ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Is the requirement to provide information and to make that information available to the consumer in plain and intelligible language, as laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 2011/83, to be construed and applied in such a way that the obligation to inform the consumer is considered to be fulfilled properly where such information is provided in the intermediary’s rules on the provision of services made available to the consumer on the website tiketa.lt before the consumer makes the payment confirming that he or she has become acquainted with the intermediary’s rules on the provision of services and undertaking to respect them as part of the terms and conditions of the transaction to be concluded by means of a so-called ‘click-wrap’ agreement, that is to say, by actively ticking a specific box in the online system and clicking on a specific link? 2.1. Is it relevant for the interpretation and application of this requirement that such information is not provided on a durable medium and that there is no subsequent confirmation of the contract that contains all the information necessary under Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/83 on a durable medium as required under Article 8(7) of Directive 2011/83? 2.2. Under Article 6(5) of Directive 2011/83, does that information provided in the intermediary’s rules on the provision of services form an integral part of the distance contract irrespective of whether that information is not provided on a durable medium and/or there is no subsequent confirmation of the contract on a durable medium?
2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, must the provisions of Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (recast) be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of Article 71 et seq. of the Ustawa z dnia 21 sierpnia 1997 r. o gospodarce nieruchomościami (Law of 21 August 1997 on the management of immovable property) and Article 238 of the Civil Code according to which the collection of annual fees for perpetual usufruct by the Skarb Państwa (State Treasury, Poland) from entities which engage in economic activity but were not the original entities for the benefit of which the State Treasury established the right of perpetual usufruct, but rather acquired that right from other perpetual usufructuaries, does not fall within the scope of the concept of a commercial transaction and of a public authority within the meaning of Article 2(1) and (2) of the abovementioned directive and of Article 2 and Article 4(1) of the Law of 8 March 2013 on counteracting excessive delays in commercial transactions, or must they be interpreted as meaning that that activity does not fall within the scope of the provisions of that directive and of that law?
2.

In the light of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU, may a national authority adopt a decision of a declaratory nature to the effect that a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product in connection with parallel import is to expire automatically, solely on the ground that the period laid down by law has expired, as from the date on which the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product expired, without examining the reasons for the expiry of [the marketing authorisation for] that product or other requirements referred to in Article 36 TFEU relating to the protection of the health and life of humans?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 November 2020 — Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft. v Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter

(Case C-575/20)

(2021/C 28/41)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft.

Defendant: Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter

Question referred

Can Directive 2003/87/EC, (1) and paragraph 3 of Annex I thereof in particular, be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of deciding upon the inclusion of the [combustion of fuels] by a particular installation in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union (the EU ETS), [the calculation of] the total rated thermal input of the installation should take account of the fact that certain equipment that is part of the installation in question is subject to a restriction (which has been verified)?

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32, Special edition in Hungarian Chapter 15 Volume 007 P. 631).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 8 October 2020 — FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-507/20)

(2021/C 28/24)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Does the practice of a Member State, pursuant to which the latter, relying on the ex tunc effects of the reduction applicable to the taxable amount in the event of definitive non-payment in accordance with Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive (1), calculates the general limitation period of five years laid down by that Member State — during which period the reduction may be applied to the taxable amount — from the time of the initial supply of goods and not from the time when the debt concerned has become irrecoverable and, relying on the expiry of that limitation period, deprives the taxable person acting in good faith of his or her right to a reduction of the taxable amount in the case of debts which have become definitively irrecoverable, under circumstances in which a number of years may have elapsed between the time of the supply of goods and the time when the debt became definitively irrecoverable and in which, at the time when the debt became definitively irrecoverable, the Member State’s legislation, unlike EU law, did not permit the reduction of the taxable amount in the case of debts that had become definitively irrecoverable, comply with the fundamental principles of proportionality, fiscal neutrality and effectiveness, particularly in the light of point 63 of the Opinion of the Advocate General in Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens (C-8/17), paragraph 27 of the judgment in Di Maura (C-246/16) and paragraph 36 of the judgment in T-2 (C-396/16), and having regard to the fact that a Member State may not charge an amount of VAT exceeding the tax collected by the supplier of goods or services in respect of the goods or services supplied?

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

Is Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) to be interpreted as precluding child-raising periods spent in other Member States from being taken into account by a Member State competent to grant an old-age pension — under whose legislation the applicant for a pension has pursued an activity as an employed or self-employed person throughout her working life, with the exception of those child-raising periods — solely on the ground that the applicant for a pension was not pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person at the date when, under the legislation of that Member State, the child-raising period started to be taken into account for the child concerned? If the first question is answered in the negative:
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-446/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-310/20 P)

(2021/C 35/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (represented by: P. Lange, A. Auler, M. Wenz and C. Möller, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg

By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
3.

Must Articles 2 and 4(2) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the right to a fair trial be interpreted as meaning that: (a) the national court is required to disapply the prohibition on ‘challenging the authority of the courts’ and on ‘the courts’ determining or assessing the lawfulness of a judge’s appointment or of his resulting authority to perform judicial tasks’, such as that stipulated in Article 29(2) and (3) of the Law of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court (consolidated text: Dz.U. of 2019, item 825 as, amended), since the European Union’s respect for the constitutional identity of the Member States does not entitle the national legislature to enact solutions which undermine the fundamental values and principles of the European Union? (b) the constitutional identity of a Member State must not result in the deprivation of the right to a fair trial before an independent court or tribunal established by law where the appointment procedure preceding the delivery of the document of appointment included the irregularities described in the questions referred for a preliminary ruling in Cases C-487/19 and C-508/19, and the prior judicial review of that procedure was deliberately prevented in a manner that is clearly contrary to the national constitution?
1.

Are Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which the tax authorities, after issuing a notice of assessment refusing to grant a right to deduct input VAT, are permitted to suspend the examination of an administrative complaint pending the outcome of criminal proceedings that could provide additional objective evidence of the taxable person’s involvement in tax fraud?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Soelia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

(Case C-609/20)

(2021/C 53/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soelia SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Question referred

Does EU law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as that in Article 26(2) and (3) of Decree-Law No 91/2014, as converted by Law No 116/2014, which significantly reduces or delays the payment of incentives already granted by law and defined on the basis of corresponding agreements concluded by undertakings generating electrical energy by means of photovoltaic conversion with Gestore dei servizi energetici SpA, a public company responsible for that process?

In particular, is that provision of national law compatible with the general principles of EU law relating to legitimate expectation, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and effectiveness, with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and with the rules governing support schemes laid down in that directive, and with Article 216(2) TFEU, in particular in relation to the European Energy Charter Treaty?

(1) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2020 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v BA

(Case C-628/20)

(2021/C 72/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: BA

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 1 July 2020 — A, M v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Kirchdorf

(Case C-293/20)

(2021/C 79/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A, M

Defendant authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Kirchdorf

Other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Kirchdorf — Perg — Steyr

By order of 20 January 2021, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) ruled that the request for a preliminary ruling lodged by the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Regional Administrative Court, Upper Austria, Austria), by decision of 29 June 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 17 July 2020 by Veselin Atanasov Vasilev against the order of the General Court delivered on 7 July 2020 in Case T-273/20, Vasilev v Bulgaria

(Case C-320/20 P)

(2021/C 72/12)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Veselin Atanasov Vasilev (represented by: B. Kolev, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Republic of Bulgaria

By order of 12 January 2021, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.
3.

Must Article 90(1) and (2) and Article 273 of the VAT Directive be interpreted, having regard in particular the judgment [of 23 November 2017, Di Maura (C-246/16)], the order [of 29 January 2020, Porr Építési Kft. (C-292/19)], and the fundamental principles of the effectiveness of EU law, equivalence and tax neutrality, as meaning that the legal practice of a Member State, whereby, in the event of non-payment, the company that provides the service in question must immediately cease to provide it since, by failing to proceed thus and instead continuing to provide that service, it will not be able to recover the VAT corresponding to the debts which have become definitively irrecoverable despite the fact that the impossibility of recovery arose subsequently, is contrary to the aforementioned provisions?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 2 December 2020 — HW, ZF, MZ v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG

(Case C-652/20)

(2021/C 88/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HW, ZF, MZ

Defendant: Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG

Question referred

Are the provisions of Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) to be interpreted as relating solely to the international jurisdiction of the Member States [of the European Union] or as also establishing the domestic (local) jurisdiction of the courts for the place where the beneficiary of the insurance policy is domiciled?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
1.

Must Article 1(5)(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (1) be interpreted as meaning that national legislation under which the providers of an intermediation service which, by means of an electronic platform, is intended to connect, for remuneration, potential guests with professional or non-professional hosts offering short-term accommodation are required to provide, on a written request by the tax authorities and on pain of being fined, ‘the particulars of the operator and the details of the tourist accommodation establishments, and the number of overnight stays and of accommodation units operated during the year ended’, with the aim of identifying persons liable for a regional tax on tourist accommodation establishments and their taxable income, falls within the ‘field of taxation’ and must, therefore, be regarded as excluded from the scope of that directive?
1.

Is Regulation 9(3)(c)(i) of The Universal Credit Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 which was inserted by The Social Security (Income-related Benefits) (Updating and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2019), which excludes from entitlement to Social Security benefits EU nationals with a domestic right of residence (Limited Leave to Remain) [in this case ‘pre-settled status’ under the Appendix EU of the UK Immigration Rules] unlawfully discriminatory (either directly or Indirectly) pursuant to Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the European Communities Act 1972?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 7 December 2020 by Laboratorios Ern, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-53/19, SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ v EUIPO — Laboratorios Ern (apiheal)

(Case C-678/20 P)

(2021/C 217/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Laboratorios Ern, S.A. (represented by: T. González Martínez and R. Guerras Mazón, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ and the European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 18 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Laboratorios Ern bear its own costs.
Appeal brought on 2 December 2020 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-174/19, Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO

(Case C-653/20 P)

(2021/C 148/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: Guillaume Vincenti

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 in Case T-174/19, Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO;

2. order the applicant to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on two grounds of appeal:

First, the General Court misapplied Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by ruling that the official must be heard before a decision not to promote him is taken.

On the one hand, the General Court failed to recognise that there is no subjective right to promotion and that non-promotion does not constitute an infringement of rights.

On the other hand, the General Court also failed to recognise that non-promotion is not comparable to a punitive administrative act.

Second, the General Court held that it cannot be excluded that the decision could reasonably have led to a different result if EUIPO had heard the official beforehand. In that regard, there is a failure to state reasons because the General Court did not examine the applicant’s arguments.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom) made on 21 December 2020 — Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited v Commissioner of Income Tax

(Case C-705/20)

(2022/C 257/22)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited

Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax

Question referred

Would the provision of tax relief by the Commissioner of Income Tax under the ITA 2010 for tax paid in the US in respect of the Appellant’s royalty income, infringe the Decision (1) or is otherwise prevented by it?

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018 on the State Aid SA.34914 (2013/C) implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime (notified under document C(2018) 7848) (OJ 2019, L 119, p. 151).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain) lodged on 6 October 2020 — Banco de Santander S.A. v YC

(Case C-503/20)

(2021/C 252/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Banco de Santander S.A.

Respondent: YC

By order of 25 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) stated that the first question is manifestly inadmissible, and its reply to the second question is that Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, (1) as amended by Council Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 (2) and 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, (3) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, as interpreted in national case-law, which establishes the annual percentage rate of charge that may be placed on the consumer under a credit agreement in order to combat usury, provided that that legislation does not contravene the rules harmonised by those directives as regards, in particular, information obligations.

(1) OJ L 42, 12.2.1987, p. 48.

(2) OJ L 61, 10.3.1990, p. 14.

(3) OJ L 133, 22.5.2008, p. 66.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 January 2021 — ‘Konservinvest’ OOD v ‘Bulkons Parvomay’ OOD

(Case C-35/21)

(2021/C 98/15)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation:‘Konservinvest’ OOD

Respondent in cassation:‘Bulkons Parvomay’ OOD

Question referred

Does Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs allow, outside the cases of transitional protection provided for in that provision, a national system for the registration and protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs covered by that regulation, and does that provision leave Member States free to apply at national level other rules that are applicable in parallel (similar to the parallel system for trade marks) in order to settle legal disputes concerning infringements of the right to such a geographical indication between local traders who produce and market agricultural products and foodstuffs covered by Regulation No 1151/2012 within the Member State in which the geographical indication was registered?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).