ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — KAHL GmbH & Co. KG (C-197/20) and C.E. Roeper GmbH (C-216/20) v Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-197/20), Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-216/20)

(Joined Cases C-197/20 and C-216/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff subheadings 1521 90 91 and 1521 90 99 - Interpretation of the Explanatory Notes to subheading 1521 90 99 - Beeswax melted down and solidified prior to import)

(2022/C 2/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KAHL GmbH & Co. KG (C-197/20) and C.E. Roeper GmbH (C-216/20)

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-197/20) and Hauptzollamt Hamburg (C-216/20)

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014 and from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that beeswax which has been melted down, and from which foreign bodies have been mechanically removed in part during the melting process, then solidified to form blocks or slabs, falls under subheading 1521 90 99 of that nomenclature, which refers to ‘other’ waxes, and not under subheading 1521 90 91 of that nomenclature, which refers to ‘raw’ waxes.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
2.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which, in cases where prohibited lotteries have been made commercially available, makes it mandatory to: — impose a minimum fine per unauthorised gaming machine, with no limit on the total amount of the fines imposed, to the extent that the total amount of the fines imposed is not disproportionate to the economic benefit which the infringements thus penalised might provide; — impose a custodial sentence in lieu of a fine per unauthorised gaming machine, with no limit on the total length of the custodial sentences imposed, to the extent that the length of the custodial sentence in lieu of a fine actually imposed is not excessive in the light of the seriousness of the infringements found; and — contribute to the costs of proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed, to the extent that that contribution is neither excessive in the light of the actual cost of such proceedings nor infringes the right of access to a tribunal enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 April 2020, UG v Commission (T-571/17, not published, EU:T:2020:141) in so far as it annulled the European Commission’s decision of 17 October 2016 to terminate UG’s contract of employment of indefinite duration, found the existence of an illegality capable of giving rise to that institution’s liability and rejected as inadmissible UG’s head of claim seeking compensation for her non-material damage;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court, Ireland — Ireland) — MG v Dublin City Council

(Case C-214/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘working time’ - Retained firefighter - Stand-by time according to a stand-by system - Pursuit, during the period of stand-by time, of a self-employed professional activity - Constraints arising from the stand-by system)

(2022/C 11/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Labour Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MG

Defendant: Dublin City Council

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that a period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system served by a retained firefighter, during which that worker, with the permission of his or her employer, carries out a professional activity on his or her own account but must, in the event of an emergency call, reach his or her assigned fire station within 10 minutes, does not constitute ‘working time’ within the meaning of that provision if it follows from an overall assessment of all the facts of the case, in particular from the scope and terms of that ability to carry out another professional activity and from the absence of obligation to participate in the entirety of the interventions effected from that fire station, that the constraints imposed on the said worker during that period are not of such a nature as to constrain objectively and very significantly the ability that he or she has freely to manage, during the said period, the time during which his or her services as a retained firefighter are not required.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
1.

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State on the calculation of inheritance tax which provides that, in the event of acquisition of immovable property situated on national territory, where, at the date of death, neither the deceased nor the heir had their place of residence or habitual residence in that Member State, the allowance on the taxable value is to be reduced, in relation to the allowance applied where at least one of them, on that same date, had his or her place of residence or habitual residence in that Member State, by an amount corresponding to the share that represents the value of the estate that is not subject to tax in that same Member State in relation to the value of the whole estate;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfarma sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

(Case C-488/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFUE - Free movement of goods - Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction - Medicinal products for human use - Parallel import of medicinal products - Legislation of a Member State under which a parallel import licence is to expire automatically after one year from the expiry of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product - Protection of the health and life of humans - Proportionality - Directive 2001/83/EC - Pharmacovigilance)

(2022/C 51/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delfarma sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a parallel import licence for a medicinal product expires automatically after one year from the expiry of the marketing authorisation of reference, without carrying out an examination whether there is any risk to the health and life of humans. The fact that parallel importers are exempt from the obligation to submit periodic safety reports is not a ground which may per se justify the adoption of such a decision.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — DS v Koch Personaldienstleistungen GmbH

(Case C-514/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31(2) - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Article 7 - Annual leave - Working time - Overtime - Calculation of working time on a monthly basis - No overtime pay when taking annual leave)

(2022/C 109/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DS

Defendant: Koch Personaldienstleistungen GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a provision in a collective labour agreement under which, in order to determine whether the threshold of hours worked granting entitlement to overtime pay is reached, the hours corresponding to the period of paid annual leave taken by the worker are not to be taken into account as hours worked.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — V.М.А. v Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’

(Case C-490/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Child born in the host Member State of her parents - Birth certificate issued by that Member State mentioning two mothers in respect of that child - Refusal by the Member State of origin of one of those two mothers to issue a birth certificate for the child in the absence of information as to the identity of the child’s biological mother - Possession of such a certificate being a prerequisite for the issue of an identity card or a passport - Persons of the same sex not recognised as parents under the national legislation of that Member State of origin)

(2022/C 84/20)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: V.М.А.

Defendant: Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) TEU, Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC 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, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a child, being a minor, who is a Union citizen and whose birth certificate, issued by the competent authorities of the host Member State, designates as that child’s parents two persons of the same sex, the Member State of which that child is a national is obliged (i) to issue to that child an identity card or a passport without requiring a birth certificate to be drawn up beforehand by its national authorities, and (ii) to recognise, as is any other Member State, the document from the host Member State that permits that child to exercise, with each of those two persons, the child’s right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — DIMCO Dimovasili M.I.K.E. v Ypourgos Perivallontos kai Energeias

(Case C-499/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 97/23/EC - Pressure equipment - CE marking - Placing on the market and putting into service - Restrictions aimed at ensuring the protection of persons - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - National legislation imposing restrictions on the method of installation of gas pipes)

(2022/C 148/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DIMCO Dimovasili M.I.K.E.

Defendant: Ypourgos Perivallontos kai Energeias

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(1.1) of, and Annex I to, Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure equipment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of Directive 97/23, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in order to ensure the safety of persons, in particular against earthquakes, lays down certain methods of installation for pressure equipment, such as pipes for the transport of gas, including those with the CE marking, provided that that legislation does not lead to any modification of that equipment and does not constitute an obstacle prohibited by Articles 34 and 36 TFEU.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
1.

Article 30(6)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not exclude, in principle, peat bogs from Natura 2000 payments, in so far as those peat bogs are situated in Natura 2000 areas designated pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and to Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, and fall within the concept of ‘agricultural area’ or ‘forest’, within the meaning of, respectively, points (f) and (r) of Article 2(1) or of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1305/2013, which may thus be eligible for the payments referred to in Article 30(1) of that regulation as ‘Natura 2000 agricultural and forest areas’ within the meaning of Article 30(6)(a) thereof;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — SC Cridar Cons SRL v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Cluj, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca

(Case C-582/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167 and 168 - Right to deduction - Refusal - Tax evasion - Evaluation of evidence - Suspension of examination of an administrative complaint relating to a notice of assessment refusing a right to deduction, pending the outcome of criminal proceedings - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Right to good administration - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2022/C 165/20)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Cridar Cons SRL

Defendants: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Cluj, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which permits national tax authorities to suspend the examination of an administrative complaint against a notice of assessment refusing a taxable person the right to deduct input VAT on account of the involvement of that taxable person in tax evasion, with a view to securing additional objective evidence concerning that involvement, provided that, first, such suspension does not delay the outcome of that administrative complaint procedure beyond a reasonable time, second, that the decision ordering that suspension includes reasons both in law and in fact and may be subject to judicial review and, third, that, if it ultimately transpires that the right to deduction was refused in breach of EU law, that taxable person may secure the repayment of the corresponding amount within a reasonable time as well as, where relevant, the corresponding late payment interest. In those circumstances, it is not necessary that, during that suspension, that taxable person enjoy a suspension of enforcement of that notice, except, in case of serious doubt as to the lawfulness of that notice, if granting the suspension of enforcement of the same notice is required to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the interests of the taxable person.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo -Portugal) — Suzlon Wind Energy Portugal — Energia Eólica Unipessoal, Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-605/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Applicability ratione temporis - Supplies subject to VAT - Supplies of services for consideration - Criteria - Intra-group relationship - Supplies consisting in repairing or replacing components of wind turbines under guarantee and preparing non-compliance reports - Debit notes issued by the supplier of services with no reference to VAT - Deduction by the supplier of the VAT charged on the goods and services for which it has been invoiced by its subcontractors in respect of those supplies)

(2022/C 165/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Suzlon Wind Energy Portugal — Energia Eólica Unipessoal, Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that transactions forming part of a contractual framework which identifies a supplier of services, the purchaser of those services and the nature of the services in question, duly accounted for by the taxable person, bearing a heading confirming the nature of the services and having given rise to remuneration received by the supplier constituting the actual value of those services in the form of debit notes, form a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of that provision, notwithstanding, first, any absence of profit for the taxable person and, second, the existence of a guarantee relating to the goods in respect of which those services were provided.

(1) OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
1.

Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of classification as inside information, information relating to the forthcoming publication of a press article reporting a market rumour about an issuer of financial instruments is capable of constituting information ‘of a precise nature’, within the meaning of that provision and of Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition and public disclosure of inside information and the definition of market manipulation, and that the fact that that press article mentions the price at which the securities of that issuer would be purchased in the context of a possible takeover bid and the identity of the journalist who authored that article and of the media organisation that published it are relevant factors for the purpose of assessing that precise nature, in so far as they were disclosed before that publication. As regards the actual effect of that publication on the prices of the securities to which it relates, while it may constitute ex post evidence of the precise nature of that information, it is not sufficient, in itself, in the absence of an examination of other factors known or disclosed prior to that publication, to establish that precise nature.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — ‘Grossmania’ Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

(Case C-177/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - Primacy - Direct effect - Sincere cooperation - Article 4(3) TEU - Article 63 TFEU - Obligations of a Member State as a result of a preliminary ruling - Interpretation of a provision of EU law given by the Court in a preliminary ruling - Obligation to give full effect to EU law - Obligation for a national court to disapply national legislation which contravenes EU law as interpreted by the Court - Administrative decision which became final in the absence of a challenge before the courts - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Liability of the Member State)

(2022/C 171/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Grossmania’ Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular Article 4(3) TEU and Article 267 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court hearing an action against a decision rejecting a request for reinstatement of rights of usufruct which have been extinguished by operation of law and deleted from the land register pursuant to national legislation which is incompatible with Article 63 TFEU, as interpreted by the Court in a preliminary ruling, is required:

— to disapply that legislation; and

— in the absence of objective and legitimate obstacles, in particular those of a legal nature, to order the competent administrative authority to reinstate the rights of usufruct, even though the deletion of those rights has not been contested before the courts within the legal time limits and has consequently become final in accordance with national law.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
1.

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, Clause 4 of the framework agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997 and which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 and which is annexed 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 which does not provide for an entitlement for magistrates to 30 days’ paid annual leave or to a social security and pension scheme deriving from the employment relationship, such as that provided for ordinary judges, if that magistrate comes within the definition of ‘part-time worker’ within the meaning of the framework agreement on part-time work and/or ‘fixed-term worker’ within the meaning of the framework agreement on fixed-term work and is in a comparable situation to that of an ordinary judge;