ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — BE, DT v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi, Accer Ipurl Suceava — acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE, EP

(Case C-182/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct - Adjustment of deductions - Insolvency proceedings - National legislation providing for automatic refusal to allow deduction of VAT in respect of taxable transactions that occurred prior to the initiation of those proceedings)

(2021/C 289/19)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BE, DT

Defendants: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi, Accer Ipurl Suceava — acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE, EP

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 184 to 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice whereby the initiation of insolvency proceedings in respect of an economic operator, entailing the liquidation of its assets for the benefit of its creditors, automatically places an obligation on that operator to adjust the value added tax deductions which it has made in respect of goods and services acquired before it was declared insolvent, where the initiation of those proceedings is not such as to prevent that operator’s economic activity, within the meaning of Article 9 of that directive, from being continued, in particular for the purposes of the liquidation of the undertaking concerned.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
2.

Article 232(1)(a) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1186/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on the Member States, laid down in that provision, to avail themselves of all options open to them under the legislation in force to secure payment of duties applies not only to the debtor, but also to the guarantor, and that the latter can therefore be regarded, pursuant to Article 232(1)(a), as the person subject to enforcement and to whom the Member State’s rules on enforcement, including those on time limits, apply.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV

(Case C-362/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 7307 11 10, 7307 19 10 and 7307 19 90 - Scope - Tariff classification resulting from a Court judgment - Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron - Whether definitive anti-dumping duties are applicable on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron)

(2021/C 349/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën

Defendants: Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 of 14 November 2012 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia, in the version prior to the amendments made to the latter by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/262, of 14 February 2019, must be interpreted as meaning that the provisional and definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by those regulations apply to threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron, originating in China.

(1) OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 June 2021 — WD v European Food Safety Authority

(Case C-167/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to reclassify - Lack of appraisal reports - Decision not to renew the contract)

(2021/C 320/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WD (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Food Safety Authority (represented by: D. Detken and F. Volpi, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck, C. Dekemexhe and A. Duron, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders WD to bear her own costs relating to the appeal and pay those incurred by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

(1) OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.
1.

Declares that, in granting the benefit of exemption from excise duty to fuels used by private pleasure craft only in cases where those vessels are the subject of a charter agreement, regardless of the manner in which the vessels are in fact used, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity;
3.

Article 10(2)(l) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as meaning that the credit agreement must state, in the form of a specific percentage, the rate of interest on arrears applicable at the time of the conclusion of that agreement and must describe in concrete terms the mechanism for adjusting the rate of interest on arrears. In the event that the parties to the credit agreement in question have agreed that the rate of interest on arrears will be adjusted in accordance with the change in the base interest rate determined by the central bank of a Member State and published in an official journal which is easily accessible, a reference in that agreement to that base interest rate shall be sufficient, provided that the method of calculating the rate of interest on arrears in relation to the base interest rate is set out in that agreement. In this respect, two conditions must be met. First, the presentation of the method of calculation must be easily understandable for an average consumer who does not have specialised knowledge in the financial field and must enable him or her to calculate the rate of interest on arrears on the basis of the information provided in that agreement. Second, the frequency of the change in the base interest rate, which is determined by national provisions, must also be presented in the credit agreement in question.
2.

Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program who wishes to decompile that program in order to correct errors affecting the operation thereof is not required to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 6 of that directive. However, that purchaser is entitled to carry out such a decompilation only to the extent necessary to effect that correction and in compliance, where appropriate, with the conditions laid down in the contract with the holder of the copyright in that program.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Commerzbank AG v E.O.

(Case C-296/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments - Civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Article 15(1)(c) - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Transfer of the consumer’s domicile to another State bound by the convention)

(2021/C 481/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commerzbank AG

Defendant: E.O.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1)(c) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that that provision determines jurisdiction where the parties to a consumer contract — the consumer and the professional counterparty — were, at the time that contract was concluded, domiciled in the same State bound by that convention, and where an international element in the legal relationship emerged only after that contract was concluded, on account of the subsequent transfer of the consumer’s domicile to another State bound by that convention.

(1) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — IE v Magistrat der Stadt Wien

(Case C-357/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 12(1) - System of strict protection for animal species - Annex IV(a) - European hamster (Cricetus cricetus) - Resting places and breeding sites - Deterioration or destruction)

(2022/C 2/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IE

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 12(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘breeding site’, referred to in that provision, also includes the surroundings of that site where those surroundings are necessary for the protected animal species listed in Annex IV(a) to that directive, such as the European hamster (Cricetus cricetus), to reproduce successfully;

2. Article 12(1)(d) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the breeding sites of a protected animal species must enjoy protection for as long as is necessary in order for that animal species successfully to reproduce, as a result of which that protection also extends to breeding sites which are no longer occupied where there is a sufficiently high probability that that animal species will return to those sites;

3. Article 12(1)(d) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the concepts of ‘deterioration’ and ‘destruction’, referred to in that provision, must be interpreted as meaning, respectively, the progressive reduction of the ecological functionality of a breeding site or resting place of a protected animal species and the total loss of that functionality, irrespective of whether or not such harm is intentional.

(1) OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.
1.

Article 3(d) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘fuel benchmark sub-installation’ covers, within an installation producing primary copper and whose activity falls within Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87 so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community, a flash smelting foundry that causes sulphur present in the raw material used to be oxidised, that raw material being a copper concentrate.
1.

Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, read in conjunction with Article 1(h) and (j) of Regulation No 423/2007, Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007, read in conjunction with Article 1(h) and (i) of Regulation No 961/2010, and Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010, read in conjunction with Article 1(j) and (k) of Regulation No 267/2012, must be interpreted as precluding the implementation of protective measures, without prior authorisation from the competent national authority, in respect of funds or economic resources that have been frozen in the context of the common foreign and security policy, which establish a right to be paid on a priority basis in favour of the creditor concerned in relation to other creditors, even if such measures do not have the effect of removing assets from the debtor’s estate.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — DP, SG v Trapeza Peiraios AE

(Case C-243/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Article 1(2) - Contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions - Exclusion from the scope of that directive - Loan repayable in a foreign currency - Term which reflects a national provision of non-mandatory law - Relevance of the failure to transpose Article 1(2) - Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) - Review of the unfairness of a term - Article 8 - Adoption or retention of provisions which ensure a higher level of protection for consumers - Interaction between those various provisions of Directive 93/13)

(2022/C 84/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DP, SG

Defendant: Trapeza Peiraios AE

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding from the scope of that directive a term incorporated in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier which reflects a national statutory or regulatory provision of non-mandatory law, that is to say, a term which applies by default in the absence of other arrangements established by the parties, even if that term has not been individually negotiated;

2. Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding the terms referred thereto from the scope of that directive, notwithstanding that Article 1(2) has not been formally transposed into the national law of a Member State, and, in such a case, the courts of that Member State cannot consider that Article 1(2) has been incorporated indirectly into national law through the transposition of Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of that Directive;

3. Article 8 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding the adoption or retention of national legislation which has the effect of applying the system of consumer protection under that directive to terms referred to in Article 1(2) thereof.

(1) OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Overijssel — Netherlands) — XXXX v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-217/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Article 7(1) - Right to paid annual leave - Level of remuneration - Reduced remuneration due to incapacity for work)

(2022/C 73/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Overijssel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XXXX

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) 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 must be interpreted as precluding national provisions and practices under which, where a worker who is incapacitated for work due to illness exercises his or her right to paid annual leave, the reduction, following the incapacity for work, of the amount of remuneration that he or she received during the period of work preceding that during which annual leave is requested, is taken into account to determine the amount of remuneration that will be paid to him or her in respect of his or her paid annual leave.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2020, Dragnea v Commission, (T-738/18, not published, EU:T:2020:208), to the extent that, by that order, the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the action brought by Mr Liviu Dragnea for annulment of the letter from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 1 October 2018, in so far as, by that letter, OLAF refused to grant him access to the documents requested in his letter of 22 August 2018;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — YG v European Commission

(Case C-361/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Official - Promotion - 2017 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the appellant - Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Comparison of the merits - Principle of equal treatment - Duty to state reasons)

(2022/C 109/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: YG (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Hohenecker, L. Vernier and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders YG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — PF, MF v Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Sea Fisheries Protection Authority

(Case C-564/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 - Control system - Article 33(2)(a) and Article 34 - Recording of catches and fishing effort - Transmission to the European Commission of information concerning the quantities of nephrops caught - Possibility to use data other than those contained in the fishing logbook - Reasonable and scientifically valid method to process and verify data - Closure of fisheries)

(2022/C 148/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PF, MF

Defendants: Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Sea Fisheries Protection Authority

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33(2)(a) and Article 34 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/812 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015, must be interpreted to the effect that the Single Control Authority of a Member State is not required to notify to the European Commission only the data recorded by the masters of fishing vessels in the fishing logbook, pursuant to Articles 14 and 15 of that regulation, but may use a reasonable and scientifically valid method, such as the ‘time spent’ methodology, to process those data in order to ensure the accuracy of the catch figures that it notifies to the Commission.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ‘Sātiņi-S’ SIA

(Case C-238/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 17 - Right to property - Directive 2009/147/EC - Compensation for the damage caused to aquaculture by protected wild birds in a Natura 2000 area - Compensation less than the damage actually suffered - Article 107(1) TFEU - State aid - Concept of ‘advantage’ - Conditions - Regulation (EU) No 717/2014 - De minimis rule)

(2022/C 119/14)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Sātiņi-S’ SIA

Intervening party: Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding the compensation granted by a Member State for the losses suffered by an economic operator as a result of the protective measures applicable in a Natura 2000 area under Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds being significantly less than the damage actually incurred by that operator;

2. Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that compensation granted by a Member State for the losses suffered by an economic operator as a result of the protective measures applicable in a Natura 2000 network area under Directive 2009/147 confers an advantage capable of constituting ‘State aid’ for the purposes of that provision, where the other conditions relating to such a classification are satisfied;

3. Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 717/2014 of 27 June 2014 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] to de minimis aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case where the compensation such as that described in point 2 of this operative part fulfils the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU, the de minimis ceiling of EUR 30 000, provided for in that Article 3(2) of Regulation No 717/2014, is applicable to that compensation.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — CO and Others v MJ, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS), Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-283/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) - European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (Eulex Kosovo) - Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP - Article 8(3) and (5), Article 9(3) and Article 10(3) - Status of employer of the mission staff - Article 16(5) - Subrogation)

(2022/C 165/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CO and Others

Defendants: MJ, European Commission, European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(5) of Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, Eulex Kosovo, as amended by Council Decision 2014/349/CFSP of 12 June 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that, starting from 15 June 2014, it designates the Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, known as ‘Eulex Kosovo’, referred to in Article 1 of that joint action, as responsible and therefore as defendant in any action relating to the consequences of the implementation of the mission entrusted to it, irrespective of whether the facts underlying such an action occurred before 12 June 2014, the date when Decision 2014/349 entered into force.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.