ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — Proceedings brought by B

(Case C-439/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Articles 5, 6 and 10 - National legislation providing for public access to personal data relating to penalty points imposed for road traffic offences - Lawfulness - Concept of ‘personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences’ - Disclosure for the purpose of improving road safety - Right of public access to official documents - Freedom of information - Reconciliation with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data - Re-use of data - Article 267 TFEU - Temporal effect of a preliminary ruling - Ability of a constitutional court of a Member State to maintain the legal effects of national legislation incompatible with EU law - Principles of primacy of EU law and of legal certainty)

(2021/C 320/03)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B

Other party: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 10 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 applying to the processing of personal data relating to penalty points imposed on drivers of vehicles for road traffic offences.

2. The provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular Article 5(1), Article 6(1)(e) and Article 10 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which obliges the public body responsible for the register in which penalty points imposed on drivers of vehicles for road traffic offences are entered to make those data accessible to the public, without the person requesting access having to establish a specific interest in obtaining the data.

3. The provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular Article 5(1), Article 6(1)(e) and Article 10 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises the public body responsible for the register in which penalty points imposed on drivers of vehicles for road traffic offences are entered to disclose those data to economic operators for re-use.

4. The principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as precluding the constitutional court of a Member State, before which a complaint has been brought challenging national legislation that proves, in the light of a preliminary ruling given by the Court of Justice, to be incompatible with EU law, from deciding, in accordance with the principle of legal certainty, that the legal effects of that legislation be maintained until the date of delivery of the judgment by which it rules finally on that constitutional complaint.

(1) OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
1.

Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as precluding the interpretation of national legislation according to which, where a civilian is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his or her personal circumstances, a finding of serious and individual threat to that civilian’s life or person by reason of ‘indiscriminate violence in situations of … armed conflict’, within the meaning of that provision, is subject to the condition that the ratio between the number of casualties in the relevant area and the total number of individuals composing the population of that area reach a fixed threshold.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — JZ v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt., OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt.

(Case C-932/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 1(2) - Article 6(1) - Loan denominated in foreign currency - Difference between the exchange rate applicable when the loaned funds are released and when they are repaid - Member State legislation providing for the replacement of an unfair term by a provision of national law - Possibility for the national court to invalidate the entire agreement containing the unfair term - Possible consideration of the protection offered by that legislation and of the consumer’s wishes regarding its application)

(2021/C 431/26)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JZ

Defendants: OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt., OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in relation to loan agreements concluded with a consumer, renders void a term relating to the exchange difference that is regarded as unfair and requires the national court with jurisdiction to replace that term with a provision of national law imposing the use of an official exchange rate, without providing for the possibility, for that court, to grant the application of the consumer concerned for the annulment of the loan agreement in its entirety, even if that court considers that the continuation of that agreement would be contrary to the interests of the consumer, in particular with regard to the exchange risk which the latter would continue to bear by virtue of another term in that agreement, in so far as the court is, however, in a position to make a finding — in the exercise of its sovereign discretion, over which the consumer’s expressed wishes cannot prevail — that the implementation of the measures thus provided for by that national legislation makes it possible to re-establish the legal and factual situation which would have existed for the consumer in the absence of that unfair term.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — DK v European External Action Service

(Case C-851/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Determination of that penalty - Withholding of an amount from the pension - Criminal conviction and civil sanction before national courts - Compensation, in whole or in part, for non-material damage caused to the European Union - Lack of relevance of that compensation - Article 10 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality)

(2021/C 349/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: DK (represented: initially by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, and subsequently by S. Orlandi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders DK to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
2.

Article 63 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which, with a view to combating tax evasion and tax avoidance, first, prohibits natural and legal persons from making domestic payments in cash where the amount of the payment is equal to or exceeds a set threshold and requires, to that end, a transfer or deposit into a payment account, including as regards the distribution of dividends of a company, and second, provides for a system of penalties for infringing that prohibition in the context of which the amount of the fine that may be imposed is calculated as a fixed percentage of the total amount of the payment made in breach of that prohibition, without it being possible to adjust that fine depending on the particular circumstances of the case, provided that that legislation is appropriate for securing attainment of those objectives and does not go beyond what is necessary for attaining them.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LLC, successor in law to the company Energoalians

(Case C-741/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy Charter Treaty - Article 26 - Inapplicability between Member States - Arbitration Award - Judicial review - Jurisdiction of a court of a Member State - Dispute between a third-State operator and a third State - Jurisdiction of the Court - Article 1(6) of the Energy Charter Treaty - Concept of ‘investment’)

(2021/C 431/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Republic of Moldova

Defendant: Komstroy LLC, successor in law to the company Energoalians

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(6) and Article 26(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty, signed at Lisbon on 17 December 1994, approved on behalf of the European Communities by Council and Commission Decision 98/181/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 23 September 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that the acquisition, by an undertaking of a Contracting Party to that treaty, of a claim arising from a contract for the supply of electricity, which is not connected with an investment, held by an undertaking of a third State against a public undertaking of another Contracting Party to that treaty, does not constitute an ‘investment’ within the meaning of those provisions.

(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — NRW. Bank v Single Resolution Board (SRB), Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-662/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Determination of the 2016 ex ante contribution - Action for annulment - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Late submission - Challengeable act - Confirmatory act)

(2021/C 502/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: NRW. Bank (represented by: J. Seitz, J. Witte and D. Flore, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: H. Ehlers, J. Kerlin and P. A. Messina, acting as Agents, and B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, Rechtsanwälte), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Sikora-Kalėda and M. J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by: D. Triantafyllou, K.-P. Wojcik and A. Steiblytė, and subsequently by D. Triantafyllou and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2019, NRW. Bank v SRB (T-466/16, not published, EU:T:2019:445);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Sigma Alimentos Exterior SL v European Commission

(Case C-50/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification for the difference in treatment)

(2021/C 481/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Sigma Alimentos Exterior SL (represented: initially by M. Linares-Gil and M. Muñoz Pérez, abogados, and subsequently by M. Muñoz Pérez, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: R. Kanitz and J. Möller, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Sigma Alimentos Exterior SL to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
3.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the conditions for incurring the non-contractual liability of the European Union relating to the existence of a causal link between the infringement by the European Commission of the right to be heard and the damage complained of, as well as the fact of damage;
1.

Declares that, by failing to enter in the accounts the correct amounts of customs duties and to make available the correct amount of traditional own resources in respect of certain imports of textiles and footwear from China, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union, Articles 2 and 8 of Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources, Articles 2, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 of 26 May 2014 on the methods and procedure for making available the traditional, VAT and GNI-based own resources and on the measures to meet cash requirements, as amended by Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2016/804 of 17 May 2016, Articles 2, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as well as Article 105(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, and Article 220(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, as a consequence of its failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 325 TFEU, Article 46 of Regulation No 952/2013, Article 13 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, Article 248(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 3254/1994 of 19 December 1994, Article 244 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation No 952/2013, and Article 2(1)(d) and Articles 85 to 87 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/69/EC of 25 June 2009; and by failing to provide the European Commission with all the information necessary to determine the amount of traditional own resources losses, and by not providing as requested the reasons for the decisions cancelling the customs debts established, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — Tesco Stores ČR a.s. v Ministerstvo zemědělství

(Case C-881/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Approximation of the laws - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII - Provision of food information to consumers - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Directive 2000/36/EC - Point 2(c) of Part A of Annex I - Cocoa and chocolate products - List of ingredients of a food intended for consumers in a Member State)

(2022/C 109/05)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Brně

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tesco Stores ČR a.s.

Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2(a) of Part E of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator, when labelling products marketed in the territory of a Member State, is exempt from the obligation to list all the ingredients constituting a compound ingredient, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(h) of that regulation, only if that compound ingredient, which is the subject of a sales name under Part A of Annex I to Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption, is designated in the list of ingredients using that sales name, in the language version of the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
2.

Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that a defeat device can be justified under that provision only where it is established that that device strictly meets the need to avoid immediate risks of damage or accident to the engine, caused by a malfunction of a component of the exhaust gas recirculation system, of such a serious nature as to give rise to a specific hazard when a vehicle fitted with that device is driven. Furthermore, the ‘need’ for a defeat device, within the meaning of that provision, exists only where, at the time of the EC type-approval of that device or of the vehicle equipped with it, no other technical solution makes it possible to avoid immediate risks of damage or accident to the engine, which give rise to a specific hazard when driving the vehicle.
1.

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, by virtue of the effect of res judicata and time-barring, neither allows a court to examine of its own motion whether contractual terms are unfair in the course of mortgage enforcement proceedings, nor a consumer, after the expiry of the period for lodging an objection, to raise the unfairness of those terms in those proceedings or in subsequent declaratory proceedings, where the potential unfairness of those terms has already been examined by the court of its own motion, at the stage when the mortgage enforcement proceedings were initiated, but the judicial decision authorising the mortgage enforcement does not contain any grounds, even of a summary nature, attesting to the existence of that examination, nor state that the assessment of that court at the end of that examination could no longer be called into question if an objection were not lodged within the aforementioned period.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from Westminster Magistrates’ Court — United Kingdom) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against PI

(Case C-648/20 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 8(1)(c) - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purposes of a criminal prosecution on the basis of a detention order issued by the same authority - No judicial review prior to surrender of the requested person - Consequences - Effective judicial protection - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2021/C 182/29)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Westminster Magistrates’ Court

Parties to the main proceedings

PI

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1)(c) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the case-law of the Court, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in the effective judicial protection that must be afforded to a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution are not satisfied where both the European arrest warrant and the judicial decision on which that warrant is based are issued by a public prosecutor — who may be classified as an ‘issuing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision — but cannot be reviewed by a court in the issuing Member State prior to the surrender of the requested person by the executing Member State.

(1) OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of TR

(Case C-416/20 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 4a(1) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Grounds for optional non-execution - Exceptions - Mandatory execution - Sentence imposed in absentia - Escape of the person being prosecuted - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Articles 8 and 9 - Right to be present at the trial - Requirements in the event of conviction in absentia - Verification on surrender of the convicted person)

(2021/C 62/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

TR

Intervener: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamburg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4a of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority cannot refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, where the person concerned has prevented the service of summons on him in person and has failed to appear in person at the trial on account of his escape to the executing Member State, on the sole ground that that authority does not have the assurance that, in the event of surrender to the issuing Member State, the right to a new trial, as defined under Articles 8 and 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, will be respected.

(1) OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.