity from the supplier so that it may be distributed to the final consumer?

(1) OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29.
—

Second, the General Court committed a manifest error of assessment when interpreting Article 9(4) of the basic regulation and by failing to address essential arguments, or to provide reasons. Under the General Court’s protection, the Commission exceeded by far the limits of the investigation period or of the period considered, by choosing 2008 as ‘the most recent representative year’ following the financial crisis. Relatedly, the Appellant argues that the Contested Judgment’s finding of injury is vitiated in that it is not the result of a balancing of both positive and negative relevant factors. In that context, the Appellant argued that a reduction of the Union industry’s costs of production should, among other factors, be also associated with the situation of the Union industry following the global financial crisis of 2012. However, the General Court refused to even consider whether the financial crisis would have also affected the injury chain.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 11 November 2021 — Fluvius Antwerpen v MX

(Case C-677/21)

(2022/C 84/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fluvius Antwerpen

Defendant: MX

Questions referred

Must Article 2(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy is a supply of goods, being the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner?

If not, must Article 14(2)(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy is a supply of goods, being a transfer, by order made by or in the name of a public authority or in pursuance of the law, of the ownership of property against payment of compensation?

Must Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, if Fluvius Antwerpen is entitled to compensation for unlawfully used energy, it is to be regarded as a taxable person since the unlawful usage is the result of an ‘economic activity’ of Fluvius Antwerpen, namely the exploitation of tangible property for the purposes of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis?

If Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy constitutes an economic activity, must the first paragraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC then be interpreted as meaning that Fluvius Antwerpen is a public authority and, if so, must the third paragraph of Article 13(1) then be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy is the result of an activity of Fluvius Antwerpen that is not carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible?

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

Does Article 4(6) of Council [Framework Decision] 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, (1) interpreted in the light of Article 1(3) of that decision and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude legislation, such as the Italian legislation, that — in the context of a European arrest warrant procedure for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or detention order — absolutely and automatically precludes the executing judicial authorities from refusing to surrender third-country nationals staying or residing in Italian territory, irrespective of the links those individuals have with that territory?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 5 October 2021 — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v Gmina L.

(Case C-616/21)

(2022/C 95/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Respondent: Gmina L.

Question referred

Must the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) in particular Articles 2(1), 9(1) and 13(1) of that directive, be interpreted as meaning that a municipality (a public authority) is to be regarded as a taxable person for VAT purposes in respect of the implementation of a programme for the removal of asbestos from properties located within that municipality which are owned by residents who do not incur any expense in that regard? Or is the implementation of such a programme included in the activities of the municipality as a public authority which are undertaken in order to fulfil its tasks of protecting the health and life of its residents and protecting the environment, in which connection the municipality is not regarded as a taxable person for VAT purposes?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Appeal brought on 21 December 2021 by Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC, Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2021 in Case T-19/21, Amazon.com and Others v Commission

(Case C-815/21 P)

(2022/C 84/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Services LLC, Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (represented by: A. Komninos, dikigoros, G. Tantulli, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the order under appeal;

— dismiss the plea of inadmissibility in its entirety;

— refer the case back to the General Court in order for the latter to examine the substance of the Application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants claim that the order under appeal infringed Article 263 TFEU by concluding that the measure contested in the Application did not produce legal effects. Such infringement is the result of an erroneous interpretation of Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003 (1), which accords undertakings legal protection from parallel antitrust proceedings as between the Commission and national competition authorities. The order under appeal failed to recognize that the contested measure deprived Amazon of that protection.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).
2.

If the Court answers Question 1 in the negative, with the consequence that an exception to the prohibition on the processing of data concerning health laid down in Article 9(1) of the GDPR is possible under Article 9(2)(h) of the GDPR: in a case such as the present one, are there further data protection requirements, beyond the conditions set out in Article 9(3) of the GDPR, that must be complied with, and, if so, which ones?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 December 2021 — Vinal AD v Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

(Case C-820/21)

(2022/C 138/17)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vinal AD

Defendant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Questions referred

How is Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/118/ЕC (1) to be interpreted in so far as it provides that authorisation to open and operate a tax warehouse is subject to conditions that the authorities are entitled to lay down for the purpose of preventing any possible evasion or abuse; what content must those conditions have in order to achieve the objectives of preventing evasion or abuse?

How is the principle of non-discrimination for the purposes of recital 10 of Directive 2008/118/ЕC to be interpreted?

How are those provisions to be interpreted, and are they to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that in Article 53(1)(3) of the ZADS, in conjunction with Article 47(1)(5) thereof, in so far as the latter provisions provide for the unconditional withdrawal of authorisation for the future, which takes place indefinitely and without any restriction as to time, in addition to a penalty already imposed for the same act?

(1) Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).
Appeal brought on 16 December 2021 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-279/19, Front Polisario v Council

(Case C-799/21 P)

(2022/C 119/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert, V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de oro (Front Polisario), French Republic, European Commission, Confédération marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of the appeal and dismiss the action brought by Front Polisario;

— order Front Polisario to pay the costs of the appeal and of Case T-279/19;

— in the alternative: maintain the effects of Decision 2019/217 (1) for a period of 12 months from the date on which judgment is delivered.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and concerns the judgment under appeal in so far as it concluded that Front Polisario has the capacity to bring proceedings before the Courts of the European Union.

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and breach of the principle that documents must be construed in accordance with their actual terms, and concerns the judgment under appeal in so far as it concluded that the contested decision is of direct and individual concern to Front Polisario.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law as regards the possibility of relying on rules of international law and concerns the judgment under appeal in so far as it concluded that Front Polisario can rely on the principle of self-determination and the principle of the relative effect of treaties.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the general principle of the relative effect of treaties and of the right of self-determination, breach of the principle that documents must be construed in accordance with their actual terms, distortion of the Council’s arguments and infringement of Article 36, read in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 53, of the Statute of the Court of Justice. It concerns the judgment under appeal in so far as it concluded that the people of Western Sahara did not give their consent to the agreement with which Decision 2019/217 is concerned.

(1) Council Decision (EU) 2019/217 of 28 January 2019 on the conclusion of the agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (OJ 2019 L 34, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 24 August 2021 by Antonius Maria Vervloet and Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2021 in Case T-211/21 Vervloet and Vervloet-Mulder v AREB

(Case C-526/21 P)

(2022/C 158/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Antonius Maria Vervloet, Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder (represented by: P. Van der Veld, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Agència Estatal de Resolució d’Entitats Bancàries (AREB)

By order of 1 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) declares the appeal manifestly inadmissible and Antonius Maria Vervloet and Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder are ordered to bear their own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 December 2021 — Criminal proceedings against ZhU and RD

(Case C-805/21)

(2022/C 138/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

ZhU and RD

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 2(3) of Directive 2014/42 (1) or, in the alternative, with the third indent of Article 1 of Framework Decision 2005/212 to interpret national law as meaning that a motor vehicle used to store large quantities of excise goods (cigarettes) without strip stamps does not constitute an instrumentality of crime?

(1) Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 2 December 2021 by Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2021 in Case T-169/20, Marina Yachting Brand Management v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear

(Case C-743/21 P)

(2022/C 198/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, C. Eckhartt, P. Böhner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Industries Sportswear Co. Srl

By order of 31/03/2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd should bear its own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 20 September 2021 by Lajos Bese against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 July 2021 in Case T-128/21, Bese v EUIPO — Mixtec (rubyred CRANBERRY)

(Case C-611/21 P)

(2022/C 191/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lajos Bese

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 11 February 2022, the Vice-President of the Court of Justice held that the appeal was dismissed as inadmissible and that Mr Lajos Bese should bear his own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2021 in Case T-352/20, St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Elephant

(Case C-762/21 P)

(2022/C 237/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Preduzeće za proizvodnju, unutrašnju i spoljnu trgovinu Elephant Co. d.o.o.

By order of 31 March 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH should bear its own costs.
1.

Is the rule laid down in the second part of the first sentence and in the second sentence of Article 177(3) of the Sudski poslovnik (Rules of Procedure of the Courts, Narodne novine, br. 37/14, 49/14, 8/15, 35/15, 123/15, 45/16, 29/17, 33/17, 34/17, 57/17, 101/18, 119/18, 81/19, 128/19, 39/20 and 47/20), which provides that ‘a case before a court of second instance shall be deemed to be closed on the date on which the decision is sent from the court office, after the case has been returned by the Registration Service. The Registration Service shall be required to return the file to the court office as promptly as possible after receipt thereof. The decision shall then be notified within a further period of eight days’, to be considered compatible with Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?