ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Criminal proceedings against BV

(Case C-570/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Fraudulent concealment of tax due - Penalties - National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 49 - Article 50 - Principle ne bis in idem - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the principle ne bis in idem - Requirement to provide for clear and precise rules - Possibility of taking into account the interpretation of national legislation by national courts - Need to provide for rules ensuring the proportionality of all of the penalties imposed - Penalties of different kinds)

(2022/C 257/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

BV

Intervening party: Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Haute-Savoie

Operative part of the judgment

The fundamental right guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that

— it does not preclude a situation whereby the limitation of the duplication of proceedings and penalties of a criminal nature in the event of fraudulent concealment or omissions from a return relating to value added tax (VAT) provided for by national legislation to the most serious cases is based only on settled case-law interpreting restrictively the legal provisions laying down the conditions for the application of that duplication, provided that it is reasonably foreseeable, at the time when the offence is committed, that that offence is liable to be the subject of a duplication of proceedings and penalties of a criminal nature, but

— it precludes national legislation which does not ensure, in cases of the combination of a financial penalty and a custodial sentence, by means of clear and precise rules, where necessary as interpreted by the national courts, that all of the penalties imposed do not exceed the seriousness of the offence identified.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, formerly Facebook Ireland Limited v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

(Case C-319/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 80 - Representation of the data subjects by a not-for-profit association - Representative action brought by a consumer protection association in the absence of a mandate and independently of the infringement of specific rights of a data subject - Action based on the prohibition of unfair commercial practices, the infringement of a consumer protection law or the prohibition of the use of invalid general terms and conditions)

(2022/C 237/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, formerly Facebook Ireland Limited

Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 80(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a consumer protection association to bring legal proceedings, in the absence of a mandate conferred on it for that purpose and independently of the infringement of specific rights of the data subjects, against the person allegedly responsible for an infringement of the laws protecting personal data, on the basis of the infringement of the prohibition of unfair commercial practices, a breach of a consumer protection law or the prohibition of the use of invalid general terms and conditions, where the data processing concerned is liable to affect the rights that identified or identifiable natural persons derive from that regulation.

(1) OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.
2.

Articles 45 and 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of the host Member State to which an application has been made for authorisation to pursue a regulated profession in that Member State, is required to regard a diploma issued by the authority of another Member State as bona fide and cannot, in principle, call into question the level of knowledge and qualifications which the applicant may be presumed to have acquired by virtue of that diploma. Only where it has serious doubts founded on specific information forming a consistent body of evidence which suggests that the diploma relied on by the applicant does not reflect the level of knowledge and qualifications which the applicant may be presumed to have acquired, the authority of the host Member State may request the issuing authority to review, in the light of such evidence, the grounds for awarding that diploma, the latter authority being required, if necessary, to withdraw it. That evidence may include, where appropriate, inter alia, information submitted both by persons other than the provider of the training in question and by the authorities of another Member State acting in the course of their duties. Where the issuing authority has reviewed, in the light of that evidence, the grounds for awarding the diploma and has decided not to withdraw it, it is only in exceptional cases, where it is clear from the circumstances that the diploma is not bona fide, that the authority of the host Member State may call into question the grounds for awarding that diploma.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR

(Case C-569/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Article 8 - Right to be present at the trial - Information regarding the holding of the trial - Inability to locate the accused person notwithstanding the reasonable efforts of the competent authorities - Possibility of a trial and a conviction in absentia - Article 9 - Right to a new trial, or to another legal remedy, which allows a fresh determination of the merits of the case)

(2022/C 266/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

IR

Interested party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 8 and 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that an accused person whom the competent national authorities, despite their reasonable efforts, do not succeed in locating and to whom they accordingly have not managed to give the information regarding his or her trial may be tried and, as the case may be, convicted in absentia, but must in that case, in principle, be able, after notification of the conviction, to rely directly on the right, conferred by that directive, to secure the reopening of the proceedings or access to an equivalent legal remedy resulting in a fresh examination, in his or her presence, of the merits of the case. That person may, however, be denied that right if it is apparent from precise and objective indicia that he or she received sufficient information to know that he or she was going to be brought to trial and, by deliberate acts and with the intention of evading justice, prevented the authorities from informing him or her officially of that trial.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — RTL Television GmbH v Grupo Pestana S.G.P.S., S.A., SALVOR — Sociedade de Investimento Hoteleiro, S.A.

(Case C-716/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission - Directive 93/83/EEC - Article 1(3) - Concept of ‘cable retransmission’ - Provider of the retransmission not having the status of a cable operator - Simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged distribution of television and radio programmes broadcast by satellite and intended for reception by the public, performed by the operator of a hotel establishment, by means of a satellite dish, a cable and television or radio sets - None)

(2022/C 408/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RTL Television GmbH

Defendants: Grupo Pestana S.G.P.S., S.A., SALVOR — Sociedade de Investimento Hoteleiro, S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, read in conjunction with Article 8(1) thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning:

— that it does not provide for an exclusive right for broadcasting organisations to authorise or prohibit cable retransmission, within the meaning of that provision, and

— that the simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged distribution of television or radio programmes broadcast by satellite and intended for reception by the public, where that retransmission is carried out by a person other than a cable operator, within the meaning of that directive, such as a hotel, does not constitute cable retransmission.

(1) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
1.

Declares that, by failing to prevent or stop the use by Danish dairy producers of the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Feta’ to designate cheese which does not comply with the product specification for that PDO, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — XP v Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (C-518/20) and AR v St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH (C-727/20)

(Joined Cases C-518/20 and C-727/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7(1) - Right to paid annual leave - Total invalidity or incapacity for work due to illness occurring during a leave year - National legislation providing for the loss of entitlement to paid annual leave on expiry of a certain period - Employer’s obligation to enable the worker to exercise his or her right to paid annual leave)

(2022/C 424/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: XP (C-518/20), AR (C-727/20)

Defendants: Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (C-518/20), St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH (C-727/20)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of 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 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the entitlement to paid annual leave, acquired by a worker during the leave year in the course of which that worker actually worked before finding him or herself in a state of total invalidity or incapacity for work due to illness which has persisted since, may lapse, either at the end of a carry-over period authorised under national law, or even at a later stage, where the employer has not, in good time, enabled the worker to exercise that entitlement.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

OJ C 169, 3.5.2021.
2.

Article 54(2) of Regulation No 865/2006, read in conjunction with Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, must be interpreted as: precluding a specimen, kept by a breeder, of a species of animal referred to in Annex A to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, from being regarded as having been born and bred in captivity, within the meaning of Article 8(3) of that regulation, where the ancestors of that specimen, which do not form part of the breeding stock of that breeder, were acquired by a third party before the entry into force of those regulations in a manner which is detrimental to the survival of the species concerned in the wild.
1.

Article 9(2) and Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of an EU trade mark is not entitled to oppose the marketing by a parallel importer of a repackaged medicinal product in a new outer packaging bearing that mark, where the replacement of the anti-tampering device of the original outer packaging of that medicinal product carried out in accordance with Article 47a(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, would leave visible traces of opening on that packaging and where those traces would cause such strong resistance on the part of a significant proportion of consumers on the market of the Member State of importation or on a substantial part of that market to medicinal products repackaged in that way that it would constitute an obstacle to effective access to that market, which must be established on a case-by-case basis.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — DB Station & Service AG v ODEG Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn GmbH

(Case C-721/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rail transport - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of a dominant position - Directive 2001/14/EC - Access to railway infrastructure - Article 30 - Railway regulatory body - Review of infrastructure charges - National courts - Review of charges in the light of competition law - Division of competence between the regulatory authority and the national courts)

(2022/C 472/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DB Station & Service AG

Defendant: ODEG Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 30 of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007,

must be interpreted as not precluding national courts from applying Article 102 TFEU and national competition law concurrently, in order to hear and determine a claim for reimbursement of infrastructure charges, provided, however, that the competent regulatory body has previously ruled on the lawfulness of the charges in question. In that context, a duty of sincere cooperation is incumbent upon those courts, which are required to take account of decisions delivered by that body as a criterion of assessment and to give reasons for their own decisions in the light of all the documents in the files submitted to them.

(1) OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — European arrest warrants issued in respect of SN, SD

(Case C-479/21 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Article 50 TEU - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community - Article 217 TFEU - Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the United Kingdom - Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Continuation under the Withdrawal Agreement, on a transitional basis, of the European arrest warrant regime in respect of the United Kingdom - Application to a European arrest warrant of provisions relating to the surrender mechanism established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the United Kingdom - Regimes binding on Ireland)

(2022/C 24/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SN, SD

Intervening parties: Governor of Cloverhill Prison, Ireland, Attorney General, Governor of Mountjoy prison

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 TEU, Article 217 TFEU and Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that Article 62(1)(b) of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, read in conjunction with the fourth paragraph of Article 185 thereof, and Article 632 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, are binding on Ireland.

(1) OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Romega’ UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

(Case C-89/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food law - Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 - Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs - Article 1 - Annex I - Fresh poultry meat - Checks by the competent national authorities for the presence of the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of that annex - Checks for the presence of other pathogenic microorganisms - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 14(8) - Discretion of the national authorities - Scope)

(2022/C 237/20)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Romega’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011 of 27 October 2011, read in conjunction with Article 14(8) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of a Member State may regard as unsafe within the meaning of Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 178/2002 the food category consisting in fresh poultry meat in which pathogenic microorganisms other than the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005 have been detected.

(1) OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — Lukáš Wagenknecht v European Commission

(Case C-130/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Combating fraud - Multiannual Financial Framework - Alleged conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic - Request to prevent the latter from meeting with the College of European Commissioners - Request to stop direct payments in the EU budget in favour of certain agri-food groups - Action for failure to act - Alleged failure to act by the European Commission - Composition of the General Court of the European Union - Alleged lack of impartiality - Application inadmissible - Definition of position - Locus standi - Interest in bringing proceedings)

(2022/C 198/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lukáš Wagenknecht (represented by: A. Koller, advokátka)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. Salyková, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Lukáš Wagenknecht to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Port de Bruxelles, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Infrabel SA

(Case C-229/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trans-European transport network - Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 - Article 15(1) - Inland waterways transport infrastructures - Inland ports - Obligation of a Member State to connect inland ports with road or rail transport infrastructures - Removal of the connection with one of those two types of transport infrastructure - Conditions)

(2022/C 303/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Port de Bruxelles, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Respondent: Infrabel SA

Interveners: FIF-FSI (Fonds d’Infrastructure Ferroviaire) SA, État belge, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Port de Bruxelles SA, Lineas SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an inland port which forms part of the comprehensive network, within the meaning of Article 6(1) and (2) of that regulation, has connections to both road and rail transport infrastructures, it precludes the removal of one of those two types of connection, save in exceptional circumstances. The failure to maintain the connection in question as a result of non-compliance with that provision, or the economic exploitation of the land occupied by those infrastructures, do not constitute such circumstances.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.