ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C‑665/13

Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

v

Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector employees — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Summary — Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 21 October 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation not constituting an implementing measure of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1))

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 12-16, operative part)

Case C‑665/13

Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

v

Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector employees — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Summary — Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 21 October 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation not constituting an implementing measure of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1))

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 12-16, operative part)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — Ediltecnica

(Case C‑592/13) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 191(2) TFEU — Directive 2004/35/EC — Environmental liability — National legislation under which no provision is made for the administrative authorities to require owners of polluted land who have not contributed to that pollution to carry out preventive and remedial measures, and the sole obligation imposed concerns the reimbursement of the measures undertaken by those authorities — Whether compatible with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority)’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — 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 (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 10, 11)

2. Environment — Prevention and remedying of environmental damage — Environmental liability — Directive 2004/35 — ‘Polluter pays’ principle — Impossibility of identifying the polluter of a plot of land or to have that person adopt remedial measures — National legislation laying down the obligation to reimburse the costs relating to the measures undertaken by the competent authority to owners of polluted land not responsible for that pollution — Lawfulness (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/35) (see para. 12, operative part)

Operative part

Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, where it is impossible to identify the polluter of a plot of land or to have that person adopt remedial measures, does not permit the competent authority to require the owner of the land (who is not responsible for the pollution) to adopt preventive and remedial measures, that person being required merely to reimburse the costs relating to the measures undertaken by the competent authority within the limit of the market value of the site, determined after those measures have been carried out.

( 1 ) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
9

Article 209 of Law No IV of 1959 on the Civil Code (Polgári törvénykönyvről szóló 1959. évi IV. törvény), in its version applicable to the main proceedings, is worded as follows: ‘1. Standard contractual terms and terms in a consumer contract which have not been individually negotiated are to be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirements of good faith, they establish the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract unilaterally and unjustifiably, to the detriment of the contracting party which did not stipulate those terms. 2. In assessing the unfairness of a contractual term, all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract which led the parties to conclude it must be considered, as well as the nature of the service agreed and the relationship of the term at issue with other terms of the contract or of other contracts. 3. A special provision may identify the clauses of consumer contracts which are of an unfair nature or must be regarded as unfair, unless proved otherwise. 4. Provisions relating to unfair contractual clauses shall not be applicable to contractual stipulations which define the main subject-matter or to those which determine the equivalence between the service provided and the consideration given in return. 5. A contractual term cannot be regarded as unfair if it has been laid down by a rule of law or has been drafted in conformity with a rule of law.’
11

Article 418 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: ‘1. If the claim is accompanied by a document referred to in Article 417 on which the claim is based, the creditor may ask the court to issue an enforcement order for immediate payment. 2. The enforcement order shall be granted after the court has determined the formal validity of the document and established that there is a claim enforceable against the debtor. To issue the enforcement order, the court shall append a note to that effect to the document produced and to the order for payment. 3. If, according to the document produced, the issue of whether the debt has fallen due depends on consideration being provided or on something else occurring, that provision or occurrence must be established by an official document or by a document from the debtor. 4. An appeal may be brought against a decision rejecting in whole or in part the application for an enforcement order within the period of one week from the notification of that order, by way of an interlocutory appeal no copy of which need be produced for service. …’
1.

Paragraph 72 of the judgment of 21 January 2016 in Galp Energía España and Others v Commission (C‑603/13 P, EU:C:2016:38) must be rectified as follows: ‘In that regard, as the Court has stated on many occasions, the scope of judicial review provided for in Article 263 TFEU extends to all the elements of Commission decisions relating to proceedings applying Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU which are subject to in-depth review by the General Court, in law and in fact, in the light of the pleas raised by the appellants (see, to that effect, judgments in KME Germany and Others v Commission, C-272/09 P, EU:C:2011:810, paragraphs 102 and 109; Chalkor v Commission, C‑386/10 P, EU:C:2011:815, paragraphs 62 and 82; and Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Commission, C-295/12 P, EU:C:2014:2062, paragraphs 56 and 59) and taking into account all the elements submitted by the latter, whether those elements pre-date or post-date the contested decision, whether they were submitted previously in the context of the administrative procedure or, for the first time, in the context of the proceedings before the General Court, in so far as those elements are relevant to the review of the legality of the Commission decision (see, to that effect, judgment in Knauf Gips v Commission, C-407/08 P, EU:C:2010:389, paragraphs 87 to 92).’
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — Balázs and Papp (Case C‑45/14)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 47, 50 and 54 — Implementation of EU law — No such implementation — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the national case having no link to EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51) (see paras 20-25)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Interpretation of Articles 47, 50 and 54 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 4(1) of Protocol No 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — National legislation allowing the public prosecutor to charge the accused repeatedly for the same facts.

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary), by decision of 21 January 2014.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — Balázs and Papp (Case C‑45/14)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 47, 50 and 54 — Implementation of EU law — No such implementation — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the national case having no link to EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51) (see paras 20-25)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Interpretation of Articles 47, 50 and 54 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 4(1) of Protocol No 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — National legislation allowing the public prosecutor to charge the accused repeatedly for the same facts.

Operative part:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary), by decision of 21 January 2014.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — Carbunión v Council

(Case C‑99/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeals — State aid — Decision 2010/787/EU — Aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines — Conditions for considering that aid compatible with the internal market — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court’

1. Appeals — Time-limits — Method of calculation (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 49(2), 51 and 57(7) (see para. 16)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of EU law by the General Court — Admissibility (Art. 256(1), first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see para. 18)

3. Actions for annulment — Subject-matter — Partial annulment — Condition — Severability of the contested provisions — Provisions of a Council decision concerning aid intended to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines — Annulment entailing a modification of the substance of the decision — Requirement not met — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1407/2002; Council Decision 2010/787) (see paras 26-32, 41, 42)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 112, 14.04.2014.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — Carbunión v Council

(Case C‑99/14 P) ( 1 )

‛Appeals — State aid — Decision 2010/787/EU — Aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines — Conditions for considering that aid compatible with the internal market — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court’

1. Appeals — Time-limits — Method of calculation (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 49(2), 51 and 57(7) (see para. 16)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of EU law by the General Court — Admissibility (Art. 256(1), first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see para. 18)

3. Actions for annulment — Subject-matter — Partial annulment — Condition — Severability of the contested provisions — Provisions of a Council decision concerning aid intended to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines — Annulment entailing a modification of the substance of the decision — Requirement not met — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1407/2002; Council Decision 2010/787) (see paras 26-32, 41, 42)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 112, 14.04.2014.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 — Băbășan

(Case C‑305/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation according to which prior authorisation is required for the organisation of a public meeting — Failure to implement EU law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the national case having no link to EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1), TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 13-17)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) by its decision of 7 March 2014.

( 1 ) OJ C 329, 22. 9.2014.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 — Băbășan

(Case C‑305/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation according to which prior authorisation is required for the organisation of a public meeting — Failure to implement EU law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Application for an interpretation of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union — Subject-matter of the national case having no link to EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1), TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 13-17)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) by its decision of 7 March 2014.

( 1 ) OJ C 329, 22. 9.2014.
2.

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 (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 32)
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 —

Argenta Spaarbank

(Case C‑578/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corporation taxes — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) — Parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Common system of taxation — Deduction of taxable profits of the parent company — Factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Insufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — 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) (see paras 14-22)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium), made by Decision of 28 November 2014, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 —

Argenta Spaarbank

(Case C‑578/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corporation taxes — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) — Parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Common system of taxation — Deduction of taxable profits of the parent company — Factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Insufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility’

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — 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) (see paras 14-22)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium), made by Decision of 28 November 2014, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.
2.

EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Freezing of funds of certain persons and bodies in view of the situation in Zimbabwe — Obligation on the institutions to review regularly the situation which justified the adoption of the act containing restrictive measures and the appropriateness of extending them — Scope — Unlawfulness of the act depending on proving the procedural relevance of the infringement of that obligation (Council Regulation No 314/2004) (see paras 51, 52, 55, 57)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 September 2015 —

AQ v Parliament

(Case C‑615/14 P)

‛Appeal — Essential procedural requirements — Representation by a lawyer — Manifest inadmissibility)’

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer — Rectification by a subsequent application — Not permissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third para., and 21, first and second paras; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 57(1) and 119(1) and (3)) (see paras 10-12)

Operative part

1. The appeal of Mr AQ is inadmissible.
3.

The temporal effects of the declaration of invalidity of Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Decision 2013/448 are to be limited so that, first, that declaration does not produce effects until 10 months following the date of delivery of the judgment of 28 April 2016 in Borealis Polyolefine and Others (C‑191/14, C‑192/14, C‑295/14, C‑389/14 and C‑391/14 to C‑393/14, EU:C:2016:311) so as to enable the European Commission to adopt the necessary measures and, second, measures adopted during that period on the basis of the invalidated provisions cannot be called into question.
6

As stated in paragraph 3 of the judgment under appeal, the general conditions applicable both to grant agreement no 215754 for the financing of the Oasis project, and to grant agreement no 215952 for the financing of the Perform project (together, ‘the grants’), are in Annex II to those agreements (‘Annex II’). The General Court also stated, in paragraph 46 of the judgment under appeal, that, under point II.5(3)(d) of Annex II, following receipt of the reports mentioned in point II.4 of Annex II, the Commission may suspend payments at any time in respect of all or part of the amount earmarked for the recipient in question: — if the works carried out are not in conformity with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement; — if the recipient has to reimburse to the State of which he is a national an amount which he has improperly received by way of State aid; — in the event of infringement of the provisions of the grant agreement, or if those provisions are suspected or presumed to have been infringed, in particular as a result of the inspection and audits provided for in points II.22 and II.23 of Annex II; — in the event of a suspected irregularity committed by one or more recipients in the implementation of the grant agreement at issue; and — in the event of a suspected or established irregularity committed by one or more recipients in the implementation of another grant agreement financed by the general budget of the Union or by budgets managed by it. In such a case, payments are to be suspended where the irregularity appears to be of a serious and systematic nature likely to affect the implementation of the grant agreement at issue.
4

Article 1(41) of Law No 335 of 8 August 1995 reforming the compulsory and supplementary pension scheme (ordinary supplement to GURI No 190 of 16 August 1995, ‘Law No 335/1995’), provides: ‘The legislation governing the payment of pensions to survivors of an insured pensioner under the compulsory general insurance scheme shall be extended to cover all schemes which preclude or replace this scheme. Where survivors comprise only minors, students or disabled persons, the pension percentage shall be set at 70% solely for survivors’ pensions payable from the date of entry into force of this law. The rate of the survivors’ pension may take into account the recipient’s income, subject to the limits laid down in Table F of the Annex. The payment due as a result of this combined income — including the reduced survivors’ pension — may not, in any event, be below the amount the same person would receive if his income were equal to the upper limit of the income band immediately below the band his income falls into. The limits on the combined income shall not apply where the recipient is a member of a nuclear family which includes minors, students or disabled persons within the meaning of the first sentence of this paragraph. This provision shall be without prejudice to more favourable social benefits being received at the date of entry into force of this law — adjustments towards reintegration are planned for future amendments.’