ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2021 – Mitliv Exim

(Case C‑81/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Fundamental rights – Principle of ne bis in idem – Both criminal and administrative penalties – Not applicable – Ancillary tax liabilities – Interest on a sum paid by the taxpayer in the context of criminal proceedings)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context – Scope – Application not providing sufficient detail on the factual and legal context – Impossibility for the Court to provide a useful answer to the referring court – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 28-36)

Operative part

Articles 2 and 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, where taxable transactions have taken place and the related value added tax is chargeable, a payment made, even provisionally, seeking to honour the corresponding tax claim cannot be regarded as unfair and cannot generate interest to the benefit of the taxpayer who made that payment.

( 1 ) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Whether that condition can be set aside by invoking the right to effective judicial protection – Absence

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)

(see paras 58-60, 62-64)
2.

Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that terms of a loan agreement which provide that the foreign currency is the account currency and the euro the settlement currency and which have the effect of placing the foreign exchange risk on the borrower, without providing for an upper limit to that risk, are liable to cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under that agreement, to the detriment of the consumer, where the seller or supplier could not reasonably expect, in compliance with the requirement of transparency in relation to the consumer, that the consumer would have agreed to a disproportionate foreign exchange risk resulting from those terms, the mere finding, where appropriate, of the absence of good faith of the seller or supplier not being sufficient for the purposes of characterising such an imbalance.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 December 2021 – Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C‑647/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Direct taxation – Taxation of capital gains on immovable property – Articles 63, 64 and 65 TFEU – Free movement of capital – Higher tax liability on capital gains on immovable property made by residents of third countries)

Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments – Restrictions – Tax legislation – Income tax – Higher tax liability on capital gains on immovable property made by residents of third countries – Unlawful – Justification – None

(Arts 63 and 65(1) TFEU)

(see para. 36, operative part)

Operative part

Articles 63 and 65(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State relating to personal income tax, which makes capital gains arising from the sale of immovable property situated in that Member State, by a resident of a third country, subject to a higher tax liability than that which would be applied, for the same type of transaction, to capital gains made by a resident of that Member State.

( 1 ) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 20 May 2021 – easyCosmetic Swiss v EUIPO

(Case C‑93/21 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

1. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 9)

2. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paras 10-12)

3. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paras 13-16)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Appeals – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b)

(see para. 14)
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 26-28)
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded – Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paragraph 7)
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 9)
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 11 February 2022 – Bese v EUIPO

(Case C‑611/21 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Article 170a(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – No request that the appeal be allowed to proceed – Appeal inadmissible)

Appeals – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – No request that the appeal be allowed to proceed – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a (1))

(see paras 4, 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as inadmissible.
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b)

(see para. 12)
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 22 November 2021 – Birkenstock IP and Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO

(Case C‑498/21 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Appeal not allowed to proceed)

1. Appeals — Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see para. 12)

2. Appeals — Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed — Formal requirements — Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 13-15)

3. Appeals — Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Issue that has not been examined by the Court — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant — Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 17-19, 21)

4. Appeals — Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Not included (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see para. 20)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.

2. Birkenstock IP GmbH and Birkenstock Sales GmbH shall each bear their own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 May 2022 –

Ministero dell’istruzione (Electronic card)

(Case C‑450/21) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 4(1) – Principle of non-discrimination – Concept of ‘employment conditions’ – Allowance to support the in-service training of teachers and to enhance their professional skills)

1. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Scope – Person employed by the Ministry as a teacher – Included (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clauses 3(1) and 4(1)) (see paras 30-32)

2. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Prohibition on discrimination against fixed-term workers – Conditions of employment – Definition – Allowance to support the in-service training of teachers and to enhance their professional skills – Included (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4(1)) (see paras 33, 35-38)

3. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Objective reasons justifying different treatment – Concept – Criteria to be taken into consideration – Allowance granted to the permanent teaching staff of the Ministry, by means of an electronic card, in order to support their in-service training and to enhance their professional skills – Fixed-term teaching staff excluded from entitlement to that allowance – Unlawful (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4(1)) (see paras 45-48, operative part)

Operative part

Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which gives only permanent teaching staff of the Ministry of Education, and not fixed-term teaching staff of that ministry, the right to benefit from additional remuneration in the amount of EUR 500 per year, granted in order to support the in-service training of teachers and to enhance their professional skills, by means of an electronic card which can be used to purchase books and texts (including in digital format), publications, journals relevant in any way for professional development, to purchase hardware and software, to enrol in professional development and certification courses for professional skills, in undergraduate or masters courses related to the job profile, or in postgraduate courses or specialising masters courses related to the job profile, to attend theatrical performances and film screenings, to access museums, exhibitions, cultural events, live performances and other training activities, as well as to purchase connectivity services in order to fulfil the obligation to carry out professional activities remotely.

( 1 ) OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
12

Chapter 5 of Title Ia of the Law of 15 December 1980, headed ‘Procedure’, is subdivided into three sections. Section III concerns ‘appeals seeking annulment’ and incorporates, inter alia, a subsection 3 headed ‘interim administrative proceedings’. That subsection contains Article 39/82 of that law, which is worded as follows: ‘§1. Where an act of an administrative authority is amenable to annulment under Article 39/2, the [Council for asylum and immigration proceedings] alone shall have jurisdiction to order the suspension of its enforcement. … Where the applicant seeks the suspension of implementation, he or she must opt for either suspension on grounds of extreme urgency or ordinary suspension. The applicant must not, either simultaneously or consecutively, seek further application of the third subparagraph or make a further request for suspension in the application referred to in paragraph 3, failing which the application will be inadmissible. … §4. The President of the Chamber or the judge hearing asylum and immigration cases involving foreign nationals appointed by him or her shall rule on the application for suspension within thirty days. If suspension is ordered, a ruling shall be given on the application for annulment within four months of delivery of the decision of the court. If the foreign national is the subject of a removal or refoulement order the enforcement of which is imminent, in particular if he or she is kept at a specific place as referred to in Articles 74/8 and 74/9 or is placed at the disposal of the government, he or she may, if he or she has not yet applied for the suspension of that order by way of the ordinary procedure, seek suspension of enforcement of that order on grounds of extreme urgency within the period referred to in Article 39/57(1)(3). …’
Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 92, 93)
10

According to the Court’s settled case-law, the concept of an ‘interest in the result of a case’, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined in the light of the subject matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the form of order sought, and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law or arguments put forward. The words ‘result of the case’ refer to the final decision sought, as set out in the operative part of the future judgment (see, inter alia, order of the President of the Court of 5 July 2018, Uniwersytet Wrocławski and Poland v REA, C‑515/17 P and C‑561/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:553, paragraph 7). In principle, an interest in the result of the case can be regarded as sufficiently direct only in so far as that result is capable of altering the legal position of the applicant to intervene (order of the President of the Court of 30 April 2020, Commission v HSBC Holdings and Others, C‑806/19 P, not published, EU:C:2020:364, paragraph 8 and the case-law cited).
6

According to recitals 13 to 15, 17, 18, 20 and 24 of Regulation No 1151/2012: ‘(13) … the following provisions should be amalgamated into a single legal framework comprising the new or updated provisions of [Council] Regulations (EC) No 509/2006 [of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 1)] and [No 510/2006] and those provisions of [Regulations No 509/2006 and No 510/2006] that are maintained. (14) In the interests of clarity and transparency, Regulations [No 509/2006 and No 510/2006] should therefore be repealed and replaced by this Regulation. (15) The scope of this Regulation should be limited to the agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty and to a list of products outside the scope of that Annex that are closely linked to agricultural production or to the rural economy. … (17) The scope for designations of origin and geographical indications should be limited to products for which an intrinsic link exists between product or foodstuff characteristics and geographical origin. … (18) The specific objectives of protecting designations of origin and geographical indications are securing a fair return for farmers and producers for the qualities and characteristics of a given product, or of its mode of production, and providing clear information on products with specific characteristics linked to geographical origin, thereby enabling consumers to make more informed purchasing choices. … (20) A Union framework that protects designations of origin and geographical indications by providing for their inclusion on a register facilitates the development of those instruments, since the resulting, more uniform, approach ensures fair competition between the producers of products bearing such indications and enhances the credibility of the products in the consumers’ eyes. … … (24) To qualify for protection in the territories of Member States, designations of origin and geographical indications should be registered only at Union level. With effect from the date of application for such registration at Union level, Member States should be able to grant transitional protection at national level without affecting intra-Union or international trade. …’
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b)

(see para. 13)
2.

Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Plea alleging distortion of the facts – Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see para. 11)
3.

The third question concerns the applicability of Regulation No 241/70 of the Commission of 9 February 1970 (OJ L 32, p. 6) ‘on measures to be taken for uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff’. The question to be clarified is whether, by virtue of its content, this regulation was already applicable during the period from 12 August 1968 to 8 April 1969, that is, to the imports in question, or only as from 13 February 1970, the date of its entry into force. The Court did not accept the assessment of the corresponding question proposed in my opinion in Case 30/71 (Siemers) which coincided with the views of the German Government and the Commission. On the contrary, it held that this Regulation was legislative in nature and could not therefore have any retroactive effect, that is, it could not apply to the classification of products which had been imported before its entry in force. The German Government and the Commission have emphasized in this respect that Regulation No 241/70 merely confirmed the former administrative practice prevailing in the Federal Republic and Followed previously by most of the customs authorities, that is, it did not bring about any change in classification or a material modification of the existing tariff law and therefore was not legislative in nature. However, since these submissions are not new — I already accepted them in Case 30/71 — it can-lot be assumed that they will cause the Court to set aside the assessment made in that case. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that the conclusions eared by the Commission must be drawn, that is, that when explanatory regulations are issued which only apply to the future it must always be assumed hat the tariff classification practice must be changed. In the view of the Court it is necessary to speak of the creation of law precisely when the Community legislature adopts new provisions or adds new explanatory elements and thus modifies the legal situation. I now bow to this view of the law although I still find it unduly strict; therefore I shall not suggest that the question of the applicability of Regulation No 241/70 should receive a different answer to the one given in Case 30/71. It remains to de added that further observations do not appear appropriate in the present context. In particular, there is no reason to go into the question of the validity of Regulation No 241/70, various aspects of which were raised by the plaintiff in the main action. Since the main action only concerns imports made before the entry into force of this regulation its validity is irrelevant. It is therefore sufficient to hold, as in Case 30/71, that the regulation cannot be applied to the classification of products which were imported before its entry into force.