ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2021 — Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. v European Commission, Republic of Poland

(Case C-933/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Toll-motorway concession - Law providing for an exemption from tolls for certain vehicles - Compensation granted to the concession holder by the Member State for loss of revenue - Shadow toll - Compensation found by the European Commission to be excessive and to include State aid - Commission decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Procedural rights of the aid beneficiary - Commission’s obligation to exercise particular vigilance - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Improvement of the concession holder’s expected financial situation - Criterion of the private operator in a market economy - Distortion of the evidence - Breach of the obligation to state reasons - Misreading of the decision at issue - Substitution of grounds - Reversal of the burden of proof - Breach of the principle of primacy of EU law - Judicial review to be conducted by the General Court - Requirements and limits)

(2022/C 11/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. (represented by: O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt, and T. Siakka, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, K. Herrmann and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Rzotkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2022 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — AllianzGI-Fonds AEVN v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-545/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Taxation of dividends paid to undertakings for collective investment (UCIs) - Resident and non-resident UCIs - Difference in treatment - Withholding tax imposed solely on dividends paid to non-resident UCIs - Comparability of the situations - Assessment - Account to be taken of the tax regime applicable to shareholders or unitholders in UCIs and of whether resident undertakings are subject to other taxes - None)

(2022/C 191/02)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AllianzGI-Fonds AEVN

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which dividends distributed by resident companies to a non-resident undertaking for collective investment (UCI) are subject to withholding tax, whereas dividends distributed to a resident UCI are exempt from such withholding tax.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Benedetti Pietro e Angelo Ss and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

(Case C-377/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Milk and milk products sector - Quotas - Additional levy - Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 - Deliveries exceeding the producer’s available reference quantity - Collection of the contribution to the excess levy by the purchaser - Refund of levies overpaid - Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 - Article 16 - Criteria for redistributing the excess levy)

(2022/C 109/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Benedetti Pietro e Angelo Ss, Capparotto Giampaolo e Lorenzino Ss, Gonzo Dino Ss, Mantovani Giuseppe e Giorgio Ss, Azienda agricola Padovani Luigi, Azienda agricola La Pila di Mastrotto Piergiorgio e C. Ss, Azienda agricola Mastrotto Giuseppe, Soc. agr. semplice F.lli Isolan

Respondent: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which has the effect that reimbursement of the excess amount of the additional levy must, as a matter of priority, benefit producers in respect of whom purchasers have fulfilled their obligation to pay that levy on a monthly basis.

(1) OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022 — Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Ireland

(Joined Cases C-885/19 P and C-898/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery - Tax ruling - Advantage - Selectivity - Arm's length principle - Reference framework - National law applicable - ‘Normal’ taxation)

(2023/C 7/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe (represented by N. de Boynes, lawyer, M. Doeding, Solicitor, M. Engel, Rechtsanwalt, F. Hoseinian, advokat, G. Maisto, A. Massimiano, avvocati, J. Rodríguez, abogado, M. Severi, avvocato, and A. Thomson, Solicitor), Ireland (represented by M. Browne, A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister-at-Law, P. Gallagher, Senior Counsel, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel)

Other parties to the proceedings: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by A. Germeaux and T. Uri, acting as Agents, and by J. Bracker, A. Steichen and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers), European Commission (represented by P.-J. Loewenthal and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases C-885/19 P and C-898/19 P for the purposes of the judgment;

2. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2019, Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission (T-755/15 and T-759/15, EU:T:2019:670);

3. Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2326 of 21 October 2015 on State aid SA.38375 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) which Luxembourg granted to Fiat;

4. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the appeal in Case C-885/19 P;

5. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs in Case C-885/19 P;

6. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the appeal in Case C-898/19 P;

7. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti — Romania) — IO v Impuls Leasing România IFN SA

(Case C-725/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Enforcement proceedings in respect of a leasing contract constituting an enforceable instrument - Objection to enforcement - National legislation not allowing the court hearing that objection to determine whether the terms of an enforceable instrument are unfair - Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion whether a term is unfair - Existence of an action under ordinary law allowing the review of whether those terms were unfair - Requirement of a security in order to suspend the enforcement proceedings)

(2022/C 266/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IO

Defendant: Impuls Leasing România IFN SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not allow the court hearing the enforcement proceedings in respect of a debt, before which an objection to enforcement has been lodged, to assess, of its own motion, or at the request of the consumer, whether the terms of a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier which constitutes an enforceable instrument are unfair, where the court having jurisdiction to rule on the substance of the case, which may be seised of a separate action under the ordinary law with a view to an assessment as to whether the terms of that contract are unfair, may only suspend the enforcement proceedings until a decision has been given on the substance if a security is paid at a level that is likely to dissuade the consumer from bringing and maintaining such an action.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against XC

(Case C-195/20 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Effects of the surrender - Article 27 - Potential prosecutions for other offences - Specialty rule)

(2020/C 399/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party/parties in the main proceedings

XC

other party to the proceedings: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(2) and (3) 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 the specialty rule provided for in Article 27(2) does not preclude a measure involving deprivation of liberty taken against a person referred to in a first European arrest warrant on the basis of a different offence to that which constituted the basis for his or her surrender under that warrant and prior to that offence, when that person’s departure from the Member State which issued the first warrant was voluntary and he or she was surrendered to that Member State under a second European arrest warrant issued after that departure for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence, provided that, under the second European arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority of that Member State gave its consent to extending the prosecution to the offence which gave rise to that measure involving deprivation of liberty.

(1) OJ C 230, 13.7.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — M. A. v État belge

(Case C-112/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 5 - Return decision - Father of a minor child who is a citizen of the European Union - Taking into account the best interests of the child at the time of the adoption of the return decision)

(2021/C 182/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M. A.

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of 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, read in conjunction with Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are required to take due account of the best interests of the child before adopting a return decision accompanied by an entry ban, even where the person to whom that decision is addressed is not a minor but his or her father.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of L (C-354/20 PPU), P (C-412/20 PPU)

(Joined Cases C-354/20 PPU and C 412/20 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(3) - Article 6(1) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 47 - Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal - Systemic or generalised deficiencies - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - Taking into consideration of developments after the European arrest warrant concerned has been issued - Obligation of the executing judicial authority to determine specifically and precisely whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned will run a real risk of breach of his or her right to a fair trial if he or she is surrendered)

(2021/C 62/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

L (C-354/20 PPU), P (C-412/20 PPU)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 1(3) 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, where the executing judicial authority, which is called upon to decide whether a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued is to be surrendered, has evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning the independence of the judiciary in the Member State that issues that arrest warrant which existed at the time of issue of that warrant or which arose after that issue, that authority cannot deny the status of ‘issuing judicial authority’ to the court which issued that arrest warrant and cannot presume that there are substantial grounds for believing that that person will, if he or she is surrendered to that Member State, run a real risk of breach of his or her fundamental right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, without carrying out a specific and precise verification which takes account of, inter alia, his or her personal situation, the nature of the offence in question and the factual context in which that warrant was issued, such as statements by public authorities which are liable to interfere with how an individual case is handled.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.
1.

Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed periods, all the measures necessary to implement Commission Decision 2012/157/EU of 7 December 2011 concerning compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009, and by failing to sufficiently inform the European Commission of the measures taken pursuant to that decision, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision and under the TFEU;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — YL v Altenrhein Luftfahrt GmbH

(Case C-70/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Montreal Convention - Article 17(1) - Air carrier liability in the event of accidents - Concept of ‘accident’ - Hard landing made within the normal operating range of an aircraft - Bodily injury allegedly sustained by a passenger during such a landing - No accident)

(2021/C 278/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: YL

Defendant: Altenrhein Luftfahrt GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘accident’ laid down in that provision does not cover a landing that has taken place in accordance with the operating procedures and limitations applicable to the aircraft in question, including the tolerances and margins stipulated in respect of the performance factors that have a significant impact on landing, and taking into account the rules of the trade and best practice in the field of aircraft operation, even if the passenger concerned perceives that landing as an unforeseen event.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UE, HC v Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

(Case C-301/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - European Certificate of Succession - Validity of a certified copy of the certificate not having an expiration date - Article 65(1) - Article 69 - Effects of the certificate as regards the persons who are designated on it but have not requested it to be issued - Article 70(3) - Date to take into account for the assessment of the validity of the copy - Evidential effects of the copy)

(2021/C 329/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: UE, HC

Defendant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

Interested party: Estate of VJ

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 70(3) 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 certified copy of the European Certificate of Succession, bearing the words ‘unlimited duration’, is valid for a period of six months from the date of issue and produces its effects, within the meaning of Article 69 of that regulation, if it was valid when it was presented to the competent authority;

2. Article 65(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, read in conjunction with Article 69(3) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the effects of the European Certificate of Succession are produced with respect to all persons who are named therein, even if they have not themselves requested that it be issued.

(1) OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Rad Service Srl Unipersonale, Cosmo Ambiente Srl, Cosmo Scavi Srl v Del Debbio SpA, Gruppo Sei Srl, Ciclat Val di Cecina Soc. Coop., DAF Costruzioni stradali Srl

(Case C-210/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement of service, supply and works contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Conduct of the tendering procedure - Choice of participants and award of contracts - Article 63 - Tenderer relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority - Article 57(4), (6) and (7) - Untruthful declarations submitted by that entity - Exclusion of that tenderer without requiring or permitting it to replace that entity - Principle of proportionality)

(2021/C 289/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rad Service Srl Unipersonale, Cosmo Ambiente Srl, Cosmo Scavi Srl

Defendants: Del Debbio SpA, Gruppo Sei Srl, Ciclat Val di Cecina Soc. Coop., DAF Costruzioni stradali Srl

other party: Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale USL Toscana Centro

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, read in conjunction with Article 57(4)(h) of that directive and in the light of the principle of proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the contracting authority must automatically exclude a tenderer from a public procurement procedure in the case where an ancillary undertaking on whose capacities that tenderer intends to rely made an untruthful declaration as to the existence of criminal convictions that have become final, without being able to require or, at the very least, in such a case, permit that tenderer to replace that entity.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Procura della Repubblica di Trento — Italy) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and execution of a European Investigation Order (EIO) concerning XK

(Case C-66/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Criteria - Procura della Repubblica di Trento (Public Prosecutor’s Office, Trento, Italy) - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2021/C 462/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Procura della Repubblica di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

XK

Intervening party: Finanzamt für Steuerstrafsachen und Steuerfahndung Münster

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Procura della Repubblica di Trento (Public Prosecutor’s Office, Trento, Italy), made by decision of 15 January 2020, is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 2 de Madrid — Spain) — RH v AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España SA

(Case C-30/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the damage occurred - Cartel declared contrary to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Determination of international and territorial jurisdiction - Centralisation of jurisdiction in favour of a specialised court)

(2021/C 349/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 2 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RH

Defendants: AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) 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, within the market affected by collusive arrangements on the fixing and increase in the prices of goods, either the court within whose jurisdiction the undertaking claiming to be harmed purchased the goods affected by those arrangements or, in the case of purchases made by that undertaking in several places, the court within whose jurisdiction that undertaking’s registered office is situated, has international and territorial jurisdiction, in terms of the place where the damage occurred, over an action for compensation for the damage caused by those arrangements contrary to Article 101 TFEU.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.