ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — B AG v Finanzamt A

(Case C-515/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 122 - Reduced rate for supplies of wood for use as firewood - Differentiation on the basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the goods - Types of wood intended for use as fuel which serve the same consumer need and are in competition with each other - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

(2022/C 128/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B AG

Defendant: Finanzamt A

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 122 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of wood for use as firewood, within the meaning of that article, designates any wood which, on the basis of its objective properties, is intended exclusively for burning.

2. Article 122 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which, in applying that article, establishes a reduced rate of value added tax for supplies of wood for use as firewood, may limit its scope as regards some categories of supplies of wood for use as firewood with reference to the Combined Nomenclature, subject to compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality.

3. The principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding national law from excluding from the benefit of the reduced rate of value added tax the supply of wood chips, even though it grants that benefit to supplies of other types of wood for use as firewood, subject to wood chips not being interchangeable, from the point of view of the average consumer, with other types of wood for use as firewood, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH v MN

(Case C-261/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 49 TFEU - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 15 - Architects’ and engineers’ fees - Fixed minimum tariffs - Direct effect - Judgment establishing a failure to fulfil obligations delivered during proceedings before a national court or tribunal)

(2022/C 119/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: MN

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, when hearing a dispute which is exclusively between private individuals, is not required, solely on the basis of EU law, to disapply a piece of national legislation which, in breach of Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, sets minimum rates for fees for services provided by architects and engineers and which renders invalid agreements derogating from that legislation, without prejudice, however, to, first, the possibility for that court to disapply that legislation on the basis of domestic law in the context of such a dispute, and, second, the right of a party which has been harmed as a result of national law not being in conformity with EU law to claim compensation for the ensuing loss or damage sustained by that party.

(1) OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Alstom Transport SA v Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti

(Case C-532/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/13/EEC - Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Article 1(1) and (3) - Access to review procedures - Article 2c - Time limits for applying for review - Calculation - Review of a decision allowing a tenderer to participate)

(2022/C 165/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alstom Transport SA

Defendants: Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1), fourth subparagraph, Article 1(3) and Article 2c of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that the period within which the successful tenderer for a contract may apply for review of a decision of the contracting entity declaring admissible, in the decision awarding that contract, the bid submitted by an unsuccessful tenderer may be calculated by using as a point of reference the date of receipt of that decision of the contracting authority by that successful tenderer, even if, at that date, that unsuccessful tenderer had not, or had not yet, applied for review of it. On the other hand, if, during the notification or publication of that decision, a summary of the relevant reasons for it, such as the information concerning the procedures for evaluating that tender, was not, in accordance with that Article 2c, brought to the knowledge of that successful tenderer, that time limit must be calculated by using as a point of reference the communication of such a summary to the same successful tenderer.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 February 2022 — Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA v Single Resolution Board, European Central Bank

(Case C-364/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Article 18 - Resolution procedure - Declaration by the European Central Bank (ECB) that an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) not to adopt a resolution scheme - Lack of public interest - Winding up in accordance with national law - Shareholders - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 165/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (represented: initially by H. Ehlers, A. Valavanidou and E. Muratori, and subsequently by H. Ehlers and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, and by B. Heenan, Solicitor, J. Rivas Andrés and A. Manzaneque Valverde, abogados), European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou and G. Marafioti, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Ernests Bernis and Mr Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA and Cassandra Holding Company SIA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board;

3. Orders the European Central Bank to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Social Security Appeal Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — VI v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-247/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Article 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 16 - Child who is a national of a Member State staying in another Member State - Right of residence derived from the parent who is the primary carer of that child - Requirement of comprehensive sickness insurance cover - Child having a permanent right of residence for part of the periods concerned)

(2022/C 171/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Social Security Appeal Tribunal (Northern Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VI

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 21 TFEU and Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that neither a child, a Union citizen, who has acquired a right of permanent residence, nor the parent who is the primary carer of that child is required to have comprehensive sickness insurance cover, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of that directive, in order to retain their right of residence in the host State;

2. Article 21 TFEU and Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards periods before a child, a Union citizen, has acquired a right of permanent residence in the host State, both that child, where a right of residence is claimed for him or her on the basis of that Article 7(1)(b), and the parent who is the primary carer of that child must have comprehensive sickness insurance cover within the meaning of that directive.

(1) OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
1.

Article 36(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 5 November 2002, concerning life assurance, must be interpreted as meaning that the information referred to by it must be communicated to the consumer acceding, as an insured person, to an open-ended group endowment and life assurance contract concluded between an insurance undertaking and the undertaking which is the policyholder. It is for the insurance undertaking to communicate that information to the undertaking which is the policyholder, which must transmit it to that consumer prior to the accession of the latter to that contract, supplied together with all other details that are deemed necessary taking into account the requirements and needs of the latter, in accordance with that provision, read in conjunction with Article 12(3) of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 9 December 2002, on insurance mediation.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — CT, Ferme de la Sarte SPRL v Région wallonne

(Case C-726/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy (CAP) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) funding - Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 - Article 17(1)(b) - Investment support concerning the processing, marketing and/or development of agricultural products covered by Annex I to the TFEU - Concept of ‘agricultural products’ - Concept of ‘live trees’ and ‘other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage’ - Turf rolls for the fitting-out of green roofs)

(2022/C 198/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CT, Ferme de la Sarte SPRL

Defendant: Région wallonne

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘agricultural products covered by Annex I to the TFEU’ in that provision covers plants used for making green roofs, such as turf rolls, so that tangible investments concerning them are eligible for aid under the rural development support measure referred to in that provision.

(1) OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — NovaText GmbH v Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

(Case C-531/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 3 - General obligation concerning the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights - Article 14 - Concept of ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs’ - Consultation of a patent lawyer - Absence of opportunity for the national court to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party)

(2022/C 237/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NovaText GmbH

Defendant: Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3 and 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or an interpretation thereof which does not allow the court before which an action is brought under that directive to take due account, in each case brought before it, of its specific characteristics for the purposes of assessing whether the legal costs incurred by the successful party are reasonable and proportionate.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — J v H Limited

(Case C-568/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Scope - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘judgment’ - Order for payment made in another Member State after a summary contested examination of a judgment given in a third State - Article 39 - Enforceability in Member States)

(2022/C 213/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J

Defendant: H Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) and Article 39 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 an order for payment made by a court of a Member State on the basis of final judgments delivered in a third State constitutes a judgment and is enforceable in the other Member States if it was made at the end of adversarial proceedings in the Member State of origin and was declared to be enforceable in that Member State. The fact that it is recognised as a judgment does not, however, deprive the party against whom enforcement is sought of the right to apply, pursuant to Article 46 of that regulation, for a refusal of enforcement on one of the grounds referred to in Article 45.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Schneider Electric SE and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance

(Case C-556/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 90/435/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Article 4 and Article 7(2) - Prevention of economic double taxation of dividends)

(2022/C 257/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Schneider Electric SE, Axa SA, BNP Paribas SA, Engie SA, Orange SA, L’Air Liquide, société anonyme pour l’étude et l’exploitation des procédés Georges Claude

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be interpreted as precluding national legislation — which provides that a parent company is liable for an advance payment of tax in the event of a redistribution to its shareholders of profits paid by its subsidiaries which gives rise to the allocation of a tax credit, where those profits have not been subject to corporation tax at the ordinary rate — where the sums due in respect of that advance payment of tax exceed the 5 % ceiling provided for in Article 4(2) of that directive. Such an advance payment of tax is not covered by Article 7(2) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2021
1.

Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, applicable in the context of a resolution action, which, in principle, ensures the economic neutrality of that action and consists in the formation of a bridge institution and an asset separation tool, and which does not expressly provide: — for a fair, prudent and realistic valuation of the assets and liabilities of the institution under resolution to be carried out before the resolution action is adopted; — for potential compensation based on the valuation referred to in the previous indent to be paid to the institution under resolution or, where appropriate, to the holders of shares or other titles of ownership; — that shareholders of the institution under resolution are entitled to receive an amount not less than the amount it is calculated they would have received if the institution had been completely wound up under normal insolvency proceedings, such a safeguard mechanism being provided only for creditors whose claims have not been transferred; and — for a separate valuation from that referred to in the first indent to be carried out in order to determine whether shareholders and creditors would have received more favourable treatment if the institution under resolution had entered into normal insolvency proceedings.
1.

Declares: — by exempting forest maintenance programmes and modifications thereto, emergency felling and measures to prevent threats to forests and to eliminate the consequences of damage caused by natural disasters from the obligation, in the event that they are likely to have a significant effect on Natura 2000 areas, that they be subject to an appropriate assessment of their implications for the relevant areas in view of the conservation objectives of those areas; — by failing to take appropriate steps for the prevention of the deterioration of the habitats and of significant disturbance in the special protection areas (SPAs) designated for the conservation of the capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) (SPA Nízke Tatry SKCHVU018, SPA Tatry SKCHVU030, SPA Veľká Fatra SKCHVU033, SPA Muránska planina-Stolica SKCHVU017, SPA Chočské vrchy SKCHVU050, SPA Horná Orava SKCHVU008, SPA Volovské vrchy SKCHVU036, SPA Malá Fatra SKCHVU013, SPA Poľana SKCHVU022, SPA Slovenský Raj SKCHVU053, SPA Levočské vrchy SKCHVU051 and SPA Strážovské vrchy SKCHVU028); — by failing to adopt the special conservation measures applicable to the habitat of the capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in the SPAs designated for its conservation in order to ensure its survival and reproduction in its area of distribution (SPA Nízke Tatry SKCHVU018, SPA Tatry SKCHVU030, SPA Veľká Fatra SKCHVU033, SPA Muránska planina-Stolica SKCHVU017, SPA Volovské vrchy SKCHVU036, SPA Malá Fatra SKCHVU013 and SPA Levočské vrchy SKCHVU051); the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, read in conjunction with Article 7 thereof, Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43, read in conjunction with Article 7 thereof, and Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Proceedings brought by T.N., N.N.

(Case C-617/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Measures relating to the law on succession - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Articles 13 and 28 - Validity of the declaration concerning the waiver of succession - Heir resident in a Member State other than that of the court having jurisdiction to rule on the succession - Declaration made before the court of the Member State in which that heir has his or her habitual residence)

(2022/C 284/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: T.N., N.N.

Other party: E.G.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 13 and 28 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a declaration concerning the waiver of succession made by an heir before a court of the Member State of his or her habitual residence is regarded as valid as to form in the case where the formal requirements applicable before that court have been complied with, without it being necessary, for the purposes of that validity, for that declaration to meet the formal requirements of the law applicable to the succession.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
3.

Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction to rule on an application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties pursuant to Articles 3 to 5 of Regulation No 2201/2003, Article 7 of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 6 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the respondent in the main proceedings is a national of a Member State other than that of the court seised prevents the application of the clause relating to residual jurisdiction laid down in Article 7 to establish the jurisdiction of that court without, however, preventing the courts of the Member State of which the respondent is a national from having jurisdiction to hear such an application pursuant to the latter Member State’s national rules on jurisdiction; Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction to rule on an application relating to parental responsibility pursuant to Articles 8 to 13 of Regulation No 2201/2003, Article 14 of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the respondent in the main proceedings is a national of a Member State other than that of the court seised does not preclude the application of the clause relating to residual jurisdiction laid down in Article 14 of that regulation;