ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Caruter s.r.l. v S.R.R. Messina Provincia S.c.P.A. and Others

(Case C-642/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/24/EU - Public procurement - Article 63 - Reliance by a group of economic operators on the capacities of other entities - Possibility for the contracting authority to require that certain critical tasks be performed by a participant of that group - National legislation stipulating that the undertaking representing that group must satisfy the majority of the criteria and perform the majority of the services)

(2022/C 237/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caruter s.r.l.

Defendants: S.R.R. Messina Provincia SCpA, Comune di Basicò, Comune di Falcone, Comune di Fondachelli Fantina, Comune di Gioiosa Marea, Comune di Librizzi, Comune di Mazzarrà Sant’Andrea, Comune di Montagnareale, Comune di Oliveri, Comune di Piraino, Comune di San Piero Patti, Comune di Sant’Angelo di Brolo, Regione Siciliana — Urega — Ufficio regionale espletamento gare d’appalti lavori pubblici Messina, Regione Siciliana — Assessorato regionale delle infrastrutture e della mobilità

Interveners: Ditta individuale Pippo Pizzo, Onofaro Antonino Srl, Gial Plast Srl, Colombo Biagio Srl,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 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 precluding national legislation under which an undertaking representing a group of economic operators participating in a public procurement procedure must satisfy the majority of the criteria laid down in the contract notice and perform the majority of the services specified in that contract.

(1) OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Y GmbH v Hauptzollamt

(Case C-668/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Classification of goods - Headings 1302, 3301 and 3302 - Extracted vanilla oleoresin - Excise duties - Directive 92/83/EEC - Exemptions - Article 27(1)(e) - Definition of ‘flavour’ - Directive 92/12/EEC - Excise Committee of the European Commission - Powers)

(2022/C 213/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Y GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt

Operative part of the judgment

1. The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that a product consisting of approximately 85 % ethanol, 10 % water, 4,8 % dry residue and having an average vanilla content of 0,5 %, which is obtained by diluting, for the purposes of standardisation, in water and ethanol an intermediate product itself extracted from vanilla bean using ethanol, falls under subheading 1302 19 05 of that nomenclature;

2. Article 27(1)(e) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that a vanilla oleoresin falling under subheading 1302 19 05 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Implementing Regulation 2015/1754, must be regarded as a ‘flavour’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that it constitutes an ingredient which brings a specific taste or smell to a particular product.

(1) OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos — Portugal) — GD, ES v Luso Temp — Empresa de Trabalho Temporário SA

(Case C-426/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Article 5(1) - Principle of equal treatment - Article 3(1)(f) - Concept of ‘basic working and employment conditions of temporary agency workers’ - Compensation for paid annual leave not taken and the corresponding holiday bonus in the event of termination of the employment relationship)

(2022/C 257/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: GD, ES

Defendant: Luso Temp — Empresa de Trabalho Temporário SA

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(f) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the compensation to which temporary agency workers are entitled in the event of termination of their employment relationship with a user undertaking, in respect of paid annual leave not taken and the corresponding holiday bonus, is less than the compensation to which those workers would be entitled, in the same situation and on the same basis, if they had been recruited directly by that user undertaking to occupy the same post for the same period.

(1) OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de La Coruña — Spain) — Banco Santander, SA v J.A.C., M.C.P.R

(Case C-410/20) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/59/EU - Resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - General principles - Article 34(1) - Bail-in - Effects - Article 53(1) and (3) - Write-down of capital instruments - Article 60(2), first subparagraph, (b) and (c) - Articles 73 to 75 - Protection of shareholders’ and creditors’ rights - Directive 2003/71/EC - Prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading - Article 6 - Incorrect information in the prospectus - Action for damages brought after a resolution decision - Action for a declaration of nullity of a share purchase contract brought against the universal successor of the credit institution subject to the resolution decision)

(2022/C 244/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de La Coruña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Santander, SA

Defendants: J.A.C., M.C.P.R

Operative part of the judgment

The combined provisions of Article 34(1)(a), Article 53(1) and (3), and Article 60(2), first subparagraph, (b) and (c) of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as precluding, following a total write-down of shares in the capital stock of a credit institution or investment firm subject to a resolution procedure, persons having acquired shares, in the context of a public offer to subscribe issued by that institution or firm, before the opening of such a resolution procedure, from bringing, against that institution or firm or its successor entity, an action for damages on the basis of the information provided in the prospectus, as provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading, and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, or an action for a declaration of nullity of the purchase contract for such shares, which, given its retroactive effect, results in the restitution of the value of said shares, plus interest from the date of conclusion of the contract.

(1) OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — HW, ZF, MZ v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG

(Case C-652/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - Article 11(1)(b) - Action brought by the policyholder, the insured person or a beneficiary - Possibility of bringing proceedings against the insurer before a court of the place where the person bringing the claim is domiciled - Determination of the international and territorial jurisdiction of a court of a Member State - Article 13(2) - Direct action brought by the injured party against the insurer - Insurer domiciled in a Member State with an establishment in another Member State sued in the court of the place where that establishment is situated)

(2022/C 318/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HW, ZF, MZ

Defendant: Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(b) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, where that provision is applicable, it determines both the international jurisdiction and the territorial jurisdiction of the court of a Member State within whose jurisdiction the person bringing the claim is domiciled.

(1) OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
1.

Declares that, by establishing the adjustment mechanism resulting from the amendments to Paragraph 8a of the Bundesgesetz betreffend den Familienlastenausgleich durch Beihilfen (Federal Law on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances) of 24 October 1967, as amended by the Bundesgesetz mit dem das Familienlastenausgleichsgesetz 1967, das Einkommensteuergesetz 1988 und das Entwicklungshelfergesetz geändert werden (Federal Law amending the Federal Law of 1967 on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances, the Federal Law of 1988 on the taxation of the income of natural persons and the Law on the status of development aid workers) of 4 December 2018, and to Paragraph 33 of the Bundesgesetz über die Besteuerung des Einkommens natürlicher Personen (Federal Law on the taxation of the income of natural persons) of 7 July 1988, as amended by the Jahressteuergesetz 2018 (Annual Tax Law of 2018) of 14 August 2018, and by the Federal Law amending the Federal Law of 1967 on compensation for family expenses by means of allowances, the Federal Law of 1988 on the taxation of the income of natural persons and the Law on the status of development aid workers of 4 December 2018 applicable to family allowances and the child tax credit for workers whose children reside permanently in another Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 67 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, and under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union;
2.

Article 38 of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2366 of 18 December 2017 must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority may exclude an economic operator from the procedure seeking, first, to form a semi-public company and, second, to award that company a services concession, where that exclusion is justified by the fact that, on the basis of the indirect participation of that contracting authority in that economic operator, the maximum participation of that contracting authority in that company, as determined in the call-for-tenders documents would be, in practice, exceeded if that contracting authority selected that economic operator as its partner, in so far as that excess participation serves to increase the financial uncertainty borne by that contracting authority.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — A.H. v Zagrebačka banka d.d

(Case C-567/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms - Directive 93/13/EEC - Applicability of ratione temporis - Article 10(1) - Loan agreement concluded prior to Member State’s accession to the EU but amended after that date - Article 6 - Reimbursement of benefits improperly obtained by the seller or supplier - National legislation providing for the replacement of unfair terms and reimbursement of the overpayment - Applicability of ratione materiae - Article 1(2) - Exclusion of contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions)

(2022/C 359/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.H.

Defendant: Zagrebačka banka d.d

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that contract terms reflecting provisions of national law, under which the seller or supplier was obliged to propose to the consumer an amendment to his or her original contract by means of an agreement, the content of which is determined by those provisions, and the consumer was able to consent to such an amendment do not fall within the material scope of that directive.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Gmina Wieliszew v Syndyk masy upadłości Spółdzielczego Banku Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa w Wołominie w upadłości likwidacyjnej

(Case C-698/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Structural Funds - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Cohesion Fund - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - European Union funding - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Grant agreement - Funds paid to a beneficiary into an account in an insolvent bank - National legislation not excluding those funds from the insolvency estate of that bank)

(2022/C 463/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gmina Wieliszew

Defendant: Syndyk masy upadłości Spółdzielczego Banku Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa w Wołominie w upadłości likwidacyjnej

intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(5) and Articles 3, 4, 57, 70 and 80 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 423/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, Articles 11, 54, 56 and 58 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, and Article 2(i), Articles 3 and 4, and Article 72(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, first, does not enable an entity that has received funds in the framework of programmes co-financed by the EU budget, where those funds have been paid into an account held at a bank which has subsequently been declared insolvent, to secure the exclusion of those funds from the insolvency estate of that bank, and, second, does not prescribe the exclusion of those funds from that insolvency estate.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
3.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 September 2020, IMG v Commission (T-381/15 RENV, EU:T:2020:406), in so far as it dismissed as unfounded the claim for damages brought by International Management Group (IMG) relating to the harm that was caused to it by the decision of the European Commission to no longer enter into new delegation agreements for indirect management with it, contained in the letter from that institution of 8 May 2015;
1.

The second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from designating, as a single taxable person of a group formed by persons who are legally independent but closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links, the controlling company of that group, where that controlling company is in a position to impose its will on the other entities forming part of that group and provided that that designation does not entail a risk of tax losses.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 November 2022 — Volotea SA (C-331/20 P), easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (C-343/20 P) v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-331/20 P and C-343/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - European Commission decision on compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations - Existence of unlawful State aid incompatible with the internal market, granted by the Italian Republic to airlines through airport operators - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Proof of the existence of an advantage - Determination of the amount - Market economy operator principle - Applicability and application - Test of the private acquirer of goods or services - Conditions - Burden of proof)

(2023/C 15/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Volotea SA (represented by M. Carpagnano, avvocato, and M. Nordmann, Rechtsanwalt), easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (represented by A. Manzaneque Valverde and J. Rivas Andrés, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by D. Grespan, S. Noë, L. Armati and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 May 2020, Volotea v Commission (T-607/17, EU:T:2020:180);

2. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 May 2020, easyJet Airline v Commission (T-8/18, EU:T:2020:182), in so far as that court dismissed the action for annulment of easyJet Airline Co. Ltd as unfounded;

3. Annuls European Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI), in so far as it concerns, first, Volotea SA, and, second, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd;

4. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs related to the proceedings at first instance and to the proceedings on appeal.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — Évariste Boshab v Council of the European Union

(Case C-242/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 - Article 2b and Article 9(2) - Decision 2010/788/CFSP - Article 3(2) and Article 9(2) - Applicant continuing to be included on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures - Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 - Right to be heard)

(2022/C 257/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Évariste Boshab (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De. Wolf, T. Payan and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, S. Lejeune initially, subsequently by S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Rejects the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Évariste Boshab to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bottrop — Germany) — Fuhrmann-2-GmbH v B.

(Case C-249/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 8(2) - Distance contracts concluded by electronic means - Information requirements for the trader - Activation of a button or a similar function in order to place the order with an obligation to pay - Unambiguous formulation corresponding to the words ‘order with obligation to pay’ - Taking account only of the words on the button or similar function for the purposes of assessing the ‘corresponding’ nature of such a formulation)

(2022/C 213/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bottrop

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fuhrmann-2-GmbH

Defendant: B.

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining — in the context of an ordering process relating to the conclusion of a distance contract by electronic means — whether a form of words displayed on the ordering button or on a similar function, such as the formulation ‘complete booking’, is a formulation ‘corresponding’ to the words ‘order with obligation to pay’, within the meaning of that provision, only the words that appear on that button or that similar function should be taken into account.

(1) OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.
2.

The provisions of Directive 2006/112 and the principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation and practice under which the seller of immovable property is required to adjust the deduction of input VAT on that property following the refusal to recognise the seller’s right of option for taxation in respect of that sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, the purchaser did not satisfy the conditions laid down in order for the seller to exercise that right. Although the actual use of the immovable property in question by the purchaser in connection with activities subject to VAT is irrelevant in that regard, the competent authorities are nevertheless required to ascertain whether there has been fraud or abuse on the part of the taxable person who intended to exercise the right of option for taxation in respect of the transaction in question.