ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2022 — QM v Kiwi Tours GmbH

(Case C-584/22)

(2022/C 441/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: QM

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Kiwi Tours GmbH

Questions referred

Is Article 12(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) to be interpreted

1. as meaning that the assessment of the justification of the termination must be based solely on such unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances as have already occurred at the time of termination,

2. or as meaning that it is also necessary to take into account unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances that actually occur after the termination but before the planned start of the journey?

(1) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).
3.

If not, does Article 56 TFEU preclude a. a provision of national law that the period of validity of such a residence permit may not exceed two years, irrespective of the duration of the provision of services? b. the limitation of the period of validity of such a residence permit to the period of validity of the work and residence permit in the Member State in which the service provider is established? c. charging a fee per (renewal) application which is equal to the fee payable for a regular work permit for a third-country national, but five times higher than the fee payable for proof of lawful residence for a Union citizen?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 9 June 2022 by SFD S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-35/21, SFD v EUIPO — Allmax Nutrition (ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION)

(Case C-383/22 P)

(2022/C 451/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SFD S.A. (represented by: T. Grucelski, adwokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 17 October 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that SFD S.A. should bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 October 2022 — R. A. and Others v Luminor Bank AS, acting through Luminor Bank AS Lithuanian Branch

(Case C-645/22)

(2022/C 482/15)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants at first instance, appellants and appellants on a point of law: R. A. and Others

Defendant at first instance and appellant on a point of law: Luminor Bank AS, acting through Luminor Bank AS Lithuanian Branch

Questions referred

1. Can Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where a consumer expresses the intention to preserve a contract by replacing an unfair term contained therein, a court, after finding that the contract cannot remain valid following the removal of the term found to be unfair, may rule on the issue of replacing the unfair term without first assessing the possibility of annulling the contract in its entirety?

2. Does the answer to the first question depend on whether the national court has the possibility of replacing the unfair term contained in the contract with a supplementary provision or a provision of national law applied by mutual agreement of the parties to the contract in question?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
2.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with the principle of freedom of establishment to impose, as regards urban transport services using vehicles with driver other than taxi services, such as PHV, the specific restrictive measure of establishing a maximum ratio of authorisations in respect of taxi licences, such as the 1/30 ratio laid down in the Spanish legislation, subject in its application by the competent administration to the principle of proportionality?
—

declare that, by levying higher annual circulation tax on motor vehicles registered in other Member States before 1 January 2009 and brought to Malta after that date than on similar domestic vehicles, under the Fourth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Registration and Licensing Act as amended by Act VI of 2009, Chapter 368 of the Laws of Malta, Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 110 of the TFEU; and
3.

Can any interest be a legitimate interest, provided that interest is not in breach of the law? More specifically: should a purely commercial interest, such as the interest at issue here, the provision of personal data in return for payment without the consent of the data subject concerned, be regarded as a legitimate interest under certain circumstances? If so, what circumstances determine whether a purely commercial interest is a legitimate interest?
1.-

In the circumstances surrounding the litigation relating to the trucks cartel, described in this order, is it possible to interpret Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in such a way that service of process on a parent company against which an action for damages for the harm caused by a restrictive trade practice has been brought is considered to have been properly effected when such service was effected (or attempted) at the place of business of the subsidiary company established in the State in which the legal proceedings were brought, while the parent company, which is established in another Member State, has not entered an appearance in the proceedings and has remained in default?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Oristano (Italy) lodged on 9 November 2022 — S.G. v Unione di Comuni Alta Marmilla

(Case C-689/22)

(2023/C 35/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Oristano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S.G.

Defendant: Unione di Comuni Alta Marmilla

Question referred

Must Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC, (1) also considered separately, be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices, justified by compliance with public finance restrictions, under which staff, including managerial staff, of public administrative bodies may not under any circumstances, upon termination of their employment relationship, be granted monetary benefits in lieu of leave accrued but not taken?

(1) 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 (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Stichting BPL Pensioen v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Utrecht

(Case C-643/22)

(2023/C 35/32)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting BPL Pensioen

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Utrecht

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard:

— whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results?

— what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is?

— to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
3.

Are the provisions of Article 2(1) of Framework Decision 2005/212, (2) read in conjunction with Article 17(1) of the Charter and regard being had to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14 [January] 2021 in Case C-393/19, (3) to be interpreted by way of argumentum a fortiori as meaning that they also apply in cases where the act constitutes not a criminal offence but an administrative offence, whereas the difference between the two lies solely in the criterion of ‘large quantities’ in terms of the value of the smuggled items as assumed by the courts? Are the fourth indent of Article 1 of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property and Article 2(4) of Directive 2014/42/EU (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union to be interpreted in this case as meaning that the term ‘confiscation’ refers specifically to a penalty or measure that must be issued by a court and cannot be ordered by an administrative authority, and is a national provision such as that of Article 233(6) of the Customs Law, read in conjunction with Article 231 thereof, in that sense unlawful?
Appeal brought on 9 May 2022 by Ahmad Aziz against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2022 in Case T-808/21, Aziz v EEAS

(Case C-317/22 P)

(2023/C 45/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ahmad Aziz (represented by: L. Cuschieri, avukat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

By order of 19 December 2022, The Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Mr Ahmad Aziz shall bear his own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-525/04 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Non-recovery of contributions, default surcharges and interest owed - Admissibility - Private creditor test)

(2008/C 8/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and J. Buendía Sierra, Agents, M. Núñez-Müller, Rechtsanwalt), Lenzing AG, (represented by: U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 October 2004 in Case T-36/99 between Lenzing AG and the Commission in which the Court annulled Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 1999/395/EC of 28 October 1998 on State aid implemented by Spain in favour of Sniace SA, located in Torrelavega, Cantabria (OJ 1999 L 149, p. 40), as amended by Commission Decision 2001/43/EC of 20 September 2000 (OJ 2001 L 11, p. 46) — Admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a competitor of the undertaking benefiting from the aid — Definition of a person individually concerned by the contested decision — Agreements on the rescheduling and repayment of debts — Private creditor test

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay its own costs and those incurred by Lenzing AG;

3) Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.
3.

Article 7(4) of Directive 92/12, as amended by Directive 92/108, does not preclude the legislation of a Member State of destination in which excise duty is chargeable, as allowed under Article 9(3) of that directive, from imposing on any private individual who has personally acquired, for his own use, heating oil in another Member State where it has been made available for consumption, and transported the product himself to the Member State of destination by means of an atypical mode of transport, within the meaning of Article 9(3), to have lodged a guarantee to ensure payment of the excise duties and to have an accompanying document as well as a document confirming lodgement of the guarantee of payment of the excise duties.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-299/05) (1)

(Action for annulment - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 4(2a) and 10a - Annex IIa - Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 - Special non-contributory benefits)

(2008/C 64/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-J. Jonczy, D. Martin and V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: G. Ricci and A. Troupiotis, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by M. Veiga, J. Leppo and G. Curmi, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä, J. Heliskoski and E. Bygglin, Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and R. Sobocki, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. O'Neill and C. Vajda, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the provisions of point 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 relating to the headings W. Finland (b), X. Sweden (c) and Y. United Kingdom (d), (e) and (f) (OJ 2005 L 117, p. 1) — Special non-contributory cash benefits

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the provisions of point 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 under the headings ‘FINLAND’, (b), ‘SWEDEN’, (c), and ‘UNITED KINGDOM’, (d) to (f);

2. Maintains the effects of the inclusion of the Disability Living Allowance under the heading ‘UNITED KINGDOM’, (d), of Annex IIa to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, as regards solely the ‘mobility’ part of that allowance so that, within a reasonable period, appropriate measures can be taken to include it in that annex;

3. Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs and to pay, in equal shares, those of the Commission of the European Communities;

4. Orders the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.
1)

Declares that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, by: — adopting operational instructions valid for the whole of the national territory, specified in particular in the circular of 28 June 1999 of the Minister for the Environment setting out explanatory guidance on the concept of waste and in the communication of the Ministry of Health of 22 July 2002 containing guidelines on the health and hygiene requirements relating to the use for animal feed of materials and by-products deriving from the production and commercial cycle of the agro-food industry, the purpose of which was to exclude, from the scope of the legislation on waste, food scraps from the agro-food industry intended for the production of animal feed; and — excluding, by means of Article 23 of Law No 179 of 31 July 2002 laying down provisions on environmental matters, from the scope of the legislation on waste leftovers from the kitchen preparation of all types of solid food, cooked and uncooked, which have not entered the distribution system and are intended for shelters for pet animals;
1.

Article 7(2) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where it is established that repackaging of the pharmaceutical product is necessary for further marketing in the Member State of importation, the presentation of the packaging should be assessed only against the condition that it should not be such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark or that of its proprietor.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 158/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Ferriere Nord SpA v Commission of the European Communities, Italian Republic

(Case C-49/05 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Formal examination procedure - Community framework for State aid for environmental protection - Rights of the parties - Application to submit observations - Article 88(2) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Environmental purpose of the investment)

(2008/C 158/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Ferriere Nord SpA (represented by: W. Viscardini, G. Donà, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, acting as Agent); Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, and M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 November 2004 in Case T-176/01 Ferriere Nord v Commission, dismissing an application for, on the one hand, annulment of Commission Decision 2001/829/EC, ECSC of 28 March 2001 Commission Decision of 28 March 2001 on the State aid which Italy is planning to grant to Ferriere Nord SpA (OJ 2001 L 310, p. 22), declaring incompatible with the common market aid notified as environmental aid which the autonomous Region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia (Italy) is planning to grant to the applicant in the form of a financial contribution to investments in new plant for the production of electrowelded wire mesh to reduce noise and eliminate waste in the form of iron oxide, and, on the other, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following adoption of that decision

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ferriere Nord SpA to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-59/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Officials - Employment in a non-Member State - Reassignment of post and post holder - Duty to respect the rights of the defence - Scope - Burden of proof)

(2008/C 22/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: L. Garofalo, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission by which that Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission decision reassigning the appellant's post at the delegation of the Commission in Luanda (Angola) to the Commission's headquarters in Brussels and a claim for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission;

2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/24

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-481/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public procurement - Infringement of Article 6(3) of Directive 93/36/EC - General principles of the Treaty - Principle of equal treatment and obligation of transparency - National rules allowing use of the negotiated procedure for public supply contracts relating to certain medical equipment)

(2008/C 51/38)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and X. Lewis, Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Chala and D. Tsagkaraki, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and of the obligation to ensure effective and fair competition — National provision placing all material for medical use into categories and setting a specific maximum price for each category — Provision forming part of a legislative framework which allows use of the negotiated procedure for public supply contracts in respect of whole groups of products of that nature which are not comparable

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by retaining in force Article 7(2) of Law 2955/2001 relating to the ‘Supplies of hospitals and other health units of regional health and pension schemes and other provisions’ and Joint Ministerial Decisions DY6a/oik.38611 and DY6a/oik.38609 of 12 April 2005, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001 and has infringed general principles of the Treaty, in particular equal treatment and the obligation of transparency;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.