ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First ground of appeal , by which it is submitted that the order under appeal, in dismissing their action as inadmissible and ruling, first, that, ‘…the contested regulation does not affect the applicants who are natural persons by reason of certain characteristics peculiar to them or a factual situation distinguishing them from all other persons, but by reason of their beliefs, which are professed, potentially or in practice, by an indefinite number of persons. Consequently, those applicants are not individually concerned by the contested regulation within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU’, infringed the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the principle of proportionality, the preamble and Articles 47 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01), Article 5(1) and (4) of the Treaty on European Union (individually and in conjunction with Protocol No 2 on the application of the principle of proportionality), as well as the relevant case-law. This is because, by their action, the appellants submit that the contested regulation infringes their human rights, including the fundamental rights laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (human dignity, religious belief, right to object on the grounds of freedom of religion, personal life and liberty, personal data, the right to express consent for all processing of that data), so that the regulation is of direct and individual concern to them and, by reason of the very nature of the rights affected as fundamental human rights , they are entitled to bring an action for annulment before the General Court under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, and the General Court is obliged to review the validity of the regulations in the event of a breach of fundamental human rights.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 March 2020 — AS LatRailNet, VAS Latvijas dzelzceļš v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija

(Case C-144/20)

(2020/C 201/26)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AS LatRailNet, VAS Latvijas dzelzceļš

Defendant: Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija

Questions referred

1. Must Article 56(2) of Directive [2012/34] (1) be interpreted as meaning that it confers on the regulatory body the power to adopt on its own initiative a decision ordering the undertaking performing the essential functions of a railway infrastructure manager, as mentioned in Article 7(1) of that directive, to make to provisions relating to the calculation of infrastructure charges (the charging scheme) certain amendments that are unrelated to discrimination against applicants?

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the regulatory body empowered to set out, in that decision, the conditions that must be laid down by such amendments, for example by laying down an obligation to exclude from the criteria for determining infrastructure charges pre-scheduled costs covered by the State budget or by local authority budgets which passenger transport operators cannot meet out of transport revenue?

3. Must Article 32(1) of Directive [2012/34] be interpreted as meaning that the obligation imposed on Member States in that paragraph to guarantee optimal competitiveness of rail market segments, by establishing mark-ups on infrastructure charges, also applies to the determination of infrastructure charges in market segments where there is no competition, because, for example, in the market segment concerned, transport is delivered exclusively by a single rail operator which has been given the exclusive right under Article 2(f) of Regulation No 1370/2007 (2) to provide transport in that market segment?

(1) Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 28 January 2020 — UAB ‘P’ v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Białymstoku

(Case C-48/20)

(2020/C 191/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘P’

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Białymstoku

Question referred

Must Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax … (1) [,as amended,] and the principle of proportionality be interpreted as precluding the application, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, of a national provision such as Article 108(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów i usług (Law of 11 March 2004 on [the] tax on goods and services) … (2) to invoices with VAT incorrectly indicated that were issued by a taxable person acting in good faith, if:

— the taxable person’s actions did not involve tax fraud, but resulted from an erroneous interpretation of the law by the parties to the transaction, based on an interpretation given by the tax authorities and a common practice in that respect at the time of the transaction, which incorrectly assumed that the issuer of the invoice was supplying goods when in fact it was providing a VAT-exempt financial intermediation service; and

— the recipient of the invoice with the VAT incorrectly indicated would have been entitled to claim a VAT refund if the transaction had been correctly invoiced by a taxable person who was actually supplying the recipient with goods?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(2) Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2011, No 177, item 1054, as amended.
1.

Is Article 9(2) of Directive 2002/98/EC setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, by identifying as minimum conditions of qualification for appointment to the position of responsible person of a blood establishment the possession of an academic qualification ‘in the field of medical or biological sciences’, it confers directly on individuals having a degree in either discipline the right to carry out the duties of responsible person within a blood establishment?
1.

Should the [Combined Nomenclature] (1)— in the light also of the various language versions of tariff heading 4409 and the HS Explanatory Notes to tariff headings 4407 and 4409 — be interpreted as meaning that the goods which are the subject of the main proceedings, namely, planed wooden boards the four corners of which have been rounded over the entire length of the board, are to be regarded as being ‘continuously shaped’ and accordingly should be classified under tariff heading 4409 or can the rounding of the corners not be regarded as being ‘continuously shaped’ and should the goods therefore be classified under tariff heading 4407?
4.

If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative: On the basis of which benchmark is the allocation of free emission allowances to be carried out where an installation subject to the emission trading scheme satisfies both the defining conditions of a heat benchmark sub-installation and the defining conditions of a process emissions sub-installation? Does entitlement to an allocation on the basis of the heat benchmark take priority over entitlement to an allocation for process emissions or does entitlement to an allocation for process emissions take precedence over the heat benchmark and the fuel benchmark because it is more specific to the case in question?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 5 March 2020 — D. Spółka Akcyjna v W. Zrt

(Case C-127/20)

(2020/C 209/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: D. Spółka Akcyjna

Defendant: W. Zrt

Questions referred

Must Article 5(3) of 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 …, (1) be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier whose aircraft has suffered a bird strike is obliged, as part of the reasonable measures that it must take, to provide, in its rotation-based flight planning system, for sufficient reserve time for a required safety check to be made?

and, in the event that this question is answered in the negative:

Must Article 5(3) of 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 …, be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier whose aircraft has suffered a bird strike is obliged, as part of the reasonable measures that it must take, to establish crew rosters or staffing levels in such a way that crews are ready for flight duties immediately after a required safety check is made, regardless of the limits on flight time and duty time and the rest period requirements laid down in Annex III to Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations …? (2)

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2012 L 296, p. 1.
Appeal brought on 30 January 2020 by K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2019 in Case T-527/18, K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)

(Case C-52/20 P)

(2020/C 247/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: A. Haudan, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 28 May 2020 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG shall bear its own costs.
1.

Should Article 10(b) of Directive 2005/36/EC, (1) when interpreted together with the purpose of the directive specified in Article 1, be interpreted as being applicable in a situation where a person has not obtained formal evidence of qualifications because he or she has potentially fulfilled the requirements necessary for obtaining the professional qualifications in several Member States of the European Union rather than in a single one? In such a situation, where a person has not acquired formal evidence of qualifications because he or she has potentially fulfilled the requirements necessary for obtaining the professional qualifications in several Member States of the European Union rather than in a single one, should Chapter I (General system for the recognition of evidence of training) of Title III of Directive 2005/36/EC be interpreted as obliging the institution recognising qualifications to assess the content of all the documents submitted by the person which can demonstrate professional qualifications and whether they comply with the requirements set in the host Member State for obtaining the professional qualifications and, if necessary, to apply compensation measures?
1)

Where a national of a Member State has exercised his rights under Articles 21, 49 TFEU and the Citizens’ Rights Directive (Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC) (1) by moving to or establishing himself in the United Kingdom, is it compatible with those provisions for section 11 WRPA 1999 to make exclusion from bankruptcy of pension rights in a pension scheme, including those established and tax approved in another Member State, dependent on the pension scheme being, at the time of the bankruptcy, registered under s 153 FA 2004 or prescribed by regulation 2 of the 2002 Regulations and thus tax approved in the United Kingdom?
3.

If the answer to Question 1 and/or Question 2 is in the affirmative, the following additional questions arise: 3.1 Does the temporary agency worker have an entitlement to the establishment of an employment relationship with the user undertaking even if the national law does not provide for such a penalty before 1 April 2017? 3.2 Does a national provision such as Paragraph 19(2) of the Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz (Law regulating temporary agency work) infringe Article 1 of the Temporary Agency Work Directive where it prescribes an individual maximum assignment period of 18 months for the first time as from 1 April 2017, but expressly excludes the taking into account of prior periods of assignment, although the assignment could no longer be classified as temporary if the prior periods of assignment were taken into account? 3.3 Can the extension of the individual maximum assignment period be left to the discretion of the parties to a collective agreement? If so, does this also apply to parties to a collective agreement who exercise competence not over the employment relationship of the temporary agency worker concerned, but over the sector in which the user undertaking is active?
a)

Is Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information to be interpreted as meaning that the equipment of a vehicle, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 715/2007, is inadmissible if the exhaust gas recirculation valve (i.e. a component that is likely to affect emissions performance) is designed in such a way that the exhaust gas recirculation rate (i.e. the portion of the exhaust gas being recirculated) is regulated in such a way that the valve ensures a low-emission mode only between 15 and 33 degrees Celsius and only below an altitude of 1 000 m, and, outside this temperature window, per 10 degrees Celsius, and above an altitude of 1 000 m, per 250 metres of altitude, the rate decreases in a linear way down to zero, meaning that NOx emissions increase beyond the limits of Regulation No 715/2007?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 March 2020 — AC v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-148/20)

(2020/C 279/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AC

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Questions referred

Is Directive (EU) 2016/681 (1) compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) in relation to the following points:

(1) Are the PNR data to be transferred under the directive sufficiently specified, having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter?

(2) In view of its scope and having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for sufficient objective differentiation when PNR data are collected and transferred, in relation to the type of flights and the threat level in a particular country and in relation to the comparison against databases and patterns?

(3) Is the blanket, indiscriminating retention period for all PNR data compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter?

(4) Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for adequate procedural protection of passengers in respect of the use of retained PNR data?

(5) Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive adequately safeguard the level of protection of European fundamental rights when PNR data are transferred to third country authorities by third countries?

(1) Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 132).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 June 2020 — Criminal proceedings against ZX

(Case C-282/20)

(2020/C 287/46)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

ZX

Questions referred

Is a provision of national law, namely Article 248(3) of the Nakazatelno protsesualen kodeks (Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure), which does not provide for a procedural rule for the rectification, after completion of the first hearing in criminal proceedings (preliminary hearing), of substantive ambiguities and shortcomings in the bill of indictment which infringe the accused person’s right to be informed of the accusation, compatible with Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13 (1) and with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

If the answer to that question is in the negative: Would an interpretation of the national provisions governing amendment of the bill of indictment that allows the public prosecution service to rectify those substantive ambiguities and shortcomings in the bill of indictment at the hearing, so as to take proper and effective account of the accused person’s right to be informed of the accusation, be in keeping with the aforesaid provisions and with Article 47 of the Charter, or would it be in keeping with those provisions to refrain from applying national legislation prohibiting the staying of court proceedings and referral of the case back to the public prosecution service with directions to draft a new bill of indictment?

(1) Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 June 2020 — WD v job-medium GmbH in liquidation

(Case C-233/20)

(2020/C 297/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: WD

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: job-medium GmbH in liquidation

Questions referred

1 Is a provision of national law under which no allowance in lieu of annual leave is payable in respect of the current (last) working year, where the worker unilaterally terminates (‘withdraws from’) the employment relationship early without cause, compatible with Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2010/C 83/02) and Article 7 of the Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC)? (1)

2. If the answer to that question is in the negative: 2.1. Is it necessary to verify additionally if the worker was unable to use up his annual leave? 2.2. If so, what are the criteria for that verification?

(1) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
1.

In the first place, (a) Is the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), (1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition and public disclosure of inside information and the definition of market manipulation, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that information relating to the forthcoming publication of a press article relaying a market rumour about an issuer of financial instruments can satisfy the requirement of precision laid down in those articles for classification as inside information? (b) Does the fact that the press article, the forthcoming publication of which constitutes the information at issue, mentions — as a market rumour — the price of a public takeover bid affect the assessment of the precise nature of the information at issue? (c) Are the reputation of the journalist who authored the article and of the media outlet which published it and the genuinely significant (‘ex post’) effect of that publication on the price of the securities to which the published article relates relevant factors for the purposes of assessing the precise nature of the information at issue?
1.

Must Article 65(2) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a wholly unemployed person who has transferred his place of residence from the competent Member State to another Member State while receiving a benefit as referred to in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, and/or before his employment relationship has been terminated, is entitled to unemployment benefit under the legislation of the Member State in which he resides?
1.

Must Article 12(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that excise goods intended to be used in the context of diplomatic or consular relations are to be exempted from excise duty on the condition that payment for the goods in question is to be made by non-cash means, that payment has actually been made, and that the payment to the supplier was made by the actual recipients of the goods?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 June 2020 — HV v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-258/20)

(2020/C 320/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HV

Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Question referred

Is Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national provision, like that at issue in the main proceedings (Article 60(4) TRLGSS), which provides that women who have had at least two biological or adopted children and are recipients of contributory retirement pensions are entitled to a pension supplement, whereas other women who are in identical circumstances and who, as a result of the fact that they are women, are faced with identical difficulties as regards remaining in the employment market, are not entitled to such a retirement pension supplement because they have taken voluntary early retirement which, by law, is subject to greater contribution conditions than an ordinary pension and identical or very similar age conditions?

(1) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.