ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 November 2020 – SATA International – Azores Airlines

(Case C‑316/20)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Article 3(3) – Scope – Not included – Passengers travelling for free or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public)

Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Scope – Passengers travelling for free or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public – Not included

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art. 3(3))

(see paras 14-19, operative part.)

Operative part

Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation does not apply to a passenger travelling on a ticket issued by an air carrier at a preferential fare in the context of a sponsorship of an event, the benefit of which is restricted to certain specific persons and the issuing of which presupposes prior individualised authorisation from that air carrier.
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 10)
2.

Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cancellation of the original flight due to an extraordinary circumstance, the fact that an air carrier re-routes a passenger by means of a flight resulting in that passenger arriving to his or her final destination on the day following the day originally scheduled constitutes a ‘reasonable measure’ exempting that carrier from its obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of that regulation, unless there was another possibility of direct or indirect re-routing by a flight operated by that carrier or any other air carrier and arriving earlier than the next flight of the air carrier concerned, except where the latter shows that the implementation of such re-routing would constitute an intolerable sacrifice for that air carrier in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Request not explaining why reference to the Court is necessary – Manifest inadmissibility

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

(see paras 27-33, operative part)
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds of the judgment under appeal citing erroneously a provision of EU law – Clerical error that may be covered by the rectification procedure – Rejection

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 164)

(see paras 4 [12], 5)
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 the terms of that agreement, which provide that the foreign currency is the account currency and the euro the settlement currency and which have the effect that the foreign exchange risk is borne by the borrower, 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.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 November 2021 – Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli – Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta

(Case C‑255/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Taxation – Harmonisation of legislation – Excise duty – Directive 92/12/EEC – Article 3(2) – Directive 2008/118/EC – Article 1(2) – Other indirect taxes on excise goods – Regional tax on the sale of fuel for motor vehicles – Specific purposes – Absence)

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 2008/118 – Products subject to excise duty – National legislation introducing a regional tax on the sale of petrol for motor vehicles – Tax intended solely as a contribution to the budget of the local authorities – Absence of specific purpose – Unlawful

(Council Directive 2008/118, Art. 1(2))

(see paras 28, 32-37, 40, operative part)

Operative part

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which introduces a regional tax on the sale of petrol for motor vehicles, given that, since the proceeds of that tax are intended solely as a general contribution to the budget of the local authorities, it cannot be regarded as pursuing a ‘specific purpose’ within the meaning of that provision.

( 1 ) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
7

Under Article 17(1) and (2) of that regulation: ‘1. In matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section … if: (a) it is a contract for the sale of goods on instalment credit terms; (b) it is a contract for a loan repayable by instalments, or for any other form of credit, made to finance the sale of goods; or (c) in all other cases, the contract has been concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that Member State or to several States including that Member State, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities. 2. Where a consumer enters into a contract with a party who is not domiciled in a Member State but has a branch, agency or other establishment in one of the Member States, that party shall, in disputes arising out of the operations of the branch, agency or establishment, be deemed to be domiciled in that Member State.’
16

The referring court is of the view that, in such circumstances, maintaining the effects of a fraud committed at an earlier stage on all subsequent transactions where the taxable person merely knew or should have known of the fraud constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the principle of fiscal neutrality, bearing in mind that the refusal of the right to deduct cannot have the nature of a penalty. That legal view could be supported, in its view, by the fact that, according to the case-law of the Court, the question of whether the VAT payable on previous or subsequent transactions concerning the goods concerned has or has not been paid to the public exchequer has no bearing on the taxable person’s right to deduct input VAT. In that context, the Court has always stated that the measures which the Member States may adopt under Article 273 of Directive 2006/112, in order to ensure the correct levying and collection of the tax and to prevent evasion, must not go further than is necessary to attain such objectives. It does not appear that a broad interpretation of the concept of ‘supply chain’ is capable of attaining those objectives. Finally, the erroneous nature of a refusal to grant the benefit of the right to deduct in those circumstances could also follow from the case-law of the Court according to which there is no need to draw a distinction, from the point of view of VAT, between lawful and unlawful transactions.
8

On 29 January 2020, the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States adopted the declaration at issue in which it recalled that since the United Kingdom had initiated the procedure laid down in Article 50 TEU for withdrawal from the European Union the Treaties would cease to apply to that Member State from the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement. It also noted that, therefore, the mandates of members of institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union who were nominated, appointed or elected in relation to the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union would end on the date of the withdrawal. It stated that it followed that the permanent post of Advocate General assigned to the United Kingdom by the Declaration on Article 252 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding the number of Advocates General in the Court of Justice annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, would be included in the rotation system among the Member States for the appointment of Advocates General. It noted that, according to the protocol order, the next eligible Member State would be the Hellenic Republic. In view of the exceptional circumstances in which that appointment was to be made and for the purpose of observing, in accordance with Article 253 TFEU, both the rule on the partial replacement of the members of the Court of Justice every three years and the rule on their six-year terms of office, the term of office of the Advocate General proposed by the Hellenic Republic for the vacant post of Advocate General would end on the date of the next partial renewal of the Court of Justice, that is, on 6 October 2021.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 12 May 2021 – Topcart v EUIPO

(Case C‑48/21 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

1. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see para. 14)

2. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paras 15-20, 23)

3. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 21, 22, 24)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 – TUIfly

(Case C‑253/21) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5 – Article 7 – Article 8(3) – Denied boarding, cancellation or long delay of a flight – Compensation and assistance to passengers – Concept of ‘cancellation’ – Diversion of a flight to an airport not serving the same town, city or region as that for which the booking was made – Re-routing of passengers by coach)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court's existing case-law – Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see para. 16)

2. Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Annulment – Definition – Flight diverted to an airport serving the same town, city or region as that for which the booking was made – Not included – Right to compensation for cancellation of a flight – None (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Arts 2(l), 5(1) (c), 7(1) and 8(3)) (see paras 20-23)

3. Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Flight diverted to an airport not serving the same town, city or region as that for which the booking was made – Right to compensation for cancellation of a flight (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Arts 5(1)(c), 7(1) and 8(3)) (see paras 24-27, operative part)

Operative part

Article 5(1)(c), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a diverted flight landing at an airport which is not that for which the booking was made and which does not serve the same town, city or region is capable of conferring on the passenger a right to compensation for cancellation of a flight.

( 1 ) OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 – Fedasil

(Case C‑505/21) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Asylum policy – Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) – Article 27 – Remedies against a transfer decision – No link between the interpretation of EU law that is sought and the actual facts of the main action or its purpose – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer – Assignment of an applicant for international protection to a specialised reception facility as a measure preparatory to the procedure for implementing a transfer decision – No link between the interpretation of EU law that is sought and the actual facts of the main action or its purpose – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 604/2013, Art. 27)

(see paras 38-43, 48, 49, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the tribunal du travail de Liège, division d’Arlon (Labour Court, Liège, Arlon Division, Belgium), by decision of 17 August 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 13 December 2021 – Asolo and WeMO Brands v EUIPO

(Case C‑387/21 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

1. Appeals – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see para. 20)

2. Appeals – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 21-23)

3. Appeals – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 24, 28, 30, 31, 33-35)

4. Appeals – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Issue that has not been examined by the Court – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see para. 27)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 December 2021 – Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Tax on capital gains from immovable property II)

(Case C‑224/21) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Direct taxation – Taxation of capital gains from property – Articles 63 and 65 TFUE – Free movement of capital – Discrimination – Higher tax liability on capital gains on immovable property made by non-residents – Election for taxation under the same procedures as residents)

Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments – Restrictions – Tax legislation – Income tax – Higher tax liability on capital gains on immovable property made by non-residents – Not permissible – No justification – Possibility for non-resident taxpayers to opt for the regime applicable to resident taxpayers – Irrelevant

(Arts 63 and 65(1) TFEU)

(see para. 33, operative part.)

Operative part

Articles 63 and 65(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State relating to personal income tax which, as regards capital gains arising from the sale of immovable property situated in that Member State, systematically makes non-residents subject to a higher tax liability than that which would be applied, for the same type of transaction, to capital gains made by residents, notwithstanding the option available to non-residents to opt for the regime applicable to residents.

( 1 ) OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
5.

Appeals – 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 – Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence – Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion – Requirement that the distortion be obvious from the documents in the file (Art. 256 (1), 2d para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58 (1)) (see paras 85-89, 92-94, 101)
1.

Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (‘service of documents’), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as requiring that the addressee of a judicial document to be served in another Member State be informed in all circumstances, by means of the standard form in Annex II to that Regulation, of his or her right to refuse to accept the document, including where it is written in or accompanied by a translation into a language which the addressee understands or into the official language or one of the official languages of the place where service is to be effected.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2022 – Orbest

(Case C‑659/21)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights – Article 5(3) – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – Aircraft’s technical failure caused by the collision of a catering vehicle owned by a third party with that aircraft while the latter was parked at the airport)

Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 261/2004 – Compensation and assistance to passengers – Cancellation or long delay of flights – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Condition – Extraordinary circumstances – Concept – Technical failure of an aircraft parked at the airport caused by its collision with a catering vehicle owned by a third party – Included – Reasonable measures taken by the air carrier in order to avoid cancellation or long delay of a flight – Re-routing of a passenger – Conditions – Determination by the national court

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, recitals 1, 14 and 15 and Art. 5(3))

(see paras 20-27, operative part)

Operative part

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that the technical failure of an aircraft caused by the collision of a catering vehicle owned by a third party with that aircraft while the latter was parked at the airport may be covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 June 2022 –

Petróleos de Portugal – Petrogal

(Case C‑706/21)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirement to set out the legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – 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(b) and (c))

(see paras 25-32, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal), by decision of 27 October 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.