ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Approximation of laws—Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts—Directive 2004/18—Scope—Contract with a value below the threshold laid down by the directive—Precluded—Application of fundamental rules and the general principles of the FEU Treaty—Condition—Contract having a certain cross-border interest

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1336/2013, Art. 7(c))

(see para. 24)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 January 2018 — Amber Capital Italia and Others

(Joined Cases C‑654/16, C‑657/16 and C‑658/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Company law — Directive 2004/25/EC — Takeover bids — Second subparagraph of Article 5(4) — Possibility of altering the price of the bid in specific circumstances and in line with clearly determined criteria — National legislation providing for the fixing of the price of the bid at the price ascertained in the event of collusion between the offeror or persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers — Concept of ‘clearly determined criterion’)

Freedom of establishment—Companies—Directive 2004/25—Takeover bids—Protection of minority shareholders, the mandatory bid and the equitable price—Option for Member States to enable their supervisory authorities to adjust the price of the bid in certain circumstances and according to specified criteria—National law which allows the price of a takeover bid to be increased in the event of collusion between the offeror or the persons acting together with it and one or more sellers—Entitlement to the price ascertained by the supervisory authority—Lawfulness—Condition—Price deducible in a clear, precise and foreseeable manner from national law

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/25, Art. 5(4), second para.)

(see paras 34-39, operative part)

Operative part

The second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows the national supervisory authority to adjust upwards the price of a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror or persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers, by merely providing that, with regard to the price to which that takeover bid may thus be increased, that price is to correspond to the price ascertained by that authority, on condition that that price can be deduced in a sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable manner from the body of national legislation, using methods of interpretation recognised by domestic law.

( 1 ) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

3 September 2021 ( )

(Rectification of judgment)

In Case C‑601/16 P‑REC,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 24 November 2016,

Arrow Group ApS, established in Gentofte (Denmark),

Arrow Generics Ltd, established in Barnstaple (United Kingdom),

represented by C. Firth, S. Kon and C. Humpe, Solicitors,

applicants,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Commission, represented by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz QC,

defendant at first instance,

supported by:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented initially by D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes QC, and subsequently by D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and by J. Holmes QC,

intervener in the appeal,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of M. Vilaras, President of the Chamber, D. Šváby (Rapporteur), S. Rodin, K. Jürimäe and P.G. Xuereb, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Kokott,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 On 25 March 2021, the Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered the judgment in Arrow Group and Arrow Generics v Commission (C‑601/16 P, not published, EU:C:2021:244).

2 The introductory part of that judgment contains errors which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify at the request of the European Commission, pursuant to Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules.

On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby orders:

1. In the introductory part of the judgment of 25 March 2021, Arrow Group and Arrow Generics v Commission (C‑601/16 P, not published, EU:C:2021:244) the reference to the European Commission’s representatives shall be rectified as follows:

‘European Commission, represented by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz QC,’

2. The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified judgment. A note of this order shall be made in the margin of the original of the rectified judgment.

Luxembourg, 3 September 2021.

A. Calot Escobar M. Vilaras
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — Saferoad Grawil and Saferoad Kabex

(Case C‑35/17)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public procurement — Principles of awarding contracts — Equal treatment of tenderers — Duration of validity of the tender and of the deposit — Extension not explicitly provided for — Exclusion from the tender procedure)

Approximation of laws—Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts—Directive 2004/18—Principle of equal treatment of tenderers—Obligation of transparency—Exclusion of an economic operator which has not complied with an obligation which was not expressly laid down in the contract documentation or in the national law from participating in a contract—No possibility of rectifying that omission—Not permissible

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Art. 2 and Annex VII A, point 17)

(see paras 18, 19, 21-23, 26, 27, operative part)

Operative part

Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of an economic operator from a tender procedure as a result of its failure to comply with an obligation which was not expressly laid down in the contract documentation.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 — Ukraine v Yanukovych

(Case C‑550/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal relating solely to the amount of the costs set at first instance — Manifest inadmissibility)

Appeal—Grounds—Plea directed against the decision of the General Court on costs—Inadmissible if sole plea

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paras 4-7)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Appeal—Grounds—Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court—Error of law relied on not identified—Inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see paras 5, 6)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Reference to the Court—Exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts—Direct application by a legal person governed by private law—Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

(see paras 14, 15)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context—Existence of certain cross-border interest—No existence of information enabling a useful answer—Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/24, Art. 4; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

(see paras 19-23)
Appeal—Grounds—Lack of specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning and of legal arguments in support of the appeal—Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169)

(see paras 6, 7)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 — Centeno Meléndez

Case C‑315/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — System of horizontal career development — Grant of remuneration supplement — National legislation excluding non-established agents — Notions of ‘employment conditions’ and ‘objective reasons’)

1. Social policy—Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP—Directive 1999/70—Scope—Person employed as a non-established agent as a member of the administrative and technical staff of a university—Included (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex) (see paras 38-40)

2. Social policy—Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP—Directive 1999/70—Prohibition on discrimination against fixed-term workers—Conditions of employment—Concept—Participation in the system of horizontal professional development and grant of the remuneration supplement related to that participation—Included (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clause 4, point 1) (see paras 45, 47, 52-54)

3. Social policy—Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP—Directive 1999/70—Prohibition on discrimination against fixed-term workers—National legislation which reserves entitlement to participate in the system of horizontal professional development to the administrative and technical staff of a university and, consequently, restricts the enjoyment of the remuneration supplement related to that participation to officials and permanent contractual agents, thereby excluding persons employed as non-established agents—No objective reasons—Unlawful (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4, point 1) (see paras 65, 68-71, 76, 78 and operative part)

Operative part

Clause 4, point 1 of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP concluded on 18 March 1999, in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which reserves entitlement to participate in the system of horizontal professional development to the administrative and technical staff of the University of Zaragoza (Spain) and, consequently, restricts the enjoyment of the remuneration supplement related to that participation to permanent officials and contractual agents, thereby excluding, inter alia, persons employed as non-established agents.

( 1 ) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Di Girolamo

(Case C‑472/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Fixed-term employment — Magistrates — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Limits—Hypothetical questions—Lack of jurisdiction of the referring court to rule on the dispute in the main proceedings—Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU)

(see paras 25, 26, 31, 32)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila (Magistrates Court, L’Aquila, Italy), by decision of 31 July 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 347 of 16.10.2017.
Case C‑640/17

Luís Manuel dos Santos

v

Fazenda Pública

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Internal taxation — Prohibition of discriminatory taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Annual road tax for motor vehicles — Setting of tax rate according to the date of first registration of the vehicle in the taxing Member State — Second-hand motor vehicles imported from other Member States — No account taken of the date of first registration in another Member State)

Summary — Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 17 April 2018

Tax provisions — Internal taxation — Annual road tax for motor vehicles — Setting of tax rate according to the date of first registration of the vehicle in the taxing Member State — Application to second-hand motor vehicles imported from other Member States — No account taken of the date of first registration in another Member State — Unlawful

(Art. 110 TFEU)

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the annual road tax established by that legislation is levied on light passenger motor vehicles registered or listed in that Member State without taking into account the date of first registration of the vehicle where registration took place in another Member State, which results in higher taxation of vehicles imported from another Member State compared to similar non-imported vehicles.

(see para.22, operative part)
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 April 2022 – Commission v Netherlands

(Case C‑395/17 INT)

(Application for interpretation – Manifest inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings – Interpretation of a judgment – Conditions for the admissibility thereof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 158(1))

(see paras 12-18)

Operative part

1. The application for interpretation is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Appeal — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Dismissal of the action at first instance without examining the substance — Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 25)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2018 — SNCB

(Case C‑190/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information as to the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer—Manifest inadmissibility

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

(see paras 17-23, 27, 30, 32 and operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the juge de paix du premier canton de Schaerbeek (Belgium), by decision of 20 February 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 166 of 14.5.2018.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 June 2018 – easyJet Airline

(Case C-241/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying why an answer to the questions referred is necessary — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling–Admissibility–Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice–Manifest inadmissibility

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

(see paras 11-16, 18, 19, 21, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli (Provincial Tax Court, Naples, Italy), by decision of 5 March 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 240 of 9.7.2018.
Appeal-Grounds-Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal-Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170(1))

(see paras 58-60)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Existence of certain cross-border interest — Existence of information enabling a useful answer — No such existence — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/24, Art. 4; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

(see paras 29-32)
Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

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

(see para. 18)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169)

(see para. 29)
Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 5, 15)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 — Schiaffini Travel

(Case C‑322/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Public passenger transport services by rail and by road — Article 5 — Award of public service contracts — Article 5(2) — Direct award — Concept of ‘internal operator’ — Article 8(2) — Transitional arrangement)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of the relevant aspects of EU law — Reformulation of questions (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 29)

2. Transport — Public passenger transport services by rail and by road — Regulation No 1370/2007 — Article 5(2) — Award of public service contracts — Award procedure carried out before 3 December 2019 — Not applicable (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1370/2007, Arts 5 and 8(2)) (see para. 37, operative part)

Operative part

Article 5 and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that Article 5(2) of that regulation is not applicable to an open procedure for the award of a public service concession contract for the provision of local transport performed before 3 December 2019.

( 1 ) OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Order of the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2019 — Corte dei Conti and Others

(Joined Cases C‑789/18 and C‑790/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Civil service — Cumulation of emoluments from activities as employed or self-employed persons in the service of one or more State entities — National legislation providing for a ceiling to such cumulation — Purely internal situation — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Scope of the obligation in the field of fundamental freedoms — Question raised concerning a dispute confined within a single Member State — No indication as to how the requested interpretation is necessary to resolve the dispute — Inadmissibility (Arts 45 and 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94) (see paras 21, 23-25, 30, operative part)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject matter of the national dispute not having any connection with EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Arts 6(1) TEU; Arts 45 and 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 15, 20, 21, 31 and 51(1) and (2)) (see paras 27-29)

Operative part

The requests for a preliminary ruling made by Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy), by decision of 7 November 2018, are manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2019 — Elliniko Dimosio

(Case C‑689/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Internal taxation — Prohibition of discriminatory taxation — Luxury tax — Motor vehicles — Exemption from tax depending on the date on which the goods first entered into service in the taxing Member State — No account taken of the date on which the goods first entered into service in another Member State)

(Tax provisions — Internal taxation — Prohibition of discrimination between imported products and similar domestic products — Luxury goods tax –Tax on high-displacement motor vehicles for private use — Exemption reserved for vehicles over ten years old since the date of their first entry into service — Failure to take into account the date of first entry into service in another Member State — Not permissible)

(Art. 110 TFEU)

(see para. 26, operative part)

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which any owner or keeper of a private car with a large cylinder capacity, the age of which, calculated as from the date on which it first entered into service in that Member State and irrespective of any possible prior entry into service in another Member State, is more than ten years, is exempt from luxury tax.

( 1 ) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Plea based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure — None — Amplification of an existing plea — No amplification — Inadmissibility

(Rules of procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1))

(see paras 21, 22)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2019 — Rolibérica

(Case C‑834/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Article 4(i) — Concept of ‘week’ — Weekly rest periods — Calculation methods)

Transport — Road transport — Social provisions — Regulation No 561/2006 — Weekly rest periods — Methods of calculation — Weekly rest periods necessarily ending during the week, that is to say between 00:00 on Monday and 24:00 on Sunday — No obligation

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 561/2006, Arts 4(i) and 8)

(see paras 27-30, operative part)

Operative part

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006, on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as meaning that ‘weekly rest period’, within the meaning of Article 8 of that regulation, must not necessarily end during the ‘week’, as defined in Article 4(i) of that regulation.

( 1 ) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.