ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 May 2021 — Sigrid Dickmanns v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-63/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract with a termination clause - Not included on the reserve list for a competition - Purely confirmatory measure - Time for bringing a complaint)

(2021/C 278/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Sigrid Dickmanns (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Sigrid Dickmanns to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
3.

Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, which makes the application of the ground for optional non-execution laid down in that provision subject to the condition that, where there has been a sentence, the sentence has been served, is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country, must be interpreted as meaning that that condition is satisfied where the requested person has been finally sentenced, for the same acts, to a term of imprisonment, of which part has been served in the third State in which the sentence was handed down, whilst the remainder of that sentence has been remitted by a non-judicial authority of that State, as part of a general leniency measure that also applies to persons convicted of serious acts and is not based on objective criminal policy considerations. It is for the executing judicial authority, when exercising the discretion it enjoys, to strike a balance between, on the one hand, preventing impunity and combating crime and, on the other, ensuring legal certainty for the person concerned.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — DB Netz AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-12/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rail transport - International rail freight corridors - Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 - Article 13(1) - Establishment of a one-stop shop for each freight corridor - Article 14 - Nature of the framework for the allocation of the infrastructure capacity on the freight corridor laid down by the executive board - Article 20 - Regulatory bodies - Directive 2012/34/EU - Article 27 - Procedure for submitting applications for infrastructure capacity - Role of infrastructure managers - Articles 56 and 57 - Functions of the regulatory bodies and cooperation between regulatory bodies)

(2021/C 320/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DB Netz AG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 13(1), Article 14(9) and Article 18 (c) of Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 concerning a European rail network for competitive freight, and Article 27(1) and (2) of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European rail area, read in conjunction with point 3(a) of Annex IV to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the infrastructure manager, defined in Article 3(2) of that directive, is the competent authority for adopting, in the context of the national network statement, the applicable rules for submitting applications for infrastructure capacity, including those regarding the exclusive use of a particular electronic booking system, to the one-stop shop provided for in Article 13(1);

2. The review by a national regulatory body of the rules relating to the procedure for submitting applications for infrastructure capacity to the one-stop shop laid down in the network statement is governed by the provisions of Article 20 of Regulation No 913/2010 and those provisions must be interpreted as meaning that the regulatory body of a Member State cannot object to those rules without complying with the cooperation obligations arising from Article 20 and, in particular, without consulting the regulatory bodies of the other Member States involved in the freight corridor in order to achieve, as far as possible, a uniform approach;

3. Article 14(1) of Regulation No 913/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the framework for the allocation of the infrastructure capacity on the freight corridor laid down by the executive board pursuant to that provision does not constitute an act of EU law.

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — ZN v Generalno konsulstvo na Republika Bulgaria v grad Valensia, Kralstvo Ispania

(Case C-280/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Determination of international jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State - Article 5(1) - Employee residing in a Member State - Contract concluded with a consular representation of that Member State in another Member State - Functions of the employee - No exercise of public powers)

(2021/C 289/22)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski Rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZN

Defendant: Generalno konsulstvo na Republika Bulgaria v grad Valensia, Kralstvo Ispania

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with recital 3 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies for the purposes of determining the international jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State to hear and rule on a dispute between an employee from a Member State who does not carry out duties involving the exercise of public powers and a consular authority of that Member State situated in the territory of another Member State.

(1) OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.
1.

Article 58 and Article 60(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC must be interpreted as precluding a payment service user from being able to trigger the liability of the provider of those services on the basis of a liability regime other than that provided for by those provisions, in the case where that user has failed to fulfil his or her obligation to notify laid down in that Article 58;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija

(Case C-60/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rail transport - Directive 2012/34/EU - Single European railway area - Article 13(2) and (6) - Access to service facilities and to rail-related services - Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 - Reconversion of facilities - Powers of the regulatory body)

(2021/C 349/11)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS

Defendant: Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija

intervener:‘Baltijas Ekspresis’ AS

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 13(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to supply all railway undertakings with non-discriminatory access to service facilities, within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that directive, referred to in point 2 of Annex II thereto, cannot be imposed on the owners of such facilities who are not operators of those facilities;

2. Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 must be interpreted as not applying to a situation in which the owner of a building housing a service facility, within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that directive, which is in use, intends to terminate a lease agreement relating to that building in order to reallocate the latter to its own use.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
2.

Article 392 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding the application of the margin scheme to transactions involving the supply of building land where that purchased land which has not been built on has become, between the time of its purchase and the time at which it is resold by the taxable person, building land. That provision does not, however, preclude the application of the margin scheme to transactions involving the supply of building land where that land has been subject, between the time of its purchase and the time at which it is resold by the taxable person, to alterations such as its partitioning into lots or the carrying out of works for the connection of those lots to grids and networks, including, inter alia, the gas and electricity networks.
2.

Article 168 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the national public television provider is entitled to deduct the input value added tax (VAT) for purchases of goods and services used for the purposes of its activities which give rise to the right to deduct and that it is not entitled to deduct input VAT for purchases of goods and services used for the purposes of its activities which do not fall within the scope of VAT. It is for the Member States to determine the methods and criteria for apportioning input VAT between taxable transactions and transactions not falling within the scope of VAT, taking into account the aims and broad logic of that directive in compliance with the principle of proportionality.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 — Lípidos Santiga SA v European Commission

(Case C-402/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Energy - Directive (EU) 2018/2001 - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Limit on use of biofuels produced from food and feed crops - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 - Definition of high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk feedstock - Palm oil - Action for annulment - Condition that a natural or legal person must be directly concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 513/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lípidos Santiga SA (represented by: P. Muñiz Fernández, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Lípidos Santiga SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
1.

The right of Union citizens to free movement provided for in Article 21 TFEU and defined by 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, having regard to the provisions on border crossing laid down by Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, be interpreted as not precluding national legislation by which a Member State obliges its nationals, on pain of criminal penalties, to carry a valid identity card or passport when travelling to another Member State, by whatever means of transport and by whatever route, provided that the detailed rules for those penalties comply with the general principles of EU law, including those of proportionality and non-discrimination;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Regione Veneto v Plan Eco Srl

(Case C-315/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Shipments of waste - Article 3(5) and Article 11(1)(i) - Directive 2008/98/EC - Waste management - Article 16 - Principles of self-sufficiency and proximity - Decision 2000/532/EC - European Waste Catalogue (EWC) - Mixed municipal waste subject to mechanical treatment which does not alter its nature)

(2022/C 11/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Regione Veneto

Respondent: Plan Eco Srl

intervening parties: Futura Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(5) and Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste must be interpreted as meaning that, in the light of the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity, the competent authority of dispatch may, on the basis, inter alia, of the ground set out in Article 11(1)(i) of that regulation, object to a shipment of mixed municipal waste which, following mechanical treatment for the purpose of its energy recovery which has not however substantially altered its original properties, has been classified under code 19 12 12 of the list of wastes laid down in the Annex to Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, as amended by Commission Decision 2014/955/EU of 18 December 2014.

(1) OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought byA Oy (C-221/20), B Oy (C-223/20)

(Joined Cases C-221/20 and C-223/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 92/83/EEC - Excise duty - Beer - Article 4(2) - Possibility to apply reduced rates of excise duty to beer brewed by independent small breweries - Treatment as a single independent small brewery or as two or more small breweries - Obligation to transpose)

(2022/C 2/11)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A Oy (C-221/20), B Oy (C-223/20)

Intervening parties: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which applies the possibility, provided for in Article 4(1) thereof, of applying reduced rates of excise duty to beer brewed by independent small breweries is not, however, obliged to treat as a single independent small brewery two or more small cooperating breweries whose combined annual production does not exceed 200 000 hectolitres.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Pro Rauchfrei eV v JS e.K.

(Case C-370/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Directive 2014/40/EU - Labelling and packaging - Article 8(8) - Health warnings which must appear on each unit packet of a tobacco product and any outside packaging - Automatic vending machine for cigarette packets - Health warnings not visible from the outside - Representation of unit packets - Concept of ‘images’ of unit packets and any outside packaging targeting consumers in the European Union)

(2022/C 73/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Pro Rauchfrei eV

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: JS e.K.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 8(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC must be interpreted as meaning that images which are not faithful depictions of unit packets of cigarettes but which consumers associate with such unit packets on account of their design in terms of outline, proportions, colour and brand logo constitute ‘images of unit packets’ within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 8(8) of Directive 2014/40 must be interpreted as meaning that an image of a packet of cigarettes which is covered by that provision but which does not carry the health warnings provided for in Chapter II of Title II of that directive is not compliant with that provision, even if the consumer has the opportunity to see those warnings on the packet of cigarettes corresponding to such an image before purchasing it.

(1) OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — IB v FA

(Case C-289/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Jurisdiction to hear divorce applications - Article 3(1)(a) - ‘Habitual residence’ of an applicant)

(2022/C 51/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IB

Defendant: FA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that a spouse who divides his or her time between two Member States may have his or her habitual residence in only one of those Member States, with the result that only the courts of the Member State in which that habitual residence is situated have jurisdiction to rule on the application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Zipvit Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-156/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Right of deduction - Supply of postal services mistakenly exempted - VAT deemed to be included in the commercial price of the supply for the purpose of exercising the right of deduction - Not included - Concept of VAT ‘due or paid’)

(2022/C 109/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zipvit Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that value added tax (VAT) cannot be regarded as being due or paid, within the meaning of that provision, and is therefore not deductible by the taxable person, in the case where, first, that person and its supplier have mistakenly assumed, on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of EU law by the national authorities, that the supplies at issue were exempt from VAT and that, consequently, the invoices issued did not refer to it, in a situation where the contract between those two persons provides that, if that tax were due, the recipient of the supply should bear the cost of it, and, second, no step to recover the VAT was taken in good time, with the result that any action by the supplier and the tax and customs administration to recover the unpaid VAT is time-barred.

(1) OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — A.K. v Skarb Państwa

(Case C-428/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Second Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 1(2) - Directive 2005/14/EC - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 9(1) - Obligation to increase the minimum amounts covered by compulsory insurance - Transitional period - New rule applying immediately to the future effects of a situation arising under the old rule - Situation arising prior to the entry into force of an EU rule of substantive law - National legislation excluding insurance contracts concluded before 11 December 2009 from the obligation to increase the minimum amounts covered by compulsory insurance)

(2022/C 84/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.K.

Defendant: Skarb Państwa

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as meaning that Member States which have availed themselves of the option, provided for in those provisions, of laying down a transitional period were obliged to require that, as from 11 December 2009, the minimum amounts guaranteed in insurance contracts against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles concluded before that date but which were still in force on that date comply with the rule laid down in the fourth paragraph of those provisions.

(1) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.