ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Samohýl group a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel

(Case C-941/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings 3004 and 3808 - Interpretation - Regulation (EC) No 455/2007 - Spot-on solution for cats against infestations of fleas and ticks - Therapeutic or prophylactic effects)

(2021/C 182/24)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Samohýl group a.s.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that a product consisting of a solution intended for cats, which must be applied by local cutaneous route (spot-on) by means of pipettes (0,5 ml) and which contains the active substance fipronil (50 mg per pipette), and excipients, such as butylated hydroxyanisole E 320, butylated hydroxytoluene E 321, benzyl alcohol and diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, comes within tariff heading 3808 of the CN, as an ‘insecticide’, subject to the assessment by the referring court of all the facts at its disposal.

(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
1.

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services for the benefit of adults lacking legal capacity and intended to protect them in civil matters, the performance of which is entrusted to the person supplying services by a judicial authority in pursuance of the law and remuneration for which is fixed by the same authority as a fixed amount or is based on a case-by-case assessment by taking into account in particular the financial situation of the person lacking legal capacity — and such remuneration may moreover be borne by the State in the event that that person is indigent — where that supply is for consideration, the person supplying services obtains income therefrom on a continuing basis and the overall amount of the compensation for that activity is determined on the basis of criteria intended to ensure that the operating costs incurred by the person supplying services are covered, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of that provision.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Maria Álvarez y Bejarano and Others v European Commission, Council of the European Union, European Parliament

(Joined Cases C-517/19 P and C-518/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - New provisions relating to the annual reimbursement of travel expenses and the granting of travelling time - Link with expatriate status - Plea of illegality - Principles of equal treatment and of proportionality - Intensity of the judicial review)

(2021/C 206/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Bejarano, María Álvarez y Bejarano, Ana-Maria Enescu, Lucian Micu, Angelica Livia Salanta, Svetla Shulga, Soldimar Urena de Poznanski, Angela Vakalis, Luz Anamaria Chu, Marli Bertolete, María Castro Capcha, Hassan Orfe El, Evelyne Vandevoorde (C-517/19 P), Jakov Ardalic, Liliana Bicanova, Monica Brunetto, Claudia Istoc, Sylvie Jamet, Despina Kanellou, Christian Stouraitis, Abdelhamid Azbair, Abdel Bouzanih, Bob Kitenge Ya Musenga, El Miloud Sadiki, Cam Tran Thi (C-518/19 P) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (C-517/19 P) (represented by: G. Gattinara and B. Mongin, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (C-518/19 P) (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: C. González Argüelles and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-517/19 P and C-518/19 P;

2. Orders Ms Maria Álvarez y Bejarano, Ms Ana-Maria Enescu, Ms Angelica Livia Salanta, Ms Svetla Shulga, Ms Soldimar Urena de Poznanski, Ms Angela Vakalis, Ms Luz Anamaria Chu, Ms Marli Bertolete, Ms Maria Castro Capcha, Ms Evelyne Vandevoorde, Mr Lucian Micu and Mr Hassan Orfe El to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, relating to the appeal in Case C-517/19 P;

3. Orders Mr Jakov Ardalic, Mr Christian Stouraitis, Mr Abdelhamid Mr Azbair, Mr Abdel Bouzanih, Mr Bob Kitenge Ya Musenga, Mr El Miloud Sadiki, Mr Cam Tran Thi, Ms Liliana Bicanova, Ms Monica Brunetto, Ms Claudia Istoc, Ms Sylvie Jamet and Ms Despina Kanellou to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, relating to the appeal in Case C-518/19 P;

4. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs, relating to the appeal in Case C-517/19 P;

5. Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs, relating to the appeals in Cases C-517/19 P and C-518/19 P.

(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Tulcea v SC Piscicola Tulcea SA (C-294/19), Ira Invest SRL v Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Tulcea (C-304/19)

(Joined Cases C-294/19 and C-304/19) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy (CAP) - Direct support schemes - Eligible hectare - Aquaculture facility - Land use - Actual use for agricultural purposes - Use complying with the entries in the land register)

(2021/C 263/02)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Tulcea (C-294/19), Ira Invest SRL (C-304/19)

Defendants: SC Piscicola Tulcea SA (C-294/19), Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură — Centrul Judeţean Tulcea (C-304/19)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(h) and Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Article 4(1)(e) and Article 32(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Regulation No 73/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that areas categorised under national law as intended for aquaculture activities, but that are or have been actually used for agricultural purposes, are agricultural areas.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — LH v Profi Credit Slovakia s.r.o.

(Case C-485/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair contract terms - Payment made under an unlawful term - Unjust enrichment of the lender - Right to restitution time-barred - Principles of Union law - Principle of effectiveness - Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48 - Information to be included in a credit agreement - Elimination of certain national requirements on the basis of the case-law of the Court - Interpretation of the old version of the national legislation in accordance with that case-law - Temporal effects)

(2021/C 228/04)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LH

Defendant: Profi Credit Slovakia s.r.o.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an action brought by a consumer for repayment of sums wrongly paid in connection with the performance of a credit agreement may not be brought on the basis of unfair terms, within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, or terms contrary to the requirements of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, is subject to a limitation period of three years which begins to run from the day on which the unjust enrichment occurred;

2. Article 10(2) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/48, as interpreted by the judgment of 9 November 2016, Home Credit Slovakia (C-42/15, EU:C:2016:842), are applicable to a credit agreement which was entered into before that judgment was handed down and before the national legislation was amended in order to comply with the interpretation adopted in that judgment.

(1) OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón — Spain) — Servicio Aragonés de Salud v LB

(Case C-942/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Rejection of a request for leave of absence by reason of employment in the public sector provided for permanent staff regulated under administrative law - National legislation excluding entitlement to such leave when taking up temporary employment - Scope - Inapplicability of clause 4 - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2021/C 289/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Servicio Aragonés de Salud

Respondent: LB

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón (High Court of Justice, Aragon, Spain), in its order for reference of 17 December 2019.

(1) OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 April 2021 — Fortischem a.s. v European Commission, AlzChem AG

(Case C-890/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Advantage - Recovery - Economic continuity)

(2021/C 278/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fortischem a.s. (represented by: C. Arhold, Rechtsanwalt, and by P. Hodál and M. Staroň, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, P. Arenas and G. Conte, acting as Agents), AlzChem AG (represented by: A. Borsos, avocat, and V. Dolka, dikigoros)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Fortischem a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by AlzChem AG.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — FS v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-719/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Article 15 - End of a Union citizen’s temporary residence in the territory of the host Member State - Expulsion decision - Physical departure of that Union citizen from that territory - Temporal effects of that expulsion decision - Article 6 - Possibility for that Union citizen to enjoy a new right of residence on his or her return to that territory)

(2021/C 320/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FS

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEG, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a decision to expel a Union citizen from the territory of the host Member State, adopted on the basis of that provision, on the ground that that Union citizen no longer enjoys a temporary right of residence in that territory under that directive, cannot be deemed to have been complied with in full merely because that Union citizen has physically left that territory within the period prescribed by that decision for his or her voluntary departure. In order to enjoy a new right of residence under Article 6(1) of that directive in the same territory, a Union citizen who has been the subject of such an expulsion decision must not only have physically left the territory of the host Member State, but must also have genuinely and effectively terminated his or her residence there, with the result that, upon his or her return to that territory, his or her residence cannot be regarded as constituting in fact a continuation of his or her previous residence in that territory. It is for the referring court to verify whether that is the case, having regard to all the specific circumstances characterising the particular situation of the Union citizen concerned. If it follows from such a verification that the Union citizen has not genuinely and effectively terminated his or her temporary residence in the territory of the host Member State, that Member State is not obliged to adopt a new expulsion decision on the basis of the same facts which gave rise to the expulsion decision already taken against that Union citizen, but may rely on that latter decision in order to oblige him or her to leave its territory.

(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v WR

(Case C-279/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - General arrangements for excise duty - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 33(3) - Goods ‘released for consumption’ in one Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State - Person liable to pay the excise duty that has become chargeable in respect of those goods - Person holding the goods intended for delivery in another Member State - Transporter of the goods)

(2021/C 297/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

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

Defendant: WR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33(3) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a person who transports, on behalf of others, excise goods to another Member State, and who is in physical possession of those goods at the moment when they have become chargeable to the corresponding excise duty, is liable for that excise duty, under that provision, even if that person has no right to or interest in those goods and is not aware that they are subject to excise duty or, if so aware, is not aware that they have become chargeable to the corresponding excise duty.

(1) OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Braşov — Romania) — Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov v LG, MH

(Case C-790/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing - Directive (EU) 2015/849 - Directive 2005/60/EC - Offence of money laundering - Laundering by the perpetrator of the predicate offence (‘self-laundering’))

(2021/C 431/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Braşov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov

Defendants: LG, MH

Intervener: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that the offence of money laundering, within the meaning of that provision, may be committed by the perpetrator of the criminal activity from which the money concerned was derived.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — OH v ID

(Case C-758/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 268, 270, 340 and 343 TFEU - Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union - Articles 11, 17 and 19 - Former member of the European Commission - Immunity from jurisdiction - Claim for non-contractual liability - Waiver of immunity - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union)

(2021/C 349/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OH

Defendant: ID

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has exclusive jurisdiction, to the exclusion of national courts, to hear and determine an action for non-contractual liability brought by a former member of the temporary staff of the European Commission on account of wrongful conduct which he attributes to the member of that institution, for whom he was an employee and which, it is claimed, led the institution to terminate the employment relationship with that member of staff. Such an action must be directed not against the member of the Commission concerned, but against the European Union, represented by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
2.

Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘evocation’ referred to in that provision, first, does not require, as a prerequisite, that the product benefitting from a PDO and the product or service covered by the sign at issue are identical or similar and, secondly, is established when the use of a designation produces, in the mind of the average European consumer who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, a sufficiently direct and unequivocal link between that designation and the PDO. The existence of such a link may result from several elements, in particular, the partial incorporation of the protected designation, phonetic and visual similarity between the two designations and the resulting similarity, and even, in the absence of those elements, from the conceptual similarity between the PDO and the designation at issue and also from a similarity between the products covered by that PDO and the products or services covered by that designation.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt München III v Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics

(Case C-373/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(i) and (j) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or university education - School or university education - Basic swimming tuition)

(2021/C 502/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt München III

Defendant: Dubrovin & Tröger GbR — Aquatics

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘school or university education’, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as not covering swimming tuition provided by a swimming school.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — Confederación Nacional de Centros Especiales de Empleo (Conacee) v Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa

(Case C-598/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 20 - Reserved contracts - National legislation reserving the right to participate in certain public procurement procedures to Social initiative special employment centres - Additional conditions not provided for by the directive - Principles of equal treatment and proportionality)

(2021/C 481/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Confederación Nacional de Centros Especiales de Empleo (Conacee)

Defendant: Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing additional criteria beyond those laid down by that provision, thereby excluding from reserved public procurement procedures certain economic operators which satisfy the criteria laid down in that provision, provided that that Member State complies with the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.

(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
3.

Article 5 of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as requiring Member States to take concrete measures in order to ensure that the quality of the interpretation and translations provided is sufficient to enable the suspect or accused person to understand the accusation against him or her and in order that that interpretation can be reviewed by the national courts. Article 2(5) of Directive 2010/64 and Article 4(5) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, read in the light of Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a person from being tried in absentia when, on account of inadequate interpretation, he or she has not been informed, in a language which he or she understands, of the accusation against him or her or where it is impossible to ascertain the quality of the interpretation provided and therefore to establish that he or she has been informed, in a language which he or she understands, of the accusation against him or her.