ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against JZ

(Case C-806/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 11 - Entry ban - Third-country national against whom an entry ban was issued but who never left the Member State concerned - National legislation providing for a custodial sentence in the event of the third-country national staying in that Member State despite notice of the entry ban issued against him)

(2020/C 390/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Party/parties in the main proceedings

JZ

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, and in particular Article 11 thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that a custodial sentence may be imposed on an illegally staying third-country national for whom the return procedure set out in that directive has been exhausted but who has not actually left the territory of the Member States, where the criminal act consists in an unlawful stay with notice of an entry ban, issued in particular on account of that third-country national’s criminal record or the threat he represents to public policy or national security, provided that the criminal act is not defined as a breach of such an entry ban and that that legislation is sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by failing to notify to the European Commission, by the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU, as amended by Directive (EU) 2016/1034 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2016, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 93 of Directive 2014/65, as amended by Directive 2016/1034;
2.

Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 2(1) of Directive 96/71 must be interpreted as meaning that a worker working as a driver in the international road transport sector under a charter contract between the undertaking which employs that worker, established in one Member State, and an undertaking located in a Member State other than that in which the person concerned normally works is a worker posted to the territory of a Member State for the purposes of those provisions, where the performance of that person’s work has a sufficient connection with that territory for the limited period at issue. The existence of such a connection is determined in the context of an overall assessment of factors such as the nature of the activities carried out by the worker concerned in that territory, the degree of connection between the worker’s activities and the territory of each Member State in which the worker operates, and the proportion represented by those activities in the entire transport service; The fact that a driver working in international road transport, who has been hired out by an undertaking established in one Member State to an undertaking established in another Member State, receives the instructions related to his or her tasks, starts or finishes them at the place of business of that second undertaking is not sufficient in itself to consider that that driver has been posted to the territory of that other Member State for the purposes of Directive 96/71, provided that the performance of that driver’s work does not have a sufficient connection with that territory on the basis of other factors;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-718/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Internal markets for electricity and natural gas - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 2(21) - Article 19(3), (5) and (8) - Article 37(1)(a) and (6)(a) and (b) - Directive 2009/73/EC - Article 2(20) - Article 19(3), (5) and (8) - Article 41(1)(a) and (6)(a) and (b) - Concept of a ‘vertically integrated undertaking’ - Effective unbundling of networks from the activities of production and supply of electricity and natural gas - Independent transmission operator - Independence of the staff and the management of the transmission system operator - Transitional periods - Shares held in the capital of the vertically integrated undertaking - National regulatory authorities - Independence - Exclusive powers - Article 45 TFEU - Freedom of movement for workers - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 15 - Right to engage in work and to pursue an occupation - Article 17 - Right to property - Article 52(1) - Restrictions - Principle of democracy)

(2021/C 431/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by J. Möller and T. Henze, acting as Agents, and subsequently by J. Möller and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented: initially by C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, H. Shev, J. Lundberg and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents, and subsequently by C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev and H. Eklinder, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly: — Article 2(21) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, and Article 2(20) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, — Article 19(3) and (8) of Directives 2009/72 and 2009/73, — Article 19(5) of Directives 2009/72 and 2009/73, — Article 37(1)(a) and (6)(a) and (b) of Directive 2009/72 and Article 41(1)(a) and (6)(a) and (b) of Directive 2009/73, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against NJ

(Case C-489/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ - Minimum requirements on which validity depends - Article 6(1) - Concept of “issuing judicial authority” - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State - Status - Whether subordinate to a body of the executive - Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case - Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission)

(2019/C 423/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Party to the main proceedings

NJ

In the presence of: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of a ‘European arrest warrant’ referred to in Article 1(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that European arrest warrants issued by the public prosecutor’s offices of a Member State fall within that concept, despite the fact that those public prosecutor’s offices are exposed to the risk of being subject, directly or indirectly, to directions or instructions in a specific case from the executive, such as a Minister for Justice, in the context of the issue of those arrest warrants, provided that those arrest warrants are subject, in order to be transmitted by those public prosecutor’s offices, to endorsement by a court which reviews independently and objectively, having access to the entire criminal file to which any specific directions or instructions from the executive are added, the conditions of issue and the proportionality of those arrest warrants, thus adopting an autonomous decision which gives them their final form.

(1) OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 — Credito Fondiario SpA v Single Resolution Board, Italian Republic, European Commission

(Case C-69/19 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) - Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Determination of the 2016 ex ante contribution - Action for annulment - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Late submission - Plea of illegality - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 161/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Credito Fondiario SpA (represented by: initially by F. Sciaudone, S. Frazzani, A. Neri and F. Iacovone, avvocati, and subsequently by F. Sciaudone, A. Neri and F. Iacovone, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: H. Ehlers, acting as Agent, and by S. Ianc, B. Meyring, T. Klupsch and S. Schelo, Rechtsanwälte, and by M. Caccialanza and A. Villani, avvocati), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and K. P. Wojcik and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Credito Fondiario SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board;

3. Orders the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against XD

(Case C-625/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - Criteria - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purpose of criminal proceedings)

(2020/C 54/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party to the main proceedings

XD

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection from which a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant is issued for the purpose of criminal proceedings must benefit are fulfilled if, according to the law of the issuing Member State, the conditions for issuing such a warrant, and in particular its proportionality, are subject to judicial review in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 382, 11.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Joined Cases C-101/19 and C-102/19) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Articles 62 and 69 - Particulars on the labelling and package leaflet of homeopathic medicinal products - Exhaustive list of the particulars or possibility to add information that is useful to the patient and is compatible with the summary of product characteristics - Dosage schedules for homeopathic medicinal products)

(2020/C 230/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant, respondent and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as modified by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as precluding the package leaflet referred to in Article 69 thereof from including information other than that listed in that provision, in particular dosage schedules for homeopathic medicinal products covered by that provision.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de A Coruña — Spain) — Compañía de Tranvías de La Coruña SA v Ayuntamiento de A Coruña

(Case C-45/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Article 8 - Transitional arrangements - Article 8(3) - Expiry of public service contracts - Calculation of the maximum contractual term set at 30 years - Determination of the date from which the maximum term of 30 years starts to run)

(2020/C 222/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de A Coruña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Compañía de Tranvías de La Coruña SA

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de A Coruña

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the maximum term of 30 years, laid down in that provision for the contracts referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of that regulation, runs from the date of entry into force of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — FX v GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother

(Case C-41/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 41(1) - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 24(5) - Maintenance order declared enforceable - Application opposing enforcement - Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of enforcement)

(2020/C 262/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FX

Defendant: GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations is to be interpreted as meaning that an application opposing enforcement brought by the maintenance debtor against enforcement of a decision given by a court of the Member State of origin and which established that debt, which has a close link with the procedure for enforcement, falls within its scope and is within the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of enforcement.

Pursuant to Article 41(1) of Regulation No 4/2009 and to the relevant provisions of national law, it is for the referring court, being a court of the Member State of enforcement, to adjudicate on the admissibility and the validity of the evidence adduced by the maintenance debtor, seeking to support the submission that he has predominantly discharged his debt.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — OI v Air Nostrum Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

(Case C-191/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation for air passengers in the event of denied boarding - Denied boarding - Cancellation - Connecting flights - Change of the reservation in respect of one of the flights comprising the journey by air against the passenger’s will - Arrival of the passenger without delay at his or her final destination)

(2020/C 240/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OI

Defendant: Air Nostrum Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

Operative part of the judgment

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, and in particular Article 7 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that compensation is not payable to a passenger who had a single reservation for connecting flights in the case where that reservation was amended against the passenger’s will, with the result that, first, the passenger did not board the first of his or her reserved flights even though that flight went ahead and, second, the passenger was given a seat on a later flight which allowed him or her to board the second of his or her reserved flights and thus to reach his or her final destination at the arrival time originally scheduled.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
2.

Article 38(9) and (10) of Directive 2014/23 must be interpreted as not precluding the assessment of the appropriateness of the compliance measures taken by an economic operator from being entrusted to the judicial authorities, provided that the national rules put in place for that purpose satisfy all the requirements laid down in Article 38(9) of that directive and that the relevant procedure is compatible with the time limits laid down by the concession contract award procedure. Moreover, Article 38(9) of Directive 2014/23 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows the judicial authorities to release a person from an automatic prohibition on participating in concession contract award procedures following a criminal conviction, to lift such a prohibition or to remove any mention of the conviction in the criminal record, provided that such judicial procedures effectively satisfy the conditions laid down and the objective pursued by that system and, in particular, make it possible, when an economic operator wishes to take part in a concession contract award procedure, to lift, in a timely manner, the prohibition affecting it, on the sole basis of the compliance measures claimed by that operator and assessed by the competent judicial authority in accordance with the requirements laid down in that provision, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — proceedings brought by Prezident Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-378/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 35(4) and (5) - Independence of regulatory authorities - National legislation transferring the power to appoint the president of the national regulatory authority from the Head of State to the government - national ministries participating in price-setting procedures)

(2020/C 271/25)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky

Party to the main proceedings

Prezident Slovenskej republiky

In the presence of: Národná rada Slovenskej republiky, Vláda Slovenskej republiky

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 35(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009, concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the government of that State is competent to appoint and dismiss the president of the national regulatory authority, to the extent that all the requirements laid down by those provisions are complied with, which is for the referring court to review.

2. Article 35(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/72 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation of a Member State which, to ensure the public interest is protected, prescribes that representatives of ministries of that State participate in certain procedures before the national regulatory body concerning price setting, to the extent that that authority’s independence in decision-making is respected, which is for the referring court to review.

(1) JO C 238 du 15.7.2019.
1.

Article 17(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) of that convention, must be interpreted as meaning that the sum provided for in that latter provision as the limit of the air carrier’s liability in the event of destruction, loss and delay of, or of damage to, checked baggage which has not been the subject of a special declaration of interest in delivery constitutes a maximum amount of compensation which the passenger concerned does not enjoy automatically and at a fixed rate. Consequently, it is for the national court to determine, within that limit, the amount of compensation payable to that passenger in the light of the circumstances of the case.
3.

Where it appears that an environmental assessment within the meaning of Directive 2001/42 should have been carried out prior to the adoption of the order and circular on the basis of which a consent, which is contested before a national court, was granted for the installation and operation of wind turbines with the result that those instruments and that consent do not comply with EU law, that court may maintain the effects of those instruments and that consent only if the national law permits it to do so in the proceedings before it and if the annulment of that consent would be likely to have significant implications for the electricity supply of the whole of the Member State concerned, and only for the period of time strictly necessary to remedy that illegality. It is for the referring court, if necessary, to carry out that assessment in the case in the main proceedings.