ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Whether admissible – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context – Scope – Question raised concerning a dispute falling outside the scope of European Union law – No indication as to how the requested interpretation is necessary to resolve the dispute – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 21-25, 29-32)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 – Vizzone v Commission

(Case C‑191/20 P)

(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Representation of the parties – Capacity as a lawyer – Person connected with a professional organisation that is not among the forms of professional organisations recognised by the Member State in question – Manifest inadmissibility )

Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer – Application signed by a representative who is registered in a national association which is not legally authorised to issue the title of lawyer – Lack of legal representation – Manifest inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third and fourth paras; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 119, 168(2) and 181)

(see paras 14-16, 21)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see paras 13, 14)
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 13 April 2021 – Lithuania v Parliament and Council

(Case C‑541/20 R)

(Interim relief – Article 263 TFEU – Action for annulment of an EU act – Article 278 TFEU – Application to suspend operation of that act – Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 – Minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly and rest periods – Urgency)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Damage foreseeable with a reasonable degree of probability (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 18-20)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Risk of fundamental rights being undermined – Risk not in itself constituting serious damage (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3)) (see para. 25)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of being subsequently remedied by means of an action for compensation – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 268, 278, 279 and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3)) (see para. 29)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Admissibility criteria – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought – Article of a regulation establishing the entry into force of that regulation – Alleged damage not resulting from the entry into force of that regulation – Suspension not preventing the serious and irreparable harm alleged – No legal interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 278 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2020/1054) (see paras 30- 36)

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
1.

Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – No habitual residence or main occupation in the Member State of employment during the reference period – Concept of habitual residence – Sporadic, brief absence from that State – Circumstance having no effect on the habitual character of the residence – Residence as a student – Circumstance having no determining effect (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a)) (see paras 3-5, 20, 21)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 June 2021 – X Bank

(Case C‑198/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 2(b) – Concept of ‘consumer’ – Mortgage loan drawn up in a foreign currency – Articles 3 and 4 – Assessment of the unfairness of a contractual term)

1. Consumer protection – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13 – Concept of consumer – Limitation to an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect – None (Council Directive 93/13, Art. 2(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 27, 33, operative part)

2. Approximation of laws – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13 – Obligation for the national court to examine of its own motion whether a term in a contract submitted to it for assessment is unfair – Scope (Council Directive 93/13, Arts 3 and 4) (see paras 28-30)

3. Consumer protection – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13 – Scope – Terms defining the main subject matter of the contract or concerning the price or the remuneration and the services or goods supplied as consideration – Not included – Conditions – Obligation to satisfy the requirements of intelligibility and transparency – Scope (Council Directive 93/13, Art. 4(2)) (see paras 31, 32)

Operative part

All consumers enjoy the protection laid down by Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, not only those who may be regarded as an ‘average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect’.

( 1 ) OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 April 2022 – VD

(Case C‑654/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Transport – Directive 2006/126/EC – Driving licences – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 49 – Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties – Driving of a vehicle during the period of suspension of the driving licence – Penalties – Factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings – Reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Request not explaining why reference to the Court is necessary – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(c))

(see paras 22-25, 35-38, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Apelativen sad Sofia (Court of Appeal, Sofia, Bulgaria) by decision of 9 November 2020 is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2022 –

Hungary v Commission

(Case C‑185/20 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Action for annulment – EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from EU financing – Expenditure incurred by Hungary)

Agriculture – EAGF and EAFRD financing – Clearance of accounts – Limitation of refusal of financing – Twenty-four month period – No relationship with the Commission’s power to take a decision on the exclusion of a payment

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1306/2013, Art. 52(4)(b) and (c))

(see para. 50)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

2. Hungary shall pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
7

Under Article 83 of the Law on Notaries: ‘§ 1. Any interested party may, within one week from the date of notification of the grounds for refusal, or, where he or she has not requested such notification within the period prescribed for notification of the grounds for refusal, from the date on which he or she was informed of the refusal, lodge a complaint in respect of the refusal to perform the notarial act before the competent Sąd Okręgowy [(Regional Court, Poland)], having regard to the place of establishment of the office of the notary who refused to perform the notarial act. The complaint shall be brought through that notary. § 1a. The notary referred to in paragraph 1 must respond to the complaint within one week and must submit his or her views to the court in addition to the complaint, and must also notify those views to the interested party, unless he or she has already drawn up the grounds for refusal and notified them to that interested party. § 1b. The court shall consider the complaint at a hearing, duly applying the provisions of the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure) on non-contentious proceedings. § 2. The notary may, if he or she considers the complaint to be well founded, perform the notarial act, in which case he or she shall take no further action regarding the complaint.’
8

On 29 January 2020, the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States adopted the declaration on the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Advocates General of the Court of Justice in which it noted that since the United Kingdom had initiated the procedure laid down in Article 50 TEU for withdrawal from the European Union the Treaties would cease to apply to that Member State from the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement. It also noted that, therefore, the mandates of members of institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union who were nominated, appointed or elected in relation to the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union would end on the date of the withdrawal. It stated that it followed that the permanent post of Advocate General assigned to the United Kingdom by the Declaration on Article 252 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding the number of Advocates General in the Court of Justice annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, would be included in the rotation system among the Member States for the appointment of Advocates General. It noted that, according to the protocol order, the next eligible Member State would be the Hellenic Republic. In view of the exceptional circumstances in which that appointment was to be made and for the purpose of observing, in accordance with Article 253 TFEU, both the rule on the partial replacement of the members of the Court of Justice every three years and the rule on their six-year terms of office, the term of office of the Advocate General proposed by the Hellenic Republic for the vacant post of Advocate General would end on the date of the next partial renewal of the Court of Justice, that is, on 6 October 2021.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 18 May 2021 – Embutidos Monells v EUIPO

(Case C‑59/21 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

1. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a(1)) (see para. 11)

2. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b(4)) (see paras 12-14)

3. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a(1)) (see paras 15-17)

4. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Precluded (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a(1)) (see para. 18)

5. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Incompatibility with the case-law of the Court – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a(1)) (see para. 19)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Appeals – Grounds – Plea raised for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1))

(see paras 30, 31)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 February 2022 – Leonardo

(Case C‑550/21)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Common system of value added tax – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

(see paras 11, 12, 14, 16-19, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Provincial Tax Court, Rome, Italy), by decision of 21 July 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60, first para., Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3))

(see paras 18-21)
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded – Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see para. 5)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 May 2022 –

Staatsanwaltschaft Köln (Removal of a child to Romania)

(Case C‑724/21)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Citizenship of the Union – Article 21 TFEU – Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States – Criminal offence specifically concerning international child abduction – Restriction – Child protection – Proportionality)

Citizenship of the Union – Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Legislation of a Member State making it a criminal offence for a parent to separate a child from his or her guardian in order to take the child abroad – Legislation which makes that same act a criminal offence, in the case of a child in the territory of the first Member State, only if recourse is had to force, threat of serious harm or deception – Not permissible – Justification – Proportionality – Absence of proportionality

(Art. 21 TFEU; Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Recitals 2 and 21)

(see paras 24, 29-31, operative part)

Operative part

Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State under which the removal by a parent of a child from the carer who is entitled to determine the place of that child’s residence, with the aim of taking the child abroad, attracts criminal penalties even in the absence of force, threat of serious harm or deception, whereas where such removal takes place in the territory of the first Member State, the same act is punishable only if recourse is had to force, threat of serious harm or deception.
Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see paras 27-32, 39)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 May 2022 –

Estaleiros Navais de Peniche

(Case C‑787/21)

(Request for a preliminary reference – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665/EEC – Article 1(3) – Interest in bringing proceedings – Access to the review procedures – Tenderer excluded by a decision of the contracting authority which has become final, as a result of failing to challenge all the grounds for rejection of its tender – No interest in bringing proceedings)

Approximation of laws – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Member States' duty to provide for a review procedure – Access to the review procedures – No possibility for a tenderer excluded by a decision of the contracting authority which has become final to bring an action with a view to obtaining a declaration that the decision to award the contract is unlawful – No interest in bringing proceedings – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66, Art. 1(3))

(see paras 21-27, 30, operative part)

Operative part

Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as precluding a tenderer who was eliminated from a public procurement procedure by a decision of the contracting authority which has become final from contesting the decision to award that contract. In that regard, it is irrelevant that the unsuccessful tenderer submits that it could potentially be awarded the contract in the case if, following the annulment of that decision, the contracting authority were to decide to launch a new award procedure.
14

In that regard, the Ministry of the Interior considered that J.A. had expressed his intention to submit a new application for international protection only when it became clear that the process for his removal from Slovenian territory was going to be initiated in order to enforce the ancillary penalty of exclusion from the national territory. Indeed, as soon as the decision rejecting his first application for international protection became enforceable, J.A. could have informed the officials at the prison where he was serving his custodial sentence of his intention to make such an application. The Ministry of the Interior thus concluded from this that J.A. had lodged his application merely in order to delay or frustrate the implementation of his removal from Slovenian territory, which is supported by the fact that he did not specify, in support of his new application, any new facts or evidence as compared with those relied on in the context of his first application for international protection.
21

It is true that, in the case at hand, the High Representative bases his interest in the result of the case on the analogous prerogative relating to the representation of the Union which he holds under Article 27(2) TEU as compared with the prerogative held by the Commission under Article 17(1) TEU, for the purposes of representing the Union in areas which do not fall within the CFSP, whereas only the latter prerogative is at issue in the present case. However, it should be emphasised that that interest of the High Representative in the result of the case is based not on the fact that he is potentially in the same situation as the Commission in one or more similar cases, but, as has been stated in the preceding paragraph, on the fact that the result of the case in this instance will determine the scope of his role and of the powers which he derives from primary law, as regards the signing of any international agreement concluded by the Union in the field of the CFSP.
5

Article 3(1) of the regulation, in Title I thereof entitled ‘General principles’, is worded as follows: ‘The limitation period for proceedings shall be four years as from the time when the irregularity referred to in Article 1(1) was committed. However, the sectoral rules may make provision for a shorter period which may not be less than three years. In the case of continuous or repeated irregularities, the limitation period shall run from the day on which the irregularity ceases. In the case of multiannual programmes, the limitation period shall in any case run until the programme is definitively terminated. The limitation period shall be interrupted by any act of the competent authority, notified to the person in question, relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning the irregularity. The limitation period shall start again following each interrupting act. However, limitation shall become effective at the latest on the day on which a period equal to twice the limitation period expires without the competent authority having imposed a penalty, except where the administrative procedure has been suspended in accordance with Article 6(1).’
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 12 May 2022 –

Govern d’Andorra v EUIPO

(Case C‑300/22 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Article 170a(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – No request that the appeal be allowed to proceed – Appeal inadmissible)

Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – No request that the appeal be allowed to proceed – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a(1))

(see paras 3-5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as inadmissible.
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b)

(see para. 9)