ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

Where no provision is made in the legislation of the issuing Member State for an action to be brought before a court for the purpose of obtaining review of the conditions under which a European arrest warrant was issued by an authority which, whilst participating in the administration of justice in that Member State, is not itself a court, Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as permitting the national court hearing an action seeking to challenge the lawfulness of the continued pre-trial detention of a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued on the basis of a national measure that cannot be regarded as a ‘[national] arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect’ for the purposes of Article 8(1)(c) of that framework decision, and in the context of which a plea in law is raised alleging that that European arrest warrant is invalid in the light of EU law, to find that it has jurisdiction to conduct such a review of validity. Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as not requiring that a finding by the national court that the European arrest warrant at issue has been issued in breach of Article 8(1)(c) of that framework decision, in so far as it is not based on a ‘[national] arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect’ for the purposes of that provision, has the effect of releasing the person placed in pre-trial detention following his or her surrender by the executing Member State to the issuing Member State. It is therefore for the referring court to decide, in accordance with its national law, what consequences the absence of such a national measure, as a legal basis for the European arrest warrant at issue, may have on deciding whether or not to keep the accused person in pre-trial detention.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Renesola UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-209/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Assessment of validity - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1357/2013 - Determination of the country of origin of solar modules assembled in a third country from solar cells manufactured in another third country - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 24 - Origin of goods whose production involved more than one third country - Concept of ‘last substantial processing or working’)

(2021/C 278/31)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Renesola UK Ltd

Respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the first question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1357/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2021 — Claudio Necci v European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-202/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Former member of the contract staff - Social security - Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) - Article 95 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS) - Continued membership after retirement - Condition of having been employed for more than three years - Request to join the JSIS following a transfer of pension rights - Equating the credited years of pensionable service with years of service - Rejection of the request - Action for annulment - Act having an adverse effect - Order of the General Court declaring the action inadmissible - Order set aside)

(2021/C 278/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Claudio Necci (represented initially by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats, and subsequently by S. Orlandi, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and T.S. Bohr, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 25 March 2020, Necci v Commission (T-129/19, not published, EU:T:2020:131);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.
1.

The provisions of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, in particular Article 4(5) and Article 30 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding an ordinary court of a Member State ruling on an action for damages against the State brought by a railway undertaking on the basis of an incorrect implementation of that directive, resulting in an alleged overpayment of a charge to the infrastructure manager, where the regulatory body and, as the case may be, the court having jurisdiction to hear appeals against the decisions of that body have not yet ruled on the legality of that charge. Article 30(2), (5) and (6) of Directive 2001/14, as amended by Directive 2007/58, must be interpreted as requiring that a railway undertaking holding an access permit has the right to challenge the amount of individual charges set by the infrastructure manager before the regulatory body, that that body take a decision on that challenge and that that decision may be reviewed by the court having jurisdiction to conduct such review.
3.

Where use has been made of the option to apply the derogation provided for in Article 11(4) of Directive 2003/109, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is not intended to apply to legislation of a Member State under which the grant of housing assistance to third-country nationals who are long-term residents is subject to the condition that they provide proof, in a form specified by that legislation, that they have a basic command of the language of that Member State, if that housing assistance does not constitute a ‘core benefit’ within the meaning of Article 11(4) of that directive. If the housing assistance in question does constitute such a core benefit, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in so far as it prohibits any discrimination based on ethnic origin, does not preclude such legislation.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — XY v Hauptzollamt B

(Case C-100/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 17(1)(a) - Tax reductions on the consumption of energy products and electricity in favour of energy-intensive businesses - Optional reduction - Arrangements governing the repayment of tax levied in breach of provisions of national law adopted on the basis of a power granted to the Member States in that directive - Payment of interest - Principle of equal treatment)

(2021/C 462/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: XY

Respondent: Hauptzollamt B

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as requiring that, in the event of refund of the amount of electricity tax wrongly levied on account of the incorrect application of a national provision adopted on the basis of a power granted to the Member States by Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, interest be paid on that amount.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) — Bulgaria) — Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v TOTO SpA — Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori SpA

(Case C-581/20) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(1) - Civil and commercial matters - Article 35 - Provisional, including protective, measures - Action based on a contract for the construction of a public expressway concluded between a public authority and two private law companies - Application for interim relief relating to penalties and guarantees arising from that contract - Decision on interim relief already given by a court having jurisdiction as to the substance)

(2021/C 490/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad

Defendants: TOTO SpA — Costruzioni Generali, Vianini Lavori SpA

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for interim relief brought and pursued, in accordance with the rules of ordinary law, before a court of a Member State relating to penalties in respect of the performance of a contract for the construction of a public expressway concluded at the end of a procurement procedure where the contracting authority is a public authority falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 35 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State hearing an application for provisional, including protective, measures under that provision is not required to declare that it has no jurisdiction where the court of another Member State, which has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter, has already given judgment in respect of proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties.

3. Article 35 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an application for provisional, including protective, measures must be examined in the light of the law of the Member State of the court seised and does not preclude national legislation which does not authorise an action for interim relief in respect of a pecuniary claim against the State or a public authority.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Phantasialand v Finanzamt Brühl

(Case C-406/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services - Annex III, point 7 - Admission fee for amusement parks and fairs - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Services provided by static and mobile fairground entertainers - Comparability - Context - Point of view of the average consumer - Expert opinion)

(2021/C 471/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Phantasialand

Defendant: Finanzamt Brühl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex III to that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, first, services provided by mobile fairground entertainers and, second, those provided by static fairground entertainers in the form of amusement parks are subject to different rates of value added tax, one reduced and the other normal, provided that the principle of fiscal neutrality is respected. European Union law does not preclude the referring court, where it encounters particular difficulties in verifying compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality, from requesting, in accordance with the conditions laid down in national law, an expert opinion intended to inform its judgment.

(1) OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — CHEP Equipment Pooling NV v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-396/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Detailed rules for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund - Directive 2008/9/EC - Article 20(1) - Request for additional information by the Member State of refund - Details which may be the subject of a request for additional information - Discrepancy between the amount entered on the refund application and the amount appearing on the invoices submitted - Principle of sound administration - Principle of the neutrality of VAT - Limitation period - Consequences for correcting the taxable person’s error)

(2021/C 513/19)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CHEP Equipment Pooling NV

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(1) of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State, read in the light of the principles of fiscal neutrality and sound administration, must be interpreted as precluding the tax authority of the Member State of refund, where that authority is satisfied, if necessary on the basis of the additional information provided by the taxable person, that the amount of input value added tax actually paid, as set out on the invoice attached to the refund application, is higher than the amount entered in that application, from refunding only that latter amount of value added tax, without first asking the taxable person, promptly and by the means which it deems the most appropriate, to correct the refund application by an application which is to be considered as having been submitted on the date of the initial application.

(1) OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 — KF v European Union Satellite Centre

(Case C-464/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Institutional law - Staff of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) - Members of the contract staff - Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out in respect of the applicant - Reopening of the investigation - Compliance with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 October 2018, KF v SatCen (T 286/15, EU:T:2018:718) - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2021/C 502/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KF (represented by: A. Kunst, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Satellite Centre (represented by: A. Guillerme and T. Payan, avocates)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders KF to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — État belge v LO and Others

(Case C-413/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 - Technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew - Points 9 and 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I - Training course for the issue of a commercial pilot licence - Flying training - Instrument ground time - Calculation - Simulator training - Skill test - Principle of legal certainty - Temporal limitation of the effects of a preliminary ruling)

(2022/C 24/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge

Defendants: LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Point 9(e) of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1119 of 31 July 2018, must be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the 115 hours of instrument time referred to in that provision, it is not possible to count more than 55 hours of instrument ground time;

2. Point 10 of Subpart A of Appendix 3 to Annex I to Regulation No 1178/2011, as amended by Regulation 2018/1119, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an applicant has sat the skill test before completing all of the required training hours, the CPL(A) licence may be granted to him or her only once he or she has completed the training and sat the related skill test again.

(1) OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-106/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common agricultural policy - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic - Conformity clearance procedure - Plea raised for the first time during the oral proceedings at first instance - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Article 2(2) - Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Article 4(1)(h) - Concept of ‘permanent pasture’ - Distortion of evidence - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 - Article 12(4) - One-off correction - Conditions - Burden of proof)

(2022/C 11/08)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Kemwater ProChemie s. r. o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-154/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Right to deduct input tax - Material conditions governing the right of deduction - Supplier’s status as taxable person - Burden of proof - Refusal of the right of deduction where the true supplier has not been identified - Conditions)

(2022/C 73/02)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kemwater ProChemie s. r. o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) must be refused, without the tax authorities having to prove that the taxable person committed VAT fraud or that he or she knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on to establish the right of deduction was connected with such fraud, where, the true supplier of the goods or services concerned not having been identified, that taxable person fails to adduce proof that that supplier had the status of taxable person, provided that, taking into account the factual circumstances and the evidence produced by that taxable person, the information needed to verify that the true supplier had that status is lacking.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
1.

Article 11(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that an employed person who is a national of a Member State of which she and her children are residents, who is engaged under an employment contract as a development aid worker by an employer whose registered office is in another Member State, who is subject, under the legislation of that other Member State, to the compulsory social security scheme of that Member State, who is posted to a third country not immediately after her recruitment but after a training period in that other Member State and who subsequently returns there for a reintegration period, must be regarded as pursuing an activity as an employed person in that Member State within the meaning of that provision;
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu — Poland) — Skarb Państwa — Starosta Nyski v New Media Development & Hotel Services Sp. z o.o.

(Case C-327/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/7/EU - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Scope - Concept of ‘commercial transactions’ - Public authority acting as a creditor of an undertaking - Excluded - Handing over by a public authority of an immovable property in perpetual usufruct to an undertaking against payment of an annual fee)

(2022/C 109/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skarb Państwa — Starosta Nyski

Defendant: New Media Development & Hotel Services Sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘commercial transaction’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover the collection, by a public authority, of a payment due as remuneration for the perpetual usufruct of a plot of land from an undertaking of which that public authority is the creditor.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
3.

Article 5(1)(c)(i) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air passenger who reserved a flight through an intermediary is to be regarded as not having been informed of the cancellation of that flight in the case where, although the operating air carrier transmitted the information relating to that cancellation to that intermediary, through which the contract of carriage by air was concluded with that passenger, at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure, that intermediary did not inform the passenger of that cancellation within the period referred to in that provision and that passenger did not expressly authorise that intermediary to receive the information transmitted by that operating air carrier.