ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 28 April 2022 — KBC Verzekeringen NV v P&V Verzekeringen CVBA

(Case C-286/22)

(2022/C 303/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: KBC Verzekeringen NV

Respondent: P&V Verzekeringen CVBA

Question referred

Is Article 1(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, as amended by Directive (EU) 2021/2118 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2021, which defines ‘vehicle’ as ‘any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled’, must be interpreted as meaning that an electric bicycle (Speed-Pedelec) whose engine provides pedal assistance only, so that the bicycle does not move autonomously, without muscular power, but only by means of engine and muscular power, and an electric bicycle which is equipped with a boost function, whereby the bicycle accelerates to a speed of 20 km/h when the boost button is pressed without pedalling, yet muscular power is required in order to be able to use the boost function, are not vehicles within the meaning of that directive?

(1) OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.

(2) Directive (EU) 2021/2118 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2021 amending Directive 2009/103/EC relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2021 L 430, p. 1).
2.

When assessing whether unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances exist at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity at the time of termination of a package travel contract and whether they significantly affect the performance of the package: (i) should account be taken only of objective circumstances, that is to say, is a significant effect on the performance of the package related only to objective impossibility and must it be interpreted as only covering cases where the performance of the contract becomes both physically and legally impossible, or does it nevertheless also cover cases where performance of the contract is not impossible but (in this case, owing to the well-founded fear of becoming infected with COVID-19) becomes complicated and/or economically inefficient (in terms of the safety of the travellers, risk to their health and/or life, the possibility of achieving the objectives of the holiday travel); (ii) are subjective factors relevant, such as adults travelling together with children under 14 years of age, or belonging to a higher-risk group owing to the traveller’s age or state of health, and so forth? Does the traveller have the right to terminate the package travel contract if, as a result of the pandemic and related circumstances, in the opinion of the average traveller, travel to and from the destination becomes unsafe, gives rise to inconvenience to the traveller or causes him or her to have a well-founded fear of a risk to health or of infection with a dangerous virus?
Action brought on 7 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia

(Case C-454/22)

(2022/C 326/23)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, E. Manhaeve, U. Małecka and A. Sauka)

Defendant: Republic of Latvia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 124(1) of 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 provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Republic of Latvia to pay a lump sum of EUR 1 145,34 per day, with a minimum lump sum of EUR 316 000;

— order the Republic of Latvia to pay to the Commission, in so far as the failure to fulfil the obligations set out in paragraph 1 persists pending delivery of the judgment in this case, a penalty payment of EUR 1 145,34 for each day’s delay from the date of delivery of the judgment in this case until the date on which the Republic of Latvia complies with its obligations under that directive;

— order Republic of Latvia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code sets out the regulatory framework for the telecommunications sector. The deadline for transposing that directive expired on 21 December 2020.

On 3 February 2021, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Republic of Latvia. On 23 September 2021, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Republic of Latvia. However, the Republic of Latvia has not yet adopted the transposition measures and, in any case, they have not been communicated to the Commission.

(1) OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 4 July 2022 by Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-718/20, Wizz Air v Commission

(Case C-440/22 P)

(2022/C 318/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, S. Rating, abogado, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal; and

— annul the Decision C(2020) 1160 final of the Commission of 24 February 2020 concerning State Aid SA.56244 (2020/N) — Romania — Rescue aid to TAROM (1); and order the Commission to pay the costs; or

— refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds.

First, the General Court erred in law by finding that the condition of existence of an important service which is hard to replicate within the meaning of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (2) (the ‘Guidelines’) is satisfied.

Second, the General Court misapplied the Guidelines regarding the evidence of the difficulty for a competitor to step in.

Third, the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence produced before it when assessing the free capacity on the market and the capacity of low fares airlines to operate on domestic routes.

Fourth, the General Court made an error in law by finding that capital increases cannot relate to a restructuring plan.

Fifth, the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence produced before it when assessing the duration of TAROM’s restructuring period.

Sixth, the General Court erred in law by concluding that there was no need for the Commission to verify if existing aid has become new aid.

Seventh, the General Court erred in law regarding the Commission’s failure to initiate a formal investigation procedure.

(1) OJ 2020 C 310, p. 3.

(2) OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 May 2022 — PT v VB

(Case C-343/22)

(2022/C 340/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: PT

Claimant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: VB

Question referred

Must Article 34(2) of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 30 October 2007 (‘the Lugano Convention’) (1) be interpreted as meaning that the statement of claim in an action seeking repayment of a debt, which was brought after a Swiss order for payment had been issued previously and which did not include an application for the annulment of the objection lodged against the order for payment, constitutes the document which instituted the proceedings?

(1) OJ 2009 L 147, p. 1.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 12 July 2022 by Airoldi Metalli SpA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 May 2022 in Case T-328/21, Airoldi Metalli v Commission

(Case C-467/22 P)

(2022/C 326/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Campa, M. Pirovano, V. Villante, D. Rovetta, avvocati, and P. Gjørtler, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order under appeal and declare the action brought by Airoldi Metalli SpA admissible;

— refer the case back to the General Court for examining the substance of Airoldi Metalli SpA’s action;

— order the Commission to bear the costs of the present appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two main grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal. Error in law in interpreting the final limb of Article 263 (4) TFEU and the requisite and notion of regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures. Wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.

Second ground of appeal. Error in law in interpreting the Article 263 (4) TFEU and in particular the requisite of ‘direct and individual concern’. Wrong qualification of facts.
5.

If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, can the Member State carrying out the zonal assessment additionally rely on scientific and technical knowledge contained in guidance documents which have already been drawn up but not yet adopted, or must the Member State carrying out the zonal assessment take account of all scientific and technical knowledge available even outside of the guidance documents?
Appeal brought on 5 July 2022 by Leon Leonard Johan Veen against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-436/21 Veen v Europol

(Case C-444/22 P)

(2022/C 340/29)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Appellant: Leon Leonard Johan Veen (represented by: M. Mandzák, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

— Refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings;

— Declare that the General Court must rule as to the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal in its entirety is made up of four grounds of appeal. The General Court erred in its legal assessment of the case and misapplied substantive law, in particularly so far as concerns the defendant’s liability for harm and its obligation to process personal data in the context of cross-checks. The General Court also incorrectly found that there was a lack of a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the harmful event, and gave inadequate reasons for the judgment under appeal.
1.

Does Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (1) apply: (a) to an application to modify rights of access as defined by Article 2(10) of that regulation, made by a person granted such rights by a judicial decision which, in the interests of the children, was not to take effect until a future time, but which became final and has the status of res judicata, delivered in the State in which the children were formerly habitually resident more than four months before the application is brought before the court on the basis of Article 9(1); (b) so as to exclude, if it does so apply, the general rule of jurisdiction contained in Article 8 of that regulation, notwithstanding that recital 12 of that regulation states that ‘the grounds of jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility established in the present Regulation are shaped in the light of the best interests of the child, in particular on the criterion of proximity[; t]his means that jurisdiction should lie in the first place with the Member State of the child’s habitual residence, except for certain cases of a change in the child’s residence …’?
2

Does the freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 49 TFEU preclude national legislation such as that laid down in the Portuguese national rules governing the additional solidarity tax on the banking sector, which permits the deduction from the liabilities, as determined and approved, certain liability items which are taken into account for the purposes of the calculation of tier 1 and tier 2 own funds, in accordance with the provisions of Part II of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, taking into account the transitional provisions laid down in Part IX of that Regulation, which may be issued only by entities with legal personality, in other words, which may not be issued by branches of non-resident credit institutions?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2022 — Michael Schütte v Finanzamt Brilon

(Case C-453/22)

(2022/C 368/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michael Schütte

Defendant: Finanzamt Brilon

Question referred

In the circumstances of the main proceedings, do the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC (1)– in particular the principle of fiscal neutrality and the principle of effectiveness — require that the applicant has a right to claim reimbursement of the value added tax overpaid by him or her to his or her upstream suppliers, including interest, directly from the tax authorities, even though there is still a possibility that the upstream suppliers will at a later point in time take action against the tax authorities on the basis of a correction of the invoices, and the tax authorities may then — possibly — no longer have a right of recourse against the applicant, with the result that there is a risk that those authorities will have to reimburse the same value added tax twice?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
1.

Must Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the traveller — irrespective of the time of his or her declaration of termination — is in any event entitled to terminate a package free of charge if the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances significantly affecting the package did in fact occur at the time of the (scheduled) start of the package?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 4 July 2022 — R.M. and E.M. v Eesti Vabariik (Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet)

(Case C-437/22)

(2022/C 389/06)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants on a point of law: R.M. and E.M.

Other party and injured party: Eesti Vabariik (represented by the Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet)

Questions referred

1. In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, does a basis with a direct legal effect flow from Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995, read in conjunction with Article 56(1) and Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 and with Article 35(6) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 (3) of 11 March 2014, for the recovery of fraudulently obtained aid financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) from the representatives of a beneficiary legal person who intentionally made false declarations with a view to fraudulently obtaining the aid?

2. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which aid to be financed by the EAFRD was, as a result of fraud, set and paid to a limited liability company (Osaühing), can the representatives of the beneficiary company who carried out the fraud and who, at the time when the aid was fraudulently obtained, were simultaneously the beneficial owners of that company, also be regarded as beneficiaries within the meaning of Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 and Article 35(6) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014?

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(3) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 48).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2022 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v GS, represented by the parents

(Case C-484/22)

(2022/C 380/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: GS, represented by the parents

Interested party: Die Vertreterin des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Question referred

Must Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding, without exception, the lawfulness of a return decision adopted in respect of a minor third-country national, accompanied by a refusal of his or her application for international protection and setting him or her a time limit for voluntary departure of 30 days from the date on which the decision becomes final, where, for legal reasons, neither parent can be returned to a country referred to in Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC in the foreseeable future and the minor cannot therefore reasonably be expected to leave the Member State either, on account of his or her family life which is worthy of protection (Articles 7 and 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (2) Article 8 of the ECHR), or is it sufficient that, on the basis of a national statutory provision, the child’s best interests and family life within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/115/EC are to be taken into account, following the adoption of the return decision, by virtue of a suspension of the removal?

(1) Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

(2) OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.
3.

Does Article 72(1)(e) of Directive 2014/24, in conjunction with Article 72(4)(a) and (b) thereof, permit a national rule, or practice of interpreting and applying that rule, according to which, in a case such as that in the main proceedings (where a maximum time frame and the deadline for performance of the contract were specified in the contract documents; the time frame also serves as an indicator in the methodology for evaluating tenders; performance of the contract actually exceeded the maximum time frame and the deadline laid down in the documents, without there being any unforeseeable circumstances, and the contracting authority accepted the performance without any complaints and did not seek to enforce a penalty for delay), performance of the contract in a manner contrary to the conditions in the part of the contract and contract documents which relates to the time frame, without there being any unforeseeable circumstances or complaints on the part of the contracting authority, is to be interpreted only as a form of improper performance of the contract and not as an unlawful substantial modification of the contract concerning the part relating to the time frame for performance?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 12 July 2022 — MK v WB

(Case C-461/22)

(2022/C 398/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: MK

Respondent: WB

Questions referred

Is a legally appointed curator who performs that activity in a professional capacity a controller within the meaning of Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation — ‘the GDPR’)?

Is he or she required to provide information in accordance with Article 15 of the GDPR?

(1) OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1.
Appeal brought on 24 May 2022 by Anna Hrebenyuk against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2022 in Case T-252/21, Anna Hrebenyuk v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-338/22 P)

(2022/C 424/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Anna Hrebenyuk (represented by: H.-J. Ruhl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 22 September 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 14 January 2022 by Francisco Javier Fernández-Pacheco Yáñez and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-687/21, Fernández-Pacheco Yáñez and Others v Commission

(Case C-37/22 P)

(2022/C 408/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Francisco Javier Fernández-Pacheco Yáñez, Javier Martín Lou, Luís Fernando Lafuente Guillen, Justino-David Aranda Guerrero, Fernando Llera Gallego, Avelina Domínguez Esteban, María Belén Sáez-Guinea Ruiz, José Miguel Navarro Queiroz, Jorge Luis Pérez Terren (represented by: B. González González, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 6 September 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.