ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Poland) — K.S. v A.B.

(Case C-707/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3 - Compulsory cover of damage to property - Scope - Legislation of a Member State limiting the obligation to cover the costs of towing a vehicle involved in an accident to the costs incurred in the territory of that Member State and limiting the costs of parking to those made necessary by reason of a criminal investigation or for any other reason)

(2021/C 278/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K.S.

Defendant: A.B.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC 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, must be interpreted:

— as precluding a provision of a Member State under which compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles covers compulsorily damage consisting of the costs of towing the damaged vehicle only in so far as that towing takes place in the territory of that Member State. That finding is without prejudice to the right of that Member State to limit the reimbursement of the costs of towing, without using criteria relating to its territory; and

— as not precluding a provision of a Member State under which that insurance covers compulsorily damage consisting of the costs of parking the damaged vehicle only if that parking was necessary in connection with a criminal investigation or for any other reason, provided that that limitation of cover applies without any difference in treatment depending on the Member State of residence of the owner or holder of the damaged vehicle.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
2.

Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, the requirement of transparency of terms of that agreement, which stipulate that payments at fixed intervals are allocated first to interest and that provide, in order to pay the account balance, for an extension of the term of the agreement and for an increase in monthly instalments, is satisfied where the seller or supplier has provided the consumer with sufficient and accurate information to enable the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to understand the specific functioning of the financial mechanism in question and thus to evaluate the risk of potentially significant adverse economic consequences of such terms on his or her financial obligations throughout the term of the agreement;
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală a Vămilor — Direcţia Regională Vamală Braşov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu v Flavourstream SRL

(Case C-822/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Tariff subheadings 1702 90 95, 2912 49 00 and 3824 90 92 - Aqueous solution)

(2021/C 289/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală a Vămilor — Direcţia Regională Vamală Braşov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu

Respondent: Flavourstream SRL

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 version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that an aqueous solution obtained by thermal decomposition of dextrose, composed in particular of water-soluble aldehydes and ketones, does not come either under subheading 1702 90 95 of that nomenclature, which covers inter alia invert sugar and other sugar and sugar syrup blends with fructose content, in the dry state, of 50 % by weight, not classified under other subheadings of heading 1702 of that nomenclature, or under subheading 2912 49 00 thereof, which refers to ‘other’ aldehyde-alcohols, aldehyde-ethers, aldehyde-phenols and aldehydes with other oxygen function, but under subheading 3824 90 92 of that nomenclature, which refers to ‘Chemical products or preparations, predominantly composed of organic compounds, not elsewhere specified or included’, ‘in the form of a liquid at 20 oC’, provided that any potential nutritive value of that solution is merely incidental to that solution’s function as a chemical product and food additive.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Ryanair DAC

(Case C-453/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid for airports and airlines - Decision classifying the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport - Inadmissibility of an action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Natural or legal person not directly and individually concerned by the decision at issue - Effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 349/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Land Rheinland-Pfalz (represented by: Professor C. Koenig), Ryanair DAC (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, D. Vasbeck, avocat, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Deutsche Lufthansa AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz and Ryanair DAC.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — CB v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia

(Case C-521/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Tax inspection - Supply of services as an activity of an agent for performing artists - Transactions subject to VAT - Transactions not declared to the tax authority and not invoiced - Fraud - Reconstitution of the taxable amount for income tax purposes - Principle of VAT neutrality - Inclusion of VAT in the reconstituted taxable amount)

(2021/C 329/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CB

Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Galicia

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Articles 73 and 78 thereof, read in the light of the principle of neutrality of value added tax (VAT), must be interpreted as meaning that, where taxable persons for VAT purposes, by fraud, have not indicated the existence of the transaction to the tax authority, issued invoices or shown the income generated during that transaction in a direct tax declaration, the reconstitution, as part of an inspection of that declaration, of the amounts paid and received during the transaction at issue by the tax authority concerned must be regarded as a price already including VAT, unless, under national law, the taxable persons have the possibility of subsequently passing on and deducting the VAT at issue, notwithstanding the fraud.

(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
6.

The fourth subparagraph of Article 1(1) and Article 1(3) and (5) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2014/23, and Article 21 of Directive 2014/24, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent national court, hearing an action brought against a decision of a contracting authority refusing to disclose to an economic operator information deemed confidential in the documents submitted by the competitor to which the contract has been awarded or an action brought against the decision of a contracting authority dismissing an application for administrative review lodged against such a decision, is required to weigh the applicant’s right to an effective remedy against its competitor’s right to protection of its confidential information and trade secrets. To that end, that court, which must necessarily have at its disposal the information required, including confidential information and trade secrets, in order to be able to determine, with full knowledge of the facts, whether that information can be disclosed, must examine all the relevant matters of fact and of law. It must also be able to annul the refusal decision or the decision dismissing the application for administrative review if they are unlawful and, where appropriate, refer the case back to the contracting authority, or itself adopt a new decision if it is permitted to do so under national law;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gera — Germany) — Toropet Ltd. v Landkreis Greiz

(Case C-836/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public health - Health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption - Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 - Article 9(d) and Article 10(a) and (f) - Classification of products - Decomposition, deterioration and presence of foreign bodies in the material - Impact on the initial classification)

(2021/C 431/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Gera

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Toropet Ltd.

Defendant: Landkreis Greiz

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1), Article 9(h) and Article 10(a) and (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation), read in the light of Article 4(2) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that animal by-products originally classified as Category 3 material, in accordance with Article 10(a) and (f) thereof, which are altered by decomposition or deterioration, or mixed with foreign bodies, such as pieces of plaster or sawdust, so that they are no longer fit for human consumption and/or pose a risk to human or animal health, do not comply with the level of risk associated with that classification and must therefore be reclassified into a lower category.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
4.

Finds that Mr Karel Pinxten breached the obligations arising from his office as a Member of the European Court of Auditors, within the meaning of Article 286(6) TFEU, with respect to: — undeclared and unlawful activity within the governing body of a political party; — improper use of the resources of the Court of Auditors to finance activities unrelated to the duties of a Member of that institution to the extent found in paragraphs 387 to 799 of the present judgment; — the use of a fuel card to purchase fuel for vehicles belonging to third parties; and — a conflict of interest created in the context of a relationship with the head of an audited entity;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consorzio Italian Management, Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

(Case C-561/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Scope of the obligation on national courts or tribunals of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling - Exceptions to that obligation - Criteria - Question on the interpretation of EU law raised by the parties to the national proceedings after the Court has given a preliminary ruling in those proceedings - Failure to state the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Partial inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2021/C 481/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Consorzio Italian Management, Catania Multiservizi SpA

Defendant: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law must comply with its obligation to bring before the Court of Justice a question concerning the interpretation of EU law that has been raised before it, unless it finds that that question is irrelevant or that the provision of EU law in question has already been interpreted by the Court or that the correct application of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt.

The existence of such a possibility must be assessed in the light of the characteristic features of EU law, the particular difficulties to which the interpretation of the latter gives rise and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the European Union.

Such a court or tribunal cannot be relieved of that obligation merely because it has already made a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling in the same national proceedings. However, it may refrain from referring to the Court a question for a preliminary ruling on grounds of inadmissibility specific to the procedure before that court or tribunal, subject to compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Manpower Lit’ v E.S., M.L., M.P., V.V., R.V.

(Case C-948/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Temporary work - Directive 2008/104/EC - Article 1 - Scope of application - Concepts of ‘public undertaking’ and ‘pursuit of an economic activity’ - EU agencies - The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) as a ‘user undertaking’, pursuant to Article 1(2) of that Directive - Article 5(1) - Principle of equal treatment - Basic working and employment conditions - Concept of ‘same job’ - Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 - Article 335 TFEU - Principle of administrative autonomy of an EU institution - Article 336 TFEU - Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union)

(2022/C 11/06)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘Manpower Lit’

Defendants: E.S., M.L., M.P., V.V., R.V.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1 of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary work must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of that directive covers the assignment by a temporary-work agency of persons who have concluded a contract of employment with that agency to the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) to perform work there;

2. Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104 must be interpreted as meaning that the job occupied by a temporary agency worker who is assigned to the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) may be regarded as constituting the ‘same post’ within the meaning of that provision, even if it is assumed that all the jobs for which the EIGE recruits workers directly involve tasks which can be performed only by persons subject to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — SC v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

(Case C-866/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 52(1)(b) - Worker who has been employed in two Member States - Minimum period required by national law for acquisition of entitlement to a retirement pension - Account taken of the contribution period completed under the legislation of another Member State - Aggregation - Calculation of the amount of the retirement benefit to be paid)

(2021/C 513/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining the limit which non-contribution periods may not exceed in relation to contribution periods, as provided for by the national legislation, the competent institution of the Member State concerned must take into consideration, when calculating the theoretical amount of the benefit referred to in point (i) of that provision, all the periods of insurance, including those periods of insurance completed under the legislation of other Member States, whereas the calculation of the actual amount of the benefit referred to in point (ii) of that provision is made having regard solely to the periods of insurance completed under the legislation of the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 December 2021 — European Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd, GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (C-884/19 P), GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd, European Commission (C-888/19 P)

(Joined Cases C-884/19 P and C-888/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of solar glass originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) - ‘Undertaking operating under market economy conditions’ status - Denied - Concept of ‘significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system’, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) - Tax incentives)

(2022/C 51/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: European Commission (represented initially by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche and by A. Demeneix, and subsequently by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents) (C-884/19 P), GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (represented by: R. MacLean, solicitor) (C-888/19 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: Xinyi PV Products (represented by Y. Melin and B. Vigneron, lawyers) (C-884/19 P and C-888/19 P), GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (represented by: R. MacLean, solicitor) (C-884/19 P), European Commission (represented initially by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche and by A. Demeneix, and subsequently by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents) (C-888/19)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2019, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (T-586/14 RENV, EU:T:2019:668);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the second to fourth pleas in law raised before it;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
2.

Annuls Article 1(g) of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives) to the extent that it declares that Sony Optiarc Inc. and Sony Optiarc America Inc. infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 by participating, from 25 July 2007 to 29 October 2008 and from 25 July 2007 to 31 October 2007 respectively, in several separate infringements;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2022 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-401/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Directive (EU) 2019/790 - Article 17(4), point (b), and point (c), in fine - Article 11 and Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom of expression and information - Protection of intellectual property - Obligations imposed on online content-sharing service providers - Prior automatic review (filtering) of content uploaded by users)

(2022/C 237/02)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Wiącek and J. Sawicka, Agents, and by J. Barski, acting as expert)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin, S. Alonso de León and W.D. Kuzmienko, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Alver, F. Florindo Gijón and D. Kornilaki, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by S. Centeno Huerta and J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, and subsequently by J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, Agents), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères and A. Daniel, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented: initially by M.A. Capela de Carvalho Galaz Pimenta, P. Barros da Costa, P. Salvação Barreto and L. Inez Fernandes, and subsequently by M.A. Capela de Carvalho Galaz Pimenta, P. Barros da Costa and P. Salvação Barreto, Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, S.L. Kalėda, J. Samnadda and B. Sasinowska, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice) (England & Wales), Family Division — United Kingdom) — SS v MCP

(Case C-603/20 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 10 - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Abduction of a child - Jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State - Territorial scope - Removal of a child to a third State - Habitual residence acquired in that third State)

(2021/C 189/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SS

Defendant: MCP

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 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, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2116/2004 of 2 December 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a situation where a finding is made that a child has, at the time when an application relating to parental responsibility is brought, acquired his or her habitual residence in a third State following abduction to that State. In that situation, the jurisdiction of the court seised will have to be determined in accordance with the applicable international conventions, or, in the absence of any such international convention, in accordance with Article 14 of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.