ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 1 January 2022 by José María Castillejo Oriol against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2021 in Case T-419/21, Castillejo Oriol v Commission

(Case C-1/22 P)

(2022/C 237/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: José María Castillejo Oriol (represented by: Jover Padró, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 2 May 2022, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded, and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 March 2022 — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

(Case C-222/22)

(2022/C 244/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Interested party: JF

Question referred

Must Article 5(3) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), (1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a foreign national who files a subsequent application is not normally to be granted asylum status if the risk of persecution is based on circumstances which the foreign national has created by his or her own decision since leaving his or her country of origin, unless the activities in question are permitted in Austria and it is established that those activities constitute the expression and continuation of convictions held in the country of origin?

(1) OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.
3.

If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, is an action of the tax authority of a Member State, which consists in determining a tax difference owed by a taxable person who is a private individual, on the basis of the provisions referred to in the Law on Accounting, solely because the taxable person has not been able to make available to the tax authority all of the accounting documents of a commercial company which is independent of the taxable person, in order to prove that he or she has, in the interests of that company, used, in his or her capacity as employer, the cash amounts which he or she has handled in the course of his or her work in accordance with instructions or orders and, consequently, the tax authority relies on the absence of certain documents which the taxable person was unlikely to have or could not have had for objective reasons, where those documents are publicly accessible as a result of the obligation of companies to publish their annual financial statements, in conformity with the basic accounting principles and with the objective and function of the publication requirement laid down in Articles 4, 30 and 33 of Directive 2013/34/EU as well as the right to a fair trial enshrined as a principle of law in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the fundamental principles of legal certainty and proportionality?
3.

In the further alternative (that is to say, only if it were held that a selective disapplication of Article 485 was required under EU law, which should therefore be considered to be a ‘greater benefit’ rule), does clause 4 require fixed-term work carried out for a number of hours that is below the standard hours for permanent posts to be given equal value when calculating length of service once the teacher has become permanent? If not, the Court of Justice is asked to give its opinion on the minimum number of hours (for example part-time for an indefinite period) after which clause 4 would require such recognition in national law. From another point of view, is a national law compatible with the abovementioned clause 4 if it disregards — for the purpose of recognition of the temporary period of service completed by a teacher who subsequently becomes permanent — work carried out on an hourly basis which is below the minimum weekly threshold for the number of hours worked part-time by a teacher in a comparable situation? In the further alternative to the last sub-question, is a national law compatible with the abovementioned clause 4 if — for the purpose of recognition of temporary periods of service completed by a teacher who subsequently becomes permanent — it provides for weight to be given on a pro rata basis to work carried out on an hourly basis which is below the minimum weekly threshold for the number of hours worked part-time by a teacher in a comparable situation?
3.

Do the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the fourth indent of the second subparagraph of Article 9(2), Article 9(3) and Article 22 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services, preclude national legislation, such as the Italian provisions (laid down in Article 1(65) and (66) of Law No 266 of 23 December 2005 and Article 65 of Decree-Law No 50 of 24 April 2017, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 96 of 21 June 2017), imposing an obligation on postal sector providers to contribute to the financing of the regulatory authority for the postal sector, without any possibility of distinguishing the position of express courier service providers from that of universal service providers and, therefore, without any possibility of appreciating the different intensity of the regulatory activities carried out by the national regulatory authority in relation to the different types of postal services?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2022 — Seven.One Entertainment Group GmbH v Corint Media GmbH

(Case C-260/22)

(2022/C 284/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Erfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Seven.One Entertainment Group GmbH

Defendant: Corint Media GmbH

Questions referred

1. Must Directive 2001/29/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that broadcasting organisations are entitled, directly and originally, to the right to the fair compensation provided for under the ‘private copying’ exception, in accordance with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC?

2. Having regard to their right under Article 2(e) of Directive 2001/29/EC, can broadcasting organisations be excluded from the right to fair compensation under Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC because they may also be entitled to fair compensation in their capacity as film producers under that provision?

3. If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

Is the general exclusion of broadcasting organisations permissible even though, depending on their specific programming, they sometimes acquire film producers’ rights only to a very small extent (in particular in the case of television channels with a high proportion of programmes licensed from third parties) and they sometimes acquire no film producers’ rights at all (in particular in the case of radio broadcasters)?

(1) Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).
1.

(a) Are member states required to characterise and subsequently classify all water bodies, irrespective of size, and in particular is there a requirement to characterise and classify all lakes with a topological surface area below 0,5 km2? (b) To what extent is the position different with respect to water bodies in a protected area, if at all?
Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-684/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-152/22 P)

(2022/C 294/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Rieker Schuh AG

By order of 22 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Appeal brought on 8 June 2022 by Air France SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-338/17, Air France v European Commission

(Case C-369/22 P)

(2022/C 303/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Air France SA (represented by: A. Wachsmann, M. Blayney, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Principally, — Set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety; — Consequently, annul European Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air France SA, as well as the grounds on which its operative part is based, in so far as that decision imposes a fine on Air France SA; and

— In the alternative, reduce to an appropriate amount, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fine of EUR 182 920 000 imposed jointly and severally on Air France-KLM and Air France SA by Article 3(b) of European Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight);

— In any event, order the European Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Air France SA before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal is based, principally, on a ground for setting aside the judgment under appeal and, in the alternative, on two grounds for variation of that judgment.

Principally, by the first ground of appeal, Air France SA submits that the General Court failed correctly to assess the Commission’s jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU to inbound services, that is to say, from a third country to the EEA. Air France SA maintains that the analysis of the qualified effects is vitiated by errors of law and that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons.

In the alternative, by the second ground of appeal, Air France SA submits that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons and the principle of equal treatment, as regards the taking into account of regulatory regimes.

By its third and final ground of appeal, Air France SA contends that the General Court made errors of law by reversing the burden of proof when it found that Air France SA participated uninterruptedly in the infringement between 7 December 1999 and 14 February 2006.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 April 2022 — Criminal proceedings against IP, DD, ZI, SS and HYa

(Case C-269/22)

(2022/C 303/17)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Accused persons

IP, DD, ZI, SS and HYa

Question referred

Do the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, which establishes the requirement of a fair trial, and Article 48(1) of the Charter, which establishes the presumption of innocence, preclude a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU in which certain acts of the accused persons are presumed to be established, where, before submitting the request for a preliminary ruling, the referring court respected all the procedural safeguards required for a decision on the merits?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 3 May 2022 — YQ, RJ v Getin Noble Bank S.A.

(Case C-287/22)

(2022/C 318/33)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: YQ, RJ

Defendant: Getin Noble Bank S.A.

Question referred

In the light of the principles of effectiveness and proportionality, do Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) preclude an interpretation of national legislation or of national case-law according to which a national court may, in particular because of a consumer’s obligations to settle payments with a seller or supplier or the sound financial situation of the seller or supplier, dismiss a consumer’s application for an interim measure (securing of the action) to suspend, during the course of the proceedings, the performance of a contract which is likely to be declared invalid as a result of the removal of the unfair terms from it?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Action brought on 8 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-452/22)

(2022/C 326/22)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, E. Manhaeve, U. Małecka, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

(2) order the Republic of Poland to pay the Commission a lump sum based on a daily amount of EUR 13 180,5 per day, with a minimum lump sum of EUR 3 270 000;

(3) if the failure to fulfil obligations under (1) above persists until the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case, order the Republic of Poland to pay to the Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 59 290,5 for each day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until it has complied with its obligations under the directive; and

(4) order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishes a regulatory framework for the telecommunications sector. The time limit for transposition of the directive was 21 December 2020.

The Commission issued a letter of formal notice to the Republic of Poland on 3 February 2021. On 23 September 2021, the Commission issued the Republic of Poland with a reasoned opinion. Despite this, transposition measures have not yet been adopted by the Republic of Poland or, in any event, have not been communicated to the Commission.

(1) OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 13 May 2022 — Z. sp. z o.o. v A. S.A.

(Case C-326/22)

(2022/C 318/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Z. sp. z o.o.

Defendant: A. S.A.

Question referred

In the context of the principle of the effectiveness of EU law, must Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1) be understood as meaning that a consumer, or an undertaking to which a consumer has transferred his/her rights arising from that provision of the directive, may request, pursuant to it, that the creditor hand over a copy of the agreement (as well as the terms of business forming part of the agreement), and information on repayment of the credit which are necessary in order to verify the correctness of the calculation of the sums paid to the consumer as repayment of the proportion of the total cost of the credit in connection with the early repayment thereof and necessary in order to bring a claim for any repayment of the aforementioned amounts?

(1) OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 3 May 2022 by Govern d’Andorra against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2022 in Case T-806/19, Govern d’Andorra v EUIPO

(Case C-300/22 P)

(2022/C 340/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Govern d'Andorra (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 12 May 2022, the Vice-President of the Court of Justice declared the appeal inadmissible and ordered Govern d’Andorra to bear its own costs.
1.

Is a natural person who is a member of the board of directors of a public limited company incorporated under Luxembourg law carrying out an ‘economic’ activity within the meaning of Article 9 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) and more specifically, are percentage fees received by that person to be regarded as remuneration paid in return for services provided to that company?
8.

Can the national legislation be considered to include measures that are a sufficient deterrent against public administrative authorities and public sector bodies in respect of the use of successive contracts or renewals of temporary contracts contrary to clause 5 of the Framework Agreement, which are aimed at ‘preventing and penalising the misuse of contracts of indefinite duration’ by an employer in relation to other and future workers, which fulfil the conditions established by the case-law of the CJEU in its judgments of 7 March 2018 in Case C-494/16, Santoro, and of 8 May 2019 in Case C-494/17, Rossato, where those measures consist of legal provisions introduced with effect from 2017 (34th additional provision of Law 3/2017 on General State Budgets for 2017 (Ley 3/2017 de Presupuestos Generales del Estado para el año 2017) of 27 June 2017; 43rd additional provision of Law 6/2018 on General State Budgets for 2018 (Ley 6/2018 de Presupuestos Generales del Estado para el año 2018) of 3 July 2018; and Royal Decree-Law 14/2021 (Real Decreto-ley 14/2021) of 6 July 2021) which state that liability will be established for ‘unlawful actions’ without specifying that liability other than by a general reference to legislation which does not specify [it] and without any specific instance of the establishment of liability existing in the context of thousands of judgments which have ruled that, in the event of non-compliance with the provisions on temporary contracts, workers are deemed to be employed under non-permanent contracts of indefinite duration?
Appeal brought on 4 July 2022 by Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-423/14 RENV, Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE v Commission

(Case C-445/22P)

(2022/C 340/30)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, I. Drillerakis and E. Rantos, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 4 May 2022 in Case T-423/14 RENV, Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (ECLI:EU:T:2022:268);

— refer the matter back to the General Court for reconsideration; and

— reserve the costs of the present proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following ground of appeal:

Ground of appeal: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the General Court found that measure No 2 (2008 State guarantee) conferred an advantage on the appellant

According to the appellant, the General Court’s assessment that measure No 2 (2008 State guarantee) conferred an advantage on the appellant, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, is vitiated by a number of errors of law.

The appellant submits in particular that the General Court’s finding is vitiated, first, by an error of assessment of point 3.2(d) of the Guarantee Notice and, second, by an incorrect allocation of the burden of proof between the Commission and the Member State concerned, in breach of the authority devolving from the case-law of the Court of Justice.

Furthermore, the conclusion reached by the judgment under appeal rests on completely insufficient evidence which, in any event, does not predate the granting of measure No 2, in breach of the case-law of the Court in the judgment of 26 March 2020, Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE v Commission (C-244/18 P, EU:C:2020:238).

Lastly, the appellant submits that that conclusion is based merely on a negative assumption, which rests on the lack of information allowing the opposite conclusion to be reached, without there being any other evidence of such a nature as positively to establish the existence of such an advantage.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 15 June 2022 — EXTÉRIA, s. r. o. v Spravíme, s. r. o.

(Case C-393/22)

(2022/C 359/36)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EXTÉRIA, s. r. o.

Defendant: Spravíme, s. r. o.

Question referred

Must Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) 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 be interpreted as meaning that the concept ‘contract for the provision of services’ also includes a contract to enter into a future contract (pactum de contrahendo), in which the parties undertook to enter into a future contract that would be a contract for the provision of services, within the meaning of that provision?

(1) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 20 June 2022 — JD v Acerta — Caisse d’assurances sociales ASBL, Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Belgian State

(Case C-415/22)

(2022/C 359/49)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JD

Defendants: Acerta — Caisse d’assurances sociales ASBL, Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Belgian State

Question referred

Does the principle of EU law based on a single social security scheme applicable to workers, whether employed or self-employed, active or retired, preclude a Member State of residence from requiring, as in the present case, a retired official of the European Commission, who pursues an activity as a self-employed person, to be subject to its social security scheme and the payment of purely ‘solidarity’ social security contributions, where the retired official is subject to the compulsory social security scheme of the European Union and does not derive any benefits, be they contributory or non-contributory, from the national scheme to which he or she is subject by force?