ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Galapagos BidCo. Sàrl v DE, in its capacity as liquidator of Galapagos SA, Hauck Aufhäuser Fund Services SA, Prime Capital SA

(Case C-723/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) 2015/848 - Insolvency proceedings - Article 3(1) - International jurisdiction - Moving of the centre of a debtor’s main interests to another Member State after a request to open main insolvency proceedings has been lodged)

(2022/C 198/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Galapagos BidCo. Sàrl

Defendants: DE, in its capacity as liquidator of Galapagos SA, Hauck Aufhäuser Fund Services SA, Prime Capital SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State with which a request to open main insolvency proceedings has been lodged retains exclusive jurisdiction to open such proceedings where the centre of the debtor’s main interests is moved to another Member State after that request has been lodged, but before that court has delivered a decision on it. Consequently, in so far as that regulation is still applicable to that request, the court of another Member State with which another request is lodged subsequently for the same purpose cannot, in principle, declare that it has jurisdiction to open main insolvency proceedings until the first court has delivered its decision and declined jurisdiction.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
1.

Declares that, by failing, within the prescribed time limits, first, to review in a coordinated manner, as specified in Article 5 of Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), the initial assessment and the determination of good environmental status, and, secondly, to send to the European Commission details of the updates made following those reviews, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(2)(a) and (b) and Article 17(3) of that directive.
1.

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, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1310/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for [by] that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes the grant of support under the single area payment scheme subject to an obligation on the applicant to prove that he has a ‘right to use’ the agricultural area covered by that application, provided that it is consistent with the objectives pursued by the EU legislation concerned, as well as with the general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of proportionality.
1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 2 July 2020, Klein v Commission (T-562/19, EU:T:2020:300), in so far as the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application made by Mr Christoph Klein under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the European Commission unlawfully failed to act in the safeguard clause procedure initiated by the Federal Republic of Germany on 7 January 1998 and adopt a decision in accordance with Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices in respect of the device Inhaler Broncho Air®;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — EB, JS, DP v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau (BVAEB)

(Case C-405/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 157 TFEU - Protocol (No 33) - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Directive 2006/54/EC - Article 5(c) and Article 12 - Prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex - Occupational social security scheme applicable after the date referred to in that protocol and that article 12 - Retirement pensions of civil servants - National legislation providing for an annual adjustment of retirement pensions - Adjustment on a reducing scale depending on the amount of the retirement pension, with no adjustment at all above a certain amount - Justifications)

(2022/C 244/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EB, JS, DP

Defendant: Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau (BVAEB)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Protocol (No 33) concerning Article 157 TFEU, annexed to the FEU Treaty, and Article 12 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the temporal limitation of the effects of the principle of equal treatment of men and women provided for in those provisions does not apply to national legislation which provides for an annual adjustment of the retirement pensions paid under an occupational social security scheme applicable after the date referred to in those provisions;

2. Article 157 TFEU and Article 5(c) of Directive 2006/54 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for an annual adjustment on a reducing scale of the amount of retirement pensions of national civil servants, depending on that amount, with no adjustment at all above a certain pension amount, if that legislation adversely affects a significantly greater proportion of male beneficiaries than female beneficiaries, provided that that legislation pursues, in a consistent and systematic manner, the objectives of ensuring the long-term funding of retirement pensions and of narrowing the gap between State-funded pension levels, without going beyond what is necessary to attain those objectives.

(1) OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Leistritz AG v LH

(Case C-534/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Second sentence of Article 38(3) - Data protection officer - Prohibition of the dismissal, by a controller or processor, of a data protection officer or of the imposition, by a controller or processor, of a penalty on him or her for performing his or her tasks - Legal basis - Article 16 TFEU - Requirement of functional independence - National legislation prohibiting the termination of a data protection officer’s employment contract without just cause)

(2022/C 303/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leistritz AG

Defendant: LH

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 38(3) 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 not precluding national legislation which provides that a controller or a processor may terminate the employment contract of a data protection officer, who is a member of his or her staff, only with just cause, even if the contractual termination is not related to the performance of that officer’s tasks, in so far as such legislation does not undermine the achievement of the objectives of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
1.

Article 29(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and Article 143(1)(b), (e) and (f) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 46/1999 of 8 January 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that: — the buyer and the seller may not be deemed to be legally recognised partners or to be related on account of a direct or indirect relationship of de jure control in a situation in which no document exists which makes it possible to establish such a relationship; — the buyer and the seller may be deemed to be related on account of a direct or indirect relationship of de facto control in a situation in which the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the transactions at issue, substantiated by objective elements, may be regarded as demonstrating not only that there is a close relationship of trust between that buyer and that seller, but that one of them is in a position to exercise constraint or direction over the other or that a third party is in a position to exercise such constraint or direction over them.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — Landkreis Northeim v Daimler AG

(Case C-588/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Actions for damages for infringements of the provisions of EU competition law - European Commission decision finding an infringement - Settlement procedure - Products concerned by the infringement - Specialised trucks - Household refuse collection trucks)

(2022/C 408/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landkreis Northeim

Defendant: Daimler AG

Intervening parties: Iveco Magirus AG, Traton SE, successor in law to MAN SE, MAN Truck & Bus and MAN Truck & Bus Deutschland GmbH, Schönmackers Umweltdienste GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

The decision of the European Commission of 19 July 2016, notified under reference C(2016) 4673 final, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39824 — Trucks) must be interpreted as meaning that specialised trucks, including household refuse collection trucks, fall within the scope of the products covered by the cartel found in that decision.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
1.

Articles 76 and 77 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 national legislation which reserves the right for private non-profit organisations to conclude, subject to a competitive bidding process, agreements under which those organisations provide social services in the form of personal assistance in return for reimbursement of the costs which they incur, irrespective of the estimated value of those services, even where those organisations do not satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 77, provided, on the one hand, that the legal and contractual framework within which the activity of those organisations is carried out contributes effectively to the social purpose and objectives of solidarity and budgetary efficiency on which that legislation is based and, on the other hand, that the principle of transparency, as specified in particular in Article 75 of that directive, is respected.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v X, Y v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

(Case C-713/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 11(3)(a) and (e) - Person residing in one Member State and employed in another Member State - Employment contract or contracts entered into with a single temporary employment agency - Temporary work assignments - Intervening periods - Determination of the legislation applicable during intervening periods between temporary work assignments - Termination of the employment relationship)

(2022/C 463/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank, Y

Defendants: X, Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(3)(a) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems

must be interpreted as meaning that a person residing in a Member State who carries out, through a temporary employment agency established in another Member State, temporary work assignments in the territory of that other Member State is to be subject, during the intervening periods between those temporary work assignments, to the national legislation of the Member State in which he or she resides, provided that, by reason of the temporary contract, the employment relationship ceases during those periods.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
1.

Articles 38 and 49 of Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC, must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority, where there is suspicion that a tender is of an abnormally low nature, is required to verify whether this is actually the case by taking account of all the relevant components of the invitation to tender and the contract documents, without the impossibility of applying the criteria laid down for that purpose by a piece of national legislation or the number of tenders submitted being relevant in that regard.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 December 2022 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Guillaume Vincenti

(Case C-653/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 45(1) - Promotion - Decision not to promote an official - Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to be heard - Duty to state reasons)

(2023/C 35/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Guillaume Vincenti (represented by: H. Tettenborn, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-607/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 26(1)(b) - Supply of services free of charge - Award of retail vouchers free of charge to staff of the taxable person’s business as part of an employee recognition and reward scheme - Transactions treated as supplies of services for consideration - Scope - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

(2023/C 15/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd

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

Operative part of the judgment

Article 26(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services consisting, for a business, in offering retail vouchers to its employees, in the context of a programme set up by that business, designed to recognise and reward the most deserving and high-performing employees, does not fall within its scope.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova — Romania) — proceedings brought by RS

(Case C-430/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rule of law - Independence of the judiciary - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Primacy of EU law - Lack of jurisdiction of a national court to examine the conformity with EU law of national legislation found to be constitutional by the constitutional court of the Member State concerned - Disciplinary proceedings)

(2022/C 165/24)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RS

Operative part of the judgment

1. The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 4(2) and (3) TEU, with Article 267 TFEU and with the principle of the primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which the ordinary courts of a Member State have no jurisdiction to examine the compatibility with EU law of national legislation which the constitutional court of that Member State has found to be consistent with a national constitutional provision that requires compliance with the principle of the primacy of EU law.

2. The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 4(2) and (3) TEU, with Article 267 TFEU and with the principle of the primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which a national judge may incur disciplinary liability on the ground that he or she has applied EU law, as interpreted by the Court, thereby departing from case-law of the constitutional court of the Member State concerned that is incompatible with the principle of the primacy of EU law.

(1) OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
1.

Paragraph 20.309(h) of Annex A to Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union, read in conjunction with paragraph 2.39(b) and paragraph 20.15(b) of that annex, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘excessive regulation’ covers national regulations applying to non-profit institutions (NPIs) active in the field of education which, while being subsidised by the competent national government, enjoy freedom of education guaranteed by the Constitution, where those regulations confer on that government the task or right: — to approve curricula, — to determine both the structure of education and priority and specific duties, to institute monitoring of the conditions for pupil enrolment and exclusion, decisions of class councils and financial participation, to arrange for schools to be grouped into structured networks and to require educational, teaching and institutional plans to be drawn up and activity reports to be delivered, — to organise checks and inspections relating specifically to subjects taught, academic level and implementation of the language laws, but excluding teaching methods, and — to impose a minimum number of pupils per class, stream, level or other subdivision, unless an exemption is granted by a minister, in so far as those tasks or rights are sufficiently intrusive to determine effectively the general policy or programme of the NPIs concerned by enabling the exercise on a lasting and continuous basis of an actual and substantial influence over the very determination and implementation of the objectives of those NPIs, their activities and their operating aspects, as well as the strategic approaches and guidelines which those NPIs are to follow when pursuing their activities, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and enforcement of a financial penalty imposed on D.B.

(Case C-150/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Mutual recognition - Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA - Enforcement of financial penalties - Article 1(a)(ii) - Decision imposing a financial penalty issued by an administrative authority - Decision open to appeal to a public prosecutor, subject to instructions from the Minister for Justice - Subsequent appeal before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters)

(2022/C 213/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: D.B.

Intervening party: Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź-Bałuty

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(a)(ii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a final decision requiring a financial penalty to be paid by a natural person, adopted by an authority of the issuing Member State other than a court in respect of a criminal offence under the law of the issuing Member State, constitutes a ‘decision’, within the meaning of that provision, where the legislation of that Member State provides that an appeal against that decision is to be examined first by a public prosecutor placed under the hierarchical authority of the Minister for Justice and subsequently, if that public prosecutor adopts a decision dismissing that appeal, a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters may be seised by the person concerned, provided that access to that court is not made subject to conditions which make it impossible or excessively difficult.

(1) OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
1.

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the national court, on receiving an application for an order for payment and where the debtor-consumer concerned does not take part in the proceedings until the order for payment is issued, is obliged to disapply ex officio an unfair term in the consumer credit agreement concluded between that consumer and the seller or supplier concerned, on which part of the claim brought is based. In that case, the court has the option of rejecting the application in part, provided that the agreement can continue to exist without any further amendment, revision or supplementation, which it is for the court to verify.