ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — Jadransko osiguranje

(Case C‑651/18)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Lack of sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings, and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer — 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 8-14, 19, 23, 28-30, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu (Municipal Civil Court, Zagreb, Croatia), by decisions of 20 July 2018 and 15 January 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 February 2020 — hapeg dresden

(Case C‑137/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2006/123/EC — Legislation of a Member State providing for a minimum tariff for engineer and architect fees)

Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Services in the internal market — Directive 2006/123 — Requirements to be evaluated — National legislation establishing a system of minimum and maximum tariffs for planning services of architects and engineers — Not permissible — Justification — Ensuring the quality of services and the protection of consumers — None

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/123, Art. 15(1), (2)(g) and (3))

(see paras 15-22, operative part)

Operative part

Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation prohibiting, in contracts concluded with architects and engineers, tariffs lower than the minimum amounts determined according to the fee scale for architects and engineers laid down by that legislation.

( 1 ) OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 December 2019 — Bueno Ruiz and Zurich Insurance

(Case C‑431/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — First paragraph of Article 3 — Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ — Leaks of oil and other liquids from a motor vehicle — Damages)

Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103 — Concept of use of vehicles — Use of a vehicle in accordance with its function as a means of transport — Accident that occurred in a private car park following the formation of a puddle of oil which was mainly produced during manoeuvres made by a vehicle parked in that car park — Included

(Directive 2009/103 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 3, first para.)

(see paras 35-45, 48, operative part)

Operative part

The first paragraph of 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 meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’, referred to in that provision, covers a situation in which a vehicle which has been manoeuvred and/or parked in a private car park, in accordance with its function as a means of transport, is involved in an accident in that car park.

( 1 ) OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2020 – Spieker v EUIPO

(Case C‑455/18 P)

(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Representation of the parties in direct actions before the Courts of the European Union – Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice – Lawyer – Third party status in relation to the applicant)

Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer – Applicant with the status of lawyer authorised to practise before a national court – Irrelevant – Manifest inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third para. and fourth para., and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(1))

(see para. 4)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.
49

In the present case, paragraphs 50 to 52 of the order under appeal state as follows as regards the President’s reliance on a possible change in the appellant’s shareholders: ‘50 Furthermore, it appears that there were changes in the applicant’s shareholders before the applicant’s response of 21 December 2017. Nevertheless, despite the measure of organisation of procedure ordered by the President of the General Court on 11 December 2017, according to which the applicant had to provide “any other kind of relevant information relating to the changes that have taken place since the application for interim relief was lodged”, the applicant did not provide any information about that operation. 51 That information was all the more necessary in so far as the applicant was aware of the case-law set out in paragraphs 44 to 47 [of the order under appeal] and in so far as it is apparent from paragraph 73 of its application for interim measures that it claimed that the case-law in question was irrelevant in its situation, since there was no “majority shareholder to whom the Court could apply the case-law on recourse to third parties likely to cast doubt on the urgency”. On that point, the applicant clarified in its application for interim measures that it was apparent from the list of its current shareholders that “the principal shareholder is still Fundación Hércules, whose lack of resources was confirmed by the Commission”. 52 Under those circumstances, in so far as the information provided by the applicant is insufficient, the President of the General Court is unable to assess whether, for the purposes of examining urgency, he can confine himself to examining the applicant’s situation in isolation or whether he has to have regard for any contribution from the shareholders that might benefit the applicant.’
3

Recital 28 of Directive 2014/24 states: ‘This Directive should not apply to certain emergency services where they are performed by non-profit organisations or associations, since the particular nature of those organisations would be difficult to preserve if the service providers had to be chosen in accordance with the procedures set out in this Directive. However, the exclusion should not be extended beyond that strictly necessary. It should therefore be set out explicitly that patient transport ambulance services should not be excluded. In that context, it is furthermore necessary to clarify that CPV [Common Procurement Vocabulary] Group 601 ‘Land Transport Services’ does not cover ambulance services, to be found in CPV class 8514. It should therefore be clarified that services, which are covered by CPV code 85143000-3, consisting exclusively of patient transport ambulance services, should be subject to the special regime set out for social and other specific services (the ‘light regime’). Consequently, mixed contracts for the provision of ambulance services in general would also be subject to the light regime if the value of the patient transport ambulance services were greater than the value of other ambulance services.’
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2019 — BI v Commission

(Case C‑99/19 P)

(Appeal –Application for legal aid — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Decision of the General Court of the European Union not subject to appeal — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

Appeal — Subject matter of the dispute — Setting aside of an order which dismissed the applicant’s application for the grant of legal aid — Decision not subject to appeal — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2); Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 148(8))

(see paras 5-7)

Operative part

1. BI’s appeal is dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 May 2019 — Mitliv Exim

(Case C‑9/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Insufficient information regarding the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying the need for an answer to the question referred — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Scope — Application not providing sufficient detail on the factual and legal context — Impossibility for the Court to provide a useful answer to the referring court — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 50; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 15-18, 23-26, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunalul Bucureşti (Regional Court, Bucharest, Romania), by decision of 8 June 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Appeal — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 181)

(see para. 16)
Appeal —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 paras 4-7)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 — Eli Lilly and Company

(Case C‑239/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3(b) — Conditions for obtaining — Marketing authorisation — Authorisation issued to a third party — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — General or hypothetical questions — Determination by the Court of its own jurisdiction (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 16, 17)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — General or hypothetical questions — Member State having notified its intention to withdraw from the European Union — Question referred for a preliminary ruling in advance of that withdrawal — Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 25, 26)

4. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation sought on account of the existence of disputes in other Member States or of previous disputes — Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 27)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 4 March 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 12, 13.1.1997.
Appeal — 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; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 4, 5)
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Burden of proof

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

(see para. 10)
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — 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, Art. 170b)

(see para. 9)
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law — Burden of proof

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

(see para. 11)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti

(Case C‑679/19) ( 1 )

(Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union –Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Scope — Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Transport of large amounts of cash entering or leaving the territory of a Member State — Obligation to declare — Sanctions — Fine and confiscation for the benefit of the State of an undeclared sum in excess of 10000 euros — Proportionality)

1. Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Regulation No 1889/2005 — Obligation to declare — Scope — Possibility, for Member States, to carry out national controls on movements of cash within the EU — Whether permissible (Art. 65 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1889/2005, Recital 3 and Arts 1(2) and 3(1)) (see paras 21, 22, 24, 25)

2. Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Restrictions — Obligation to declare significant sums of cash entering or leaving the territory of a Member State — National legislation providing for a fine and the confiscation of the undeclared sum above EU 10000 in the event of failure to comply with such an obligation — Breach of principle of proportionality — Not permissible (Arts 63 and 65 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1889/2005, Arts 3 and 9(1)) (see paras 34-39, operative part)

Operative part

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the rules of a Member State which, for the purpose of sanctioning the failure of the obligation to declare large sums of cash entering or leaving the territory of that State provides, in addition to the imposition of an administrative fine, for the confiscation for the benefit of the State an undeclared sum in excess of 10000 euros.

( 1 ) OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 – WWK Lebensversicherung auf Gegenseitigkeit

(Case C‑803/19)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Direct life assurance – Directives 2002/83/EC and 2009/138/EC – Right of renunciation – Recovery of sums paid to the insurance company by way of a tax on insurance premiums – Procedures )

Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Direct life assurance – Directives 2002/83 and 2009/138 – Policyholder’s right to cancellation – Exercise of the right to cancellation – Recovery of the payment by way of a tax on insurance premiums to the insured person – Procedures – National legislation excluding the recovery of the payment to the insured person by way of a tax on the insurance premiums collected by the insurance company – Whether permissible – Condition

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/83, Arts 35(1) and 36(1); European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/138, Arts 185(0 and 186(1))

(see paras 27-32, 37, operative part)

Operative part

Article 35 (1) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life insurance, read together with Article 36(1) of that directive, and Article 185(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), read together with Article 186(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, in the event of cancellation by the policyholder of the insurance contract, the tax on insurance premiums, due by that policyholder, collected by the insurance company and paid by the latter to the State, is excluded from the sums that that company must reimburse to that policyholder, the latter having to claim reimbursement of that tax from the tax authorities or, where applicable, request compenstaion from the insurance company, in so far as the procedural methods provided for by the law applicable to the insurance contract in order to obtain the recovery of the sums paid in respect of that tax are not such as call into question the effectiveness of the right to cancellation which EU law confers on the policyholder, which is for the referring court to determine.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 January 2021 – Krakvet

(Case C‑108/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 33 – Determination of the place where taxable transactions are carried out – Supply of goods with transport – Supply of goods dispatched or transported by or on behalf of the supplier – Sale through a website – Contract for the carriage of goods concluded by the buyer with a company suggested by the supplier)

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation – Common system of value added tax – Supply of goods – Place of taxable transactions – Supply of goods with transport – Transport contract concluded between the customer and the carrier – Supplier recommending a carrier but giving the customer the freedom to choose – Transport or dispatch by or on behalf of the supplier – Meaning – Goods transported or dispatched by a supplier who plays a dominant role in the essential stages of the supply – Included

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 33)

(see para. 48, operative part)

Operative part

Article 33 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards goods sold through a website by a supplier established in a Member State to buyers located in another Member State, when, for the purpose of transporting those goods, those buyers, in accordance with the dispatching options offered by the supplier, choose a company suggested by that website with which they conclude a contract separate from the one which binds them to that supplier for the purchase of those goods, the latter must be regarded as transported ‘by or on behalf of the supplier’, within the meaning of Article 33 of that directive, where the role of that supplier is dominant in terms of initiating and organising the essential stages of the transport of those goods, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, taking account of all the relevant circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings.

( 1 ) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2020 – Balga

(Case C‑32/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal – Articles 20, 21, 34 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Directive 98/59/EC –Collective dismissal – National legislation on the protection to be granted to a worker who is the victim of unjustified collective dismissal due to infringement of the criteria for the choice of workers to be dismissed – No situation of implementation of EU law, within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Inapplicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Manifest lack of jurisdiction )

1. 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 a measure implementing EU law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20, 21, 30, 34, 47 and 51(1) and (2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 23-27, 35, operative part)

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59 – Scope – Terms of protection granted to a worker who has been the subject of unjustified collective dismissal as a result of an infringement of the criteria for the choice of workers to be dismissed – Not included (Council Directive 98/59) (see paras 31-34)

Operative part

The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Corte d’appello di Napoli (Court of Appeal of Naples, Italy), by decision of 18 September 2019.

( 1 ) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – 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, Art. 170b)

(see para. 17)
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded – Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paragraph 23)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 – Bezirkshauptmannschaft Kirchdorf

(Case C‑293/20)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 267 TFEU – Concept of a ‘court or tribunal’ – Primacy of EU law – Factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings – Reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Request not explaining why reference to the Court is necessary – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

(see paras 20-26, 30, 37, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Regional Administrative Court, Upper Austria, Austria), made by decision of 29 June 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.