ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Rottendorf Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-92/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Second indent of Article 239(1) - Reimbursement of lawfully collected customs duties - Special situation - Issuance of an authorisation for release for free circulation - Invalidation of the authorisation and issue of an authorisation for inward processing with retroactive effect - Re-exporting goods outside of the EU territory - Failure to present goods to customs)

(2021/C 110/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rottendorf Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 239(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, first, an economic operator may claim repayment of the customs duties which it has paid only where that operator is in a special situation and there is no manifest negligence or deception on its part and, second, that the fact that the goods concerned were re-exported to a third country without entering the economic network of the European Union is insufficient to establish that that economic operator was in such a special situation. The same conclusion applies where the conduct giving rise to the imposition of the customs duties concerned was caused by an error in the information contained in the computer system of that economic operator, since that error could have been avoided if the same economic operator had taken account of the conditions contained in the authorisation granted to it.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
1.

Articles 2 and 46 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the contracting authority must require, in a contract notice and as a qualitative selection criterion, that tenderers furnish proof, at the time of submitting the tender, that they hold the registration certificate or approval required under the legislation applicable to the activity which is the subject of the public contract in question and that it be issued by the competent authority of the Member State in which the contract is to be performed, even where they already hold a similar registration certificate or approval in the Member State in which they are established;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — YJ v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-130/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4(1) - Discrimination on ground of sex - National legislation providing for a pension maternity supplement to be granted to women who have had a certain number of children - Exclusion from entitlement to that pension supplement of women who have requested early retirement - Scope of Directive 79/7EEC)

(2021/C 278/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: YJ

Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Operative part of the judgment

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 does not apply to national legislation which provides that women who have had at least two biological or adopted children are entitled to a pension maternity supplement in the event of retirement at the statutory age or early retirement on certain grounds laid down by law, but not if the person concerned voluntarily takes early retirement.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
2.

Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the person concerned does not hold the evidence attesting to his or her professional qualification as a pharmacist, for the purposes of point 5.6.2 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36, as amended by Directive 2013/55, but has acquired professional skills relating to that profession both in the home Member State and in the host Member State, the competent authorities of the latter are required, when they receive an application for recognition of professional qualifications, to assess those skills and compare them with those required in the host Member State for the purposes of gaining access to the profession of pharmacist. If those skills correspond to those required by the national provisions of the host Member State, it must recognise them. If that comparative examination reveals that those skills correspond only partially, the host Member State is entitled to require the person concerned to show that he or she has acquired the knowledge and qualifications which are lacking. It is for the competent national authorities to assess, if necessary, whether the knowledge acquired in the host Member State, inter alia by way of practical experience, is sufficient in order to prove possession of the knowledge which is lacking. If that comparative examination reveals substantial differences between the education and training undertaken by the applicant and the education and training required in the host Member State, the competent authorities may set compensation measures to make up for those differences.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — VI v KRONE — Verlag Gesellschaft mbH & Co KG

(Case C-65/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Liability for defective products - Directive 85/374/EEC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘defective product’ - Copy of a printed newspaper containing inaccurate health advice - Exclusion from the directive’s scope)

(2021/C 297/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VI

Defendant: KRONE — Verlag Gesellschaft mbH & Co KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, read in the light of Articles 1 and 6 thereof, as amended by Directive 1999/34, must be interpreted as meaning that a copy of a printed newspaper that, concerning paramedical matters, gives inaccurate health advice relating to the use of a plant which, when followed, has proved injurious to the health of a reader of that newspaper, does not constitute a ‘defective product’ within the meaning of those provisions.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — B v Udlændingenævnet

(Case C-379/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - Standstill clause - New restriction - Family reunification of minor children of Turkish workers - Age condition - Requirement of compelling reasons in order to be granted family reunification - Overriding reason in the public interest - Successful integration - Proportionality)

(2021/C 462/23)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B

Defendant: Udlændingenævnet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure lowering from 18 to 15 years the age below which the child of a Turkish worker residing legally in the territory of the host Member State may submit an application for family reunification constitutes a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that provision. Such a restriction may, however, be justified by the objective of ensuring the successful integration of the third-country nationals concerned, on condition that the detailed rules for its implementation do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued.

(1) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Appeal Tribunal (Northern Ireland) — United Kingdom) — CG v The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland

(Case C-709/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - National of a Member State without an activity residing in the territory of another Member State on the basis of national law - The first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU - Non-discrimination based on nationality - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 7 - Conditions for obtaining a right of residence for more than three months - Article 24 - Social assistance - Concept - Equal treatment - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Transition period - National provision excluding Union citizens with a right of residence for a fixed period under national law from social assistance - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 1, 7 and 24)

(2021/C 349/17)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Appeal Tribunal (Northern Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: CG

Respondent: The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24 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 not precluding the legislation of a host Member State which excludes from social assistance economically inactive Union citizens who do not have sufficient resources and to whom that State has granted a temporary right of residence, where those benefits are guaranteed to nationals of the Member State concerned who are in the same situation.

However, provided that a Union citizen resides legally, on the basis of national law, in the territory of a Member State other than that of which he or she is a national, the national authorities empowered to grant social assistance are required to check that a refusal to grant such benefits based on that legislation does not expose that citizen, and the children for which he or she is responsible, to an actual and current risk of violation of their fundamental rights, as enshrined in Articles 1, 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Where that citizen does not have any resources to provide for his or her own needs and those of his or her children and is isolated, those authorities must ensure that, in the event of a refusal to grant social assistance, that citizen may nevertheless live with his or her children in dignified conditions. In the context of that examination, those authorities may take into account all means of assistance provided for by national law, from which the citizen concerned and her children are actually entitled to benefit.

(1) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and execution of a financial penalty imposed on D.P.

(Case C-338/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Mutual recognition - Financial penalties - Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA - Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution - Article 20(3) - Decision imposing a financial penalty - Observance of the rights of the defence - Notification of documents in a language not understood by the sentenced person - Translation of the essential elements of the decision)

(2021/C 490/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: D.P.

Defendant: Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź-Bałuty

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as allowing the authority of the executing Member State to refuse to execute a decision, within the meaning of Article 1(a) of the framework decision, imposing a financial penalty for a road traffic offence, where that decision has been notified to the addressee thereof without a translation, into a language which he or she understands, of the elements of the decision which are essential in order to enable him or her to understand the charge against him or her and fully to exercise his or her rights of the defence, and without that addressee being afforded the opportunity to obtain such a translation on request.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — AS ‘LatRailNet’, ‘Latvijas dzelzceļš’ VAS v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija

(Case C-144/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rail transport - Directive 2012/34/EU - Articles 32 and 56 - Railway infrastructure charging - Independence of the infrastructure manager - Functions of the regulatory body - Concept of ‘optimal competitiveness of rail market segments’ - Exclusive right to a rail segment - Public service operator)

(2021/C 471/07)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AS ‘LatRailNet’, ‘Latvijas dzelzceļš’ VAS

Defendant: Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 56 of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area must be interpreted as conferring on the regulatory body the power to adopt, on its own initiative, a decision requiring the undertaking performing the essential functions of the railway infrastructure manager, as referred to in Article 7(1) of that directive, to make certain changes to the infrastructure charging scheme, even though it does not imply discrimination against applicants.

2. Article 56 of Directive 2012/34 must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions to be introduced into a charging scheme which the regulatory body is empowered to impose on the undertaking performing the essential functions of the railway infrastructure manager must be motivated by the infringement of Directive 2012/34 and be limited to remedying situations of incompatibility and may not involve discretionary assessments by that body which affect that manager’s discretion.

3. Article 32(1) of Directive 2012/34 must be interpreted as applying, including with regard to the criterion of optimal competitiveness of rail market segments, to rail market segments without competition, in particular where they are operated by a public service operator which under a public service contract has been granted an exclusive right within the meaning of Article 2(f) of 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.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
2.

Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13 and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as requiring the referring court to give an interpretation of the national rules on the amendment of the charges, as far as possible in a manner consistent with that law, so as to enable the prosecutor to remedy errors and omissions in the content of the indictment at the trial, while at the same time actively and genuinely safeguarding the rights of the defence of the accused person. Only if the referring court considers that such an interpretation is not possible should it disregard the national provision prohibiting the suspension of court proceedings and refer the case back to the public prosecutor in order for the latter to draw up a new indictment.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeş — Romania) — Ministerul Lucrărilor Publice, Dezvoltării şi Administraţiei, formerly Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice v NE

(Case C-360/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 325 TFEU - Combating fraud and other illegal activities - Convention on the protection of the Union’s financial interests - Concept of ‘fraud’ - Unlawful conduct during a project’s sustainability phase)

(2021/C 502/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Argeş

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministerul Lucrărilor Publice, Dezvoltării şi Administraţiei, formerly Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice

Defendant: NE

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘fraud affecting the European [Union’s] financial interests’ referred to in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Brussels on 26 July 1995, must be interpreted as including the use of false or incorrect statements submitted following the execution of the funded project in order to give a semblance of compliance with the obligations laid down during the project’s sustainability phase.

2. The principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring a national court to interpret provisions of national law consistently with the obligations arising from Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU, read in the light of Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Brussels on 26 July 1995, provided such an interpretation does not entail a breach of the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties.

(1) OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.
1.

Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the content of a clause of a loan agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer that sets the buying and selling prices of a foreign currency to which the loan is indexed must enable a consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect to understand, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the way in which the foreign currency exchange rate used to calculate the amount of the repayment instalments is set, in order that that consumer is able to determine himself or herself, at any time, the exchange rate applied by the seller or supplier.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — LW v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-91/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Articles 3 and 23 - More favourable standards capable of being retained or introduced by the Member States for the purposes of extending the refugee or subsidiary protection status of a beneficiary of international protection to family members - Grant of a parent’s refugee status to his or her minor child as a derived right - Maintaining family unity - Best interests of the child)

(2022/C 11/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LW

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 and Article 23(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from granting, under more favourable national provisions, as a derived right and for the purpose of maintaining family unity, refugee status to the minor child of a third-country national who has been recognised as having that status under the system established by that directive, including in the case where that child was born in the territory of that Member State and, through that child’s other parent, has the nationality of another third country in which he or she would not be at risk of persecution, provided that the child is not caught by a ground for exclusion referred to in Article 12(2) of that directive and that the child is not, through his or her nationality or any other element characterising his or her personal legal status, entitled to better treatment in that Member State than that resulting from the grant of refugee status. It is not relevant in that regard to ascertain whether it is possible and reasonably acceptable for the child and the child’s parents to move to that other third country.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — P. Krücken Organic GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-586/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Action for damages - Conditions governing the non-contractual liability of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Organic production and labelling of organic products - Article 33(3) - Concept of ‘appropriate supervision’ - Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 - Arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries - Private control body for the purpose of equivalence - Attribution of that body’s conduct to the European Commission)

(2022/C 84/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: P. Krücken Organic GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, B. Hofstötter and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders P. Krücken Organic GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.