ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 August 2022 — Inkreal s. r. o. v Dúha reality s. r. o.

(Case C-566/22)

(2022/C 432/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Inkreal s. r. o.

Defendant: Dúha reality s. r. o.

Question referred

From the perspective of the existence of an international element, which is required for Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) 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 to apply, is the application of that regulation to be based solely on the fact that two parties with their seat in the same Member State agree on the jurisdiction of courts of another EU Member State?

(1) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 16 May 2022 — Centar za restrukturiranje i prodaju v PROM-VIDIJA d.o.o.

(Case C-327/22)

(2022/C 424/23)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Centar za restrukturiranje i prodaju

Defendant: PROM-VIDIJA d.o.o.

Question referred

Must the rule laid down in Article 121 of the Sudski poslovnik (Rules of Procedure of the Courts and Tribunals) and the directions of the President of the Visoki trgovački sud (Commercial Court of Appeal) … of 20 January 2022, which prohibit the notification of decisions of the judges if they are not fully compliant with the order of treatment set out in those directions, be considered to be consistent with Article 19(1) TEU and with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
2.

Must Article 12(2) of the Package Travel Directive be interpreted as meaning that an obligation to pay a termination fee does not cease to apply where the traveller does not state a reason when terminating the package and justifies the termination only subsequently by reference to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances at the time of termination, this being determined by means of a prognosis, or occurring at the time of travel at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity and significantly affecting the performance of the package, or which significantly affect the carriage of passengers to the destination?
Appeal brought on 25 August 2022 by Vasile Dumitrescu, Guido Schwarz against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 June 2022 in Case T-531/16, Dumitrescu and Schwarz v Commission

(Case C-567/22 P)

(2022/C 441/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Vasile Dumitrescu, Guido Schwarz (represented by: L. Levi, J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 June 2022 in Case T-531/16, Dumitrescu and Schwarz v Commission;

— refer the present case to the Court of Justice for a ruling that the appellants’ action at first instance is well founded;

— order the defendant at first instance to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on three grounds:

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 45 TFEU, infringement by the General Court of its obligation to state reasons, error of legal characterisation and distortion of the contents of the file;

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of the purpose of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, breach of the general principle of the right of an official to retain personal links with the place where his or her principal interests are situated, infringement of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and distortion of the contents of the file;

The third ground of appeal alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment.
1.

Is it sufficient for the establishment of a claim for compensation under Article 82(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation; ‘the GDPR’) that a provision of the GDPR serving to protect the claimant has been infringed or is it necessary that a further adverse effect on the claimant has occurred, beyond the infringement of the provision as such?
3.

Must the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for international protection who is a Palestinian refugee registered with UNRWA may return to the UNRWA area of operations which he or she had left, specifically to Gaza City, where, at the time of the hearing of his or her action against a refusal decision before the court, — there is no certainty that that person will be able to obtain from UNRWA the necessary food, health services, medicines and healthcare and education; — the information on the general situation in Gaza City and on UNRWA, according to the UNHCR Position on Returns to Gaza of March 2022, was assessed as constituting justification for leaving UNRWA’s area of operations and for non-return; as well as the fact that, if the applicant were to return, he or she would be able to stay there in dignified living conditions? For the purpose of applying and complying with the principle of non-refoulement under Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95, in conjunction with Article 19 of the Charter, does the personal situation of an applicant for international protection come within the scope of the interpretation given in operative part 4 of the judgment of 19 March 2019, Jawo (C-163/17, EU:C:2019:218), concerning extreme material poverty under Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the light of the situation in the Gaza Strip at the time in question, and in so far as the applicant in question is dependent on UNRWA’s assistance as regards food, health services, medicines and healthcare? On the basis of the information regarding the general situation in Gaza City and regarding UNRWA, must the question as to return to Gaza City be answered differently for the sole reason that the person applying for protection is a minor child, with a view to safeguarding the best interests of the child and guaranteeing his or her well-being and social development, protection and safety?
(a)

Must Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) 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, read in combination with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a character string that captures the preferences of an Internet user in connection with the processing of his or her personal data in a structured and machine-readable manner constitutes personal data within the meaning of the said provision in respect of (1) a sectoral organisation which makes available to its members a standard whereby it prescribes to them how that string should be generated, stored and/or distributed practically and technically, and (2) the parties that have implemented that standard on their websites or in their apps and thus have access to that string?
2.

Does the provision in the final subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, which states that ‘for the purpose of calculating the number of redundancies provided for in the first subparagraph of point (a), terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned shall be assimilated to redundancies, provided that there are at least five redundancies’, in the context of a crisis in which a reduction in the workforce, including through dismissals, is expected, cover worker redundancies proposed by an undertaking, which although not sought by the workers, were accepted by them on receipt of a firm offer of immediate employment at another undertaking, when it was the employer who arranged for its employees to have the option of being interviewed by that other undertaking with a view to their possible recruitment?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 4 October 2022 — AB v Finanzamt Köln-Süd

(Case C-627/22)

(2023/C 15/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AB

Defendant: Finanzamt Köln-Süd

Question referred

Are the provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, (1) which entered into force on 1 June 2002 (‘the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons’; ‘the AFMP’), in particular Articles 7 and 15 of the AFMP, read in conjunction with Article 9(2) of Annex I to the AFMP (right to equal treatment), to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which employees who are nationals of an EU or EEA Member State (including Germany) and who reside (with their place of residence or habitual abode) in Germany or in EU/EEA States may voluntarily apply for an assessment of income tax that takes into account income from employment that is taxable in Germany (‘voluntary assessment’), in particular in order to receive an income tax refund allowing for expenses (income-related expenses) and crediting German wage tax withheld as part of the tax deduction procedure, but that right is denied to German and Swiss nationals residing in Switzerland?

(1) OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 20 September 2022 — Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy v B. sp. j.

(Case C-606/22)

(2023/C 7/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy

Respondent: B. sp. j.

Question referred

Must Articles 1(2) and 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and the principles of neutrality, proportionality and equal treatment be interpreted as precluding a practice on the part of the national tax authorities, in so far as that practice does not allow — on the grounds of lack of a domestic legal basis and unjust enrichment — an adjustment of the VAT taxable amount and output tax if sales of goods and services to consumers at an inflated rate of VAT were registered using a cash register and evidenced by cash register receipts rather than by VAT invoices, with the price (gross sales value) remaining unchanged as a result of that adjustment?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, as amended.
2.

In the event of an affirmative answer, must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that the court in which enforcement is sought may find that the penalty is disproportionate only where the damages have been categorised as punitive either by the court of origin or by the court in which enforcement is sought and not where they have been awarded as compensation for non-material damage?
2.

Would it be inconsistent with [EU] law to interpret the national legislation as meaning that the awarding authority is entitled to conduct a procedure to modify an existing motorway concession, with respect to the entities concerned and the substance, or to renegotiate such a concession, without assessing the reliability of a concessionaire that is guilty of a serious failure to fulfil its obligations?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Maastricht

(Case C-642/22)

(2023/C 35/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Maastricht

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard:

— whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results?

— what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is?

— to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate?

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

Appeal brought on 15 December 2022 by Airoldi Metalli SpA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 05 October 2022 in Case T-1/22, Airoldi Metalli SpA v Commission

(Case C-764/22 P)

(2023/C 45/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Campa, avvocato, D. Rovetta, avocat, P. Gjørtler, advokat, V. Villante, avvocato)

Other party: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare admissible the present appeal;

— Set aside the Order of the General Court of October 5, 2022, in Case T-1/22, Airoldi Metalli Spa vs. European Commission and declares the action brought by Airoldi Metalli Spa admissible;

— Send back the case to the General Court for examining the substance of Airoldi Metalli Spa’s action;

— Order the European Commission to bear the legal cost of the present appeal and of the procedure at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the current Appeal, the Appellant relies on the two main grounds of appeals:

First ground of appeal: error in law in interpreting the final limb of Article 263 (4) and the requisite and notion of regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures — Wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.

Second ground of appeal: error in law in interpreting the Article 263 (4) TFEU and in particular the requisite of ‘direct and individual concern’ — Wrong qualification of facts.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 2 June 2022 by Ahmad Aziz against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 31 May 2022 in Case T-128/22, Aziz v EDPS

(Case C-357/22 P)

(2023/C 45/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ahmad Aziz (represented by: L. Cuschieri, avukat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Data Protection Supervisor

By order of 19 December 2022, The Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Mr Ahmad Aziz shall bear his own costs.
1)

Declares that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 14 of Decree-Law No 138 of 8 July 2002 laying down urgent measures concerning taxation, privatisation and control of pharmaceutical expenditure and economic support in disadvantaged areas, now, after amendment, Law No 178 of 8 August 2002, which excludes from the scope of Legislative Decree No 22 of 5 February 1997 implementing Directives 91/156/EEC on waste, 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste and 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste the following: (i) substances, objects or goods intended for waste disposal or recovery operations not expressly listed in Annexes B or C to Legislative Decree No 22/97; and (ii) substances or objects forming production residue which the holder intends or is required to discard, where they may be and are re-used in a production or consumption cycle without undergoing prior treatment and without harming the environment, or, if they have undergone prior treatment, provided that that treatment is not one of the recovery operations listed in Annex C to Legislative Decree No 22/97;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-167/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Second paragraph of Article 90 EC - Internal taxes imposed on products from other Member States - Taxation liable to protect other products indirectly - Prohibition on discrimination between imported products and competing domestic products - Excise duties - Different tax treatment of beer and wine - Burden of proof)

(2008/C 128/02)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Ström van Lier, K. Gross, K. Simonsson and R. Lyal, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Wistrand, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: E. Balode-Buraka and E. Broks, Agents)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 90 EC — Internal taxation of alcohol and alcoholic drinks affecting wine more heavily than beer

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.
3.

Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations is to be interpreted as meaning that an amendment made to a draft technical regulation already notified to the European Commission, pursuant to the first subparagraph of that provision, and which contains, in relation to the notified draft, merely a relaxation of the conditions of use of the product in question and which, therefore, reduces the possible impact of the technical regulation on trade, is not a significant alteration of the draft for the purposes of the third subparagraph of that provision and need not be notified beforehand to the Commission. In the absence of such an obligation of prior notification, the failure to inform the Commission of a non-significant amendment to a technical regulation, prior to its adoption, does not affect the applicability of that regulation.
1.

The Hellenic Republic, — by failing to recognise the diplomas awarded by the competent authorities of another Member State following education and training provided within the framework of an agreement pursuant to which education and training provided by a private body in Greece is homologated by those authorities; — by providing for the application of compensatory measures in more cases than those allowed by Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001; — by entrusting to the Council Responsible for Recognising Professional Equivalence of Higher Education Qualifications the power to assess whether ‘the educational establishment in which the applicant completed his education and training belongs to the higher education sector’ and whether ‘the applicant has the necessary professional experience, in a case where the duration of the education and training falls short by at least one year of that required in Greece in order to pursue that profession’, and — by not allowing, in the public sector, the reclassification in a higher grade of persons recruited at a level lower than that to which they would have been entitled if their diplomas had been recognised in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 89/48, as amended by Directive 2001/19, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 3, 4, 8 and 10 of Directive 89/48 as amended by Directive 2001/19.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Beatriz Salvador García, v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-7/06 P) (1)

(Appeals - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘work done for another State’)

(2008/C 22/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Beatriz Salvador García, (represented by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Dominguez Peréz, A. Sayagués Torres, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, J. Gutierrez Gisbert, J. Rivas and M. Canal, abogados)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 Salvador García v Commission (T-205/02), dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 27 March 2002 refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith

Operative part of the judgment

The Court

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Salvador García to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2003.