ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought on 13 August 2021 by Health Information Management (HIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 9 June 2021 in Case T-235/19, Health Information Management (HIM) v Commission

(Case C-500/21 P)

(2021/C 391/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Health Information Management (HIM) (represented by: P. Zeegers, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present appeal admissible and well founded and, consequently;

— set aside paragraphs 93 to 97 and 117 to 185 of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 June 2021 delivered in Case T-235/19, Health Information Management v Commission;

— set aside points 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

— refer the case back to the General Court in order to enable that court to rule on the claim brought by the appellant in its application lodged on 4 April 2019;

— order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the costs and expenses, including the costs and fees of the appellant’s adviser, the amount of which is provisionally fixed at EUR 15 000 excluding VAT.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, Health Information Management relies on three grounds: (i) infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; (ii) failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU; and (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 272 TFEU and, consequently, infringement of the principles of impartiality and proportionality.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Pordenone (Italy) lodged on 14 January 2021 — PH v Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia

(Case C-24/21)

(2021/C 391/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Pordenone

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PH

Defendant: Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia

Questions referred

1. Is the ban imposed by Article 2.1 of Legge Regionale Friuli Venezia Giulia n. 5/2011, which introduces coexistence measures that amount to a ban on cultivating maize variety MON 810 in the territory of the region of Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy), consistent with or contrary to the overall scheme of Directive 2001/18, (1) particularly in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (2) and Recommendation 2[0]10/C 200/01 (3)?

2. Does that ban also constitute a measure having equivalent effect and is it thus contrary to Articles 34, 35 and 36 TFEU?

(1) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC — Commission Declaration (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).

(3) Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops (OJ 2010 C 200, p. 1).
4.

Within the scope of Directive 1999/70/EC, are the general principles of [European Union] law presently in force on equality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in matters of employment, enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in Directives 2000/43/EC (2) and 2000/78/EC (3) and in clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, put into effect by Directive [1]999/70/EC, to be interpreted as precluding a legal provision such as the one contained in Article 1(121) of Law No 107/2015, which allows teachers who are in a comparable situation to permanent teachers, as regards the type of work and employment conditions, having performed the same duties and possessing the same disciplinary, pedagogical, methodological, organisational, interpersonal and research skills, obtained through teaching experience recognised as equivalent under the same national legislation, to be treated less favourably and to be subjected to discrimination regarding their employment conditions and access to training, solely because they have a fixed-term employment relationship?
3.

Is Article 4(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 18 of Directive 2010/75/EU and Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that, when considering a request for a derogation under Article 15(4) of Directive 2010/75/EU, the competent authority must assess whether, taking into account all the relevant scientific data on pollution, including the cumulative effect together with other sources of the pollutant concerned, the setting of less stringent emission limit values for air pollutants from an installation would contribute to the exceedance of the relevant emission limit values set in a given zone or agglomeration in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC, and, if so, whether it must refrain from granting a derogation which would jeopardise the attainment of the environmental quality standards?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2021 — flightright GmbH v American Airlines, Inc.

(Case C-436/21)

(2021/C 452/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: flightright GmbH

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: American Airlines, Inc.

Questions referred

1. If a travel agency combines connecting flights from different air carriers into one transport operation, charges the passenger an overall price and issues a single electronic ticket for the journey, do these qualify as direct connecting flights within the meaning of Article 2(h) of the Regulation, or does there also need to be a specific legal relationship between the operating air carriers? (1)

2. If there needs to be a specific legal relationship between the operating air carriers: Is it sufficient if two successive connecting flights, to be operated by the same air carrier, are combined in a reservation of the kind described in Question 1?

3. If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Are Article 2 of the Agreement and the reference to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (2) in the Annex to Decision No 1/2006 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of [18 October 2006] (3) (OJ 2006 L 298, p. 23) to be interpreted as meaning that the Regulation also applies to passengers boarding a flight to a third country at an airport in Switzerland?

(1) 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

(2) OJ 2002 L 114, p. 73.

(3) Decision No 1/2006 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of 18 October 2006 amending the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (OJ 2006 L 298, p. 23).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 11 August 2021 — Eircom Limited v Commission for Communications Regulation

(Case C-494/21)

(2021/C 431/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eircom Limited

Defendant: Commission for Communications Regulation

Notice parties: Vodafone Ireland Limited, Three Ireland (Hutchinson) Limited, Three Ireland Services (Hutchinson) Limited

Questions referred

In circumstances where:

1. the telecommunications market has been liberalised and there are multiple telecommunication services providers operating in the market;

2. one service provider (the ‘Universal Service Provider’ or ‘USP’) has been selected by the National Regulatory Authority (‘NRA’) to perform Universal Service Obligations (‘USOs’);

3. it has been determined by the NRA that there is a positive net cost associated with the performance of the USOs (‘USO Net Cost’); and

4. it has been determined by the NRA that the USO Net Cost is material compared to the administrative costs of the establishment of a sharing mechanism in respect of the USO Net Cost amongst participants in the market;

If the NRA is required, pursuant to its obligations under the Universal Services Directive 2002/22 (1), to consider whether the USO Net Cost is excessive in view of the ability of the USP to bear it, account being taken of all the USP's characteristics, in particular, the quality of its equipment, its economic and financial situation and its market share (as referred at para. 42 of Base) is it permissible under the Directives for the NRA to conduct that assessment by having regard exclusively to the characteristics/situation of the USP, or is it required to assess the characteristics/situation of the USP relative to its competitors in the relevant market?

(1) Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002, L 108, p. 51).
Action brought on 7 September 2021 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-551/21)

(2021/C 462/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, B. Hofstötter, T. Ramopoulos, A. Stobiecka-Kuik, agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 2 of Council Decision (EU) 2021/1117 (1) of 28 June 2021 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Gabonese Republic and the European Community (2021-2026) and the designation by the Council through its President, of the Portuguese Ambassador as the person empowered to sign the Protocol, as was done on 29 June 2021, and

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

With its first and main plea the Commission argues that the Council violated (a) the Commission’s external representation powers under Article 17 TEU in conjunction with the inter-institutional balance and the principle of institutional conferral of powers as set out in Article 13(2) TEU, as well as (b) the requirement of the unity of external representation arising from the principle of sincere cooperation between the Union and its Member States. The Commission submits first that the Council committed an error in law violating the Commission’s prerogatives by adopting Article 2 of Council Decision (EU) 2021/1117 of 28 June 2021, as amended, and by designating through its President, based on that provision, the Portuguese Ambassador as the person empowered to sign on behalf of the Union (and even to sign alone) the Implementing Protocol with Gabon, instead of the Commission. Second, the Commission submits that by doing so the Council created confusion with the external partners of the Union on which Union institution is to ensure the external representation of the Union since it designated the rotating Council Presidency in the person of the Portuguese Ambassador, and thereby provoked doubts on the legal nature of the Union’s powers in its areas of competence to enter autonomously into international agreements as a fully-fledged international legal person and not as an agency of its Member States. In doing so, the Council undermined the effectiveness, credibility and reputation of the Union on the international plane.

With its Second Plea the Commission argues that the Council violated (a) the duty to state reasons and the publicity requirement, provided in Articles 296 and 297 TFEU, and (b) the principle of sincere cooperation between institutions of Article 13(2) TEU. The Commission submits first, that the Council failed to give reasons as to why it decided to designate the Portuguese Ambassador to sign on behalf of the Union and to properly render public such decision by way of publication or notification to the Commission, and, second, that the Council failed to consult with the Commission on its intention to designate the Portuguese Ambassador to sign on behalf of the Union.

(1) OJ 2021, L 242, p. 3.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 10 September 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, other parties: E.N., S.S. and J.Y.

(Case C-556/21)

(2021/C 471/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Other parties: E.N., S.S., J.Y.

Question referred

Must Articles 27(3) and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180) (1) be interpreted as not precluding, where the legal system of the Member State provides for appellate jurisdiction in cases such as that at issue here, the appellate court, during the hearing of the case, from granting, at the request of the competent authority of the Member State, an interim measure suspending the transfer time limit?

(1) p. 31.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 13 January 2021 by Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 17 November 2020 in Case T-257/20, González Calvet v SRB

(Case C-27/21 P)

(2021/C 502/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet (represented by: P. Molina Bosch, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board

By order of 30 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet to bear their own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2021 — Hauptzollamt Hamburg v Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH

(Case C-553/21)

(2021/C 490/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH

Question referred

Does the principle of proportionality under EU law apply also to the optional tax reduction provided for in the fourth indent of the first sentence of Article 5 of Directive 2003/96/EC, (1) such that the Member State may not refuse to grant the tax reduction after the period for making an application under national law has expired, if assessment has not yet been time-barred at the time the application is received by the competent authority?

(1) Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 September 2021 — Doctipharma SAS v Union des Groupements de pharmaciens d’officine (UDGPO), Pictime SAS operating under the name ‘Coreyre’

(Case C-606/21)

(2021/C 513/33)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Doctipharma SAS

Defendants: Union des Groupements de pharmaciens d’officine (UDGPO), Pictime SAS operating under the name ‘Coreyre’

Questions referred

— Is Doctipharma’s activity which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr, to be regarded as an ‘information society service’ within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998? (1)

— If so, does Doctipharma’s activity, which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr, fall within the scope of Article 85c of the European Directive of 6 November 2011, (2) as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011?

— Is Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2001, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011, to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition, based on an interpretation of Articles L. 5125-25 and L. 5125-26 of the Public Health Code, of Doctipharma’s activity, which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr, constitutes a restriction justified by public health protection?

— If not, is Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2011, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011, to be interpreted as meaning that it allows Doctipharma’s activity, which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr?

— In that situation, is the prohibition of Doctipharma’s activity, based on the interpretation by the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) of Articles L. 5125-25 and L. 5125-26 of the Public Health Code, justified by public health protection within the meaning of Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2001, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011?

— If not, is Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2001, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011, to be interpreted as allowing the activity of an ‘information society service’ offered by Doctipharma?

(1) Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

(2) 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 (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
1.

Is first aid which is administered on board an aircraft following an accident within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (1) and which leads to further bodily injury to the passenger which can be distinguished from the actual consequences of the accident to be regarded, together with the triggering event, as a single accident?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 7 July 2021 by Comercializadora Eloro S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2021 in Case T-310/20, Comercializadora Eloro v EUIPO — Zumex Group (JUMEX)

(Case C-415/21 P)

(2022/C 2/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Comercializadora Eloro S.A. (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero, P. Merino Baylos and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Zumex Group, S.A.

By order of 10 November 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered Comercializadora Eloro, S.A. to bear its own costs.
1.

Must Article 16(4) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC be interpreted as meaning that any presence in the host Member State, however brief, of an EU citizen with a right of permanent residence, is sufficient to interrupt a period of absence exceeding two consecutive years?
1.

Must the term ‘carriage by road of goods’ in Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) be interpreted as including carriage by a vehicle with a total mass of greater than 3,5 tonnes the main use of which is to provide a temporary living area for private use?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 10 August 2021 by Davide Groppi Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 June 2021 in Case T-187/20 Davide Groppi v EUIPO — Viabizzuno (Table lamp)

(Case C-490/21 P)

(2022/C 37/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Davide Groppi Srl (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto, D. Capra and V. Malerba, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 26 November 2021, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals are allowed to proceed) declared that the appeal is inadmissible and ordered Davide Groppi Srl to bear its own costs.
Appeal brought on 24 November 2021 by Évariste Boshab against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Case T-107/20, Boshab v Council

(Case C-708/21P)

(2022/C 51/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Évariste Boshab (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, T. Payan, and A. Guillerme, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2021 in Case T-107/20, Boshab v Council;

— Allow the action on the merits and annul Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 (1) in so far as it maintains the appellant at number 8 of the Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 (2) in so far as it maintains the appellant at number 8 of Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and a manifest error of assessment.

As regards the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed the rights of the defence and, in particular, the appellant’s right to be heard, in so far as it failed to draw the necessary conclusions from the fact that the Council rendered the right to be heard meaningless by failing to carry out the necessary checks, in particular having recourse to an interview, and that, consequently, the procedure leading to renewal could have had a different outcome.

As regards the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court made a manifest error of assessment in so far as it failed to take account of the fact that restrictive measures are precautionary in nature and, by definition, provisional, the validity of which is always subject to the continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to their adoption and to the need to maintain them in order to achieve the objective associated with them; that it did not find that the evidence put forward by the Council was in no way capable of justifying any conduct falling within the criterion for inclusion in the lists at issue, namely acts constituting serious violations of human rights; and that it did not censor the fact that the Council had not examined the evidence submitted by the appellant in the context of the review procedure and that it had not carried out its own verifications on that basis.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134).

(2) Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 1).