ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 6 April 2022 — NQ v Mara-Tóni Bt.

(Case C-244/22)

(2022/C 244/24)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NQ

Defendant: Mara-Tóni Bt.

Intervening parties: Foudre Kft., Tasavill Bt.

Questions referred

1. Does an undertaking that employs, without State authorisation, workers who actually work for a client thereof, to which those workers are assigned, fall within the scope of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/104/EC? (1)

2. Do workers who have an employment relationship with an undertaking which, in the context of a work contract, assigns them to another undertaking in order to work, with the company that puts them to work providing them with the equipment, tools and instructions necessary to carry out the work, fall within the scope of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive [2008/104]?

3. In so far as, having regard to the foregoing, the applicant and the electricians should be classified as temporary agency workers, should it be considered that they form an economic unit, a specific group of workers who engage continuously in an economic activity for successive undertakings belonging to the same circle of persons, even though those undertakings lack State authorisation to engage lawfully, either as transferor or transferee, in the temporary transfer of workers as temporary-work agencies and also taking into account the fact that, in the case of temporary agency work, there is, in principle, no transfer of assets?

4. In so far as those workers are to be classified as an economic unit, as a specific group of workers, do they fall within the scope of Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC (2) although they are workers assigned by a temporary-work agency?

(1) Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9).

(2) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).
In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:

Is Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 to be interpreted as meaning that rights to compensation for denied boarding under Articles 4 and 7 applied by analogy with Article 5(1)(c)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 are excluded where the passenger has been informed of the denial of boarding at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 5 April 2022 — État belge and Promo 54 v Promo 54 and État belge

(Case C-239/22)

(2022/C 257/33)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: État belge, Promo 54

Respondents: Promo 54, État belge

Question referred

Must Article 12(1) and (2) and Article 135(1)(j) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where the Member State has not defined the detailed rules for the application of the criterion of first occupation to converted immovable property, the supply, after conversion, of a building in respect of which, before conversion, there had been first occupation within the meaning of Article 12(1)(a) or the third subparagraph of Article 12(2) of the directive remains exempt from value added tax?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 April 2022 — Finanzamt Hannover-Nord v H Lebensversicherung

(Case C-258/22)

(2022/C 284/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: H Lebensversicherung

Question referred

Is Article 56(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (now Article 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State under which, when determining the taxable amount for a corporation’s trade tax, dividends that derive from holdings in foreign companies of less than 10 % (free-float holdings) are to be added back to the taxable amount if and to the extent that those dividends have been deducted from the taxable amount in a previous step of the calculation, whereas, with regard to such dividends that derive from free-float holdings in companies with registered office in the Member State concerned, no deduction and, consequently, no add-back of the dividends is to take place in the calculation of the taxable amount for trade tax?
3.

In the context of national legislation which allows the courts to review the unfairness of terms that have not been individually negotiated relating to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract: (i) in relation to a contributory group insurance contract, does Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, in conjunction with point (i) in the indicative list referred to in Article 3(3), preclude the insurer from relying against the insured on a term excluding or limiting the insured risk, where that term has not been notified to the insured and with which, as a result, the insured has not had an opportunity to become acquainted; (ii) does the foregoing apply even where, at the same time, if the duties to notify and provide information about the terms have not been discharged, under the national legislation the policy holder is liable to pay compensation for damage caused to the insured where that compensation does not, however, restore the insured to the position in which he or she would have been had the insurance cover been effective?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 9 June 2022 by Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, Swiss International Air Lines AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-342/17, Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission

(Case C-380/22 P)

(2022/C 303/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, Swiss International Air Lines AG (represented by: S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, and R. Benditz, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— annul, in whole or in part, the Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight);

— in the alternative, if deemed necessary, remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration in accordance with the Court’s judgment;

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the appellant’s costs, both for these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court; and

— take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the applicants rely on one plea in law consisting of four limbs.

First limb, alleging that the judgment under appeal errs in law in failing to show that the conduct restricts ‘competition within the internal market’ pursuant to Article 101(1) TFEU.

Second limb, alleging that the judgment under appeal errs in law in finding that the Commission was entitled to take into account the effects of a single and continuous infringement as a whole.

Third limb, alleging that the General Court wrongly substituted its own assessment of qualified effects for that of the Commission.

Fourth limb, alleging that the judgment under appeal errs in law by holding that the relevant facts give rise to immediate, substantial and foreseeable effects under the qualified effects test.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2022 — FL v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-312/22)

(2022/C 294/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: FL

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Is it compatible with EU law for income in the form of interest on bonds and debt instruments paid by a non-resident Swiss bank to the appellant in 2005 to be subject to income aggregation and therefore to be taxed at the same rate of income tax as other income, meaning that the applicable rate of tax is far higher than the rate (levy) that would apply had the income in question been paid by a bank resident in national territory?
2)

If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’: (a) Does it follow that a requesting Member State is precluded from implementing a transfer decision pending the determination of an applicant's request for the exercise of discretion under Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation? (b) Do the provisions of Article 27(3), which require Member States to provide in their national law for one of three forms of suspensive effect for the purposes of appeals against or reviews of transfer decisions, include a challenge to a decision under Article 17(1) refusing to exercise the option of assuming responsibility for an international protection application (‘an article 17 refusal decision’)? (c) where no specific national law provides for one of the three forms of suspensive effect in Article 27(3) in the event of a challenge to an article 17 refusal decision, are the Courts on such a challenge obliged to grant suspensive effect in one of those three forms in its national law and, if so, which one? (d) Must each and all of the suspensive remedies under Article 27(3) be interpreted to operate as a stay on the time limit for the implementation of a transfer decision under Article 29(1) of the Dublin III Regulation?
1.

Do the principles of certainty in legal relations and the protection of legitimate expectations preclude a piece of national legislation which transposed Article 25 of Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement (1) as from 5 April 2021, and which provided that economic operators who do not fall within the scope of those provisions of EU law may continue to participate in public procurement procedures only if they have submitted tenders before the date on which that legislative amendment entered into force?
1.

Must EU law, in particular the first subparagraph of Article 31(3) and Article 32 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 concerning the implementation of enhanced cooperation with a view to the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of cross-border investigations in the event that a court must approve a measure to be carried out in the Member State of the supporting European Delegated Prosecutor, all material aspects, such as criminal liability, suspicion of a criminal offence, necessity and proportionality, must be examined?
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: (a) In accordance with Article 23(1)(i) of the GDPR, can a national provision of a Member State adopted prior to the entry into force of the GDPR also be regarded as a restriction of the right to be provided, free of charge, with a copy of the personal data processed by the controller, as provided for in the first sentence of Article 15(3) of the GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 12(5) thereof? (b) If Question 2(a) is answered in the affirmative: Must Article 23(1)(i) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that the rights and freedoms of others, as referred to therein, also include their interest in being relieved of the costs associated with the provision of a copy of data in accordance with the first sentence of Article 15(3) of the GDPR and other expenses incurred in making the copy available? (c) If Question 2(b) is answered in the affirmative: In accordance with Article 23(1)(i) of the GDPR, can national legislation which, in the context of the doctor-patient relationship, provides that the doctor always has a claim for reimbursement of expenses against the patient, irrespective of the specific circumstances of the individual case, where the doctor provides the patient with a copy of the patient’s personal data from the patient’s medical records be regarded as a restriction of the obligations and rights arising from the first sentence of Article 15(3) of the GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 12(5) thereof?
I.

Does Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 TEC) preclude the classification as a restriction of competition by object of a comprehensive, monthly exchange between competitors of information concerning commercial conditions (in particular, current and future credit spreads and risk variables) along with (monthly, individualised and disaggregated) production figures on home loan offers, corporate lending offers and consumer credit offers, exchanged regularly and in reciprocal fashion, in the retail banking sector, in the context of a concentrated market with barriers to entry, which has artificially increased transparency and reduced uncertainty with regard to the strategic conduct of competitors?
3.

Do extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Regulation exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, irrespective of the reason for that decision?
Appeal brought on 4 April 2022 by Meta Cluster GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 26 January 2022 in Case T-233/21, Meta Cluster GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-233/22 P)

(2022/C 340/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Meta Cluster GmbH (represented by: H. Baumann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 15 July 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by MO against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-587/20, MO v Council

(Case C-165/22 P)

(2022/C 326/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: MO (represented by: A. Guillerme, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

By order of 15 July 2022, the Court (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
H)

Can the national legislation be considered to include measures that are a sufficient deterrent against public administrative authorities and public sector bodies in respect of the use of successive contracts or renewals of temporary contracts contrary to clause 5 of the Framework Agreement, which are aimed at ‘preventing and penalising the misuse of contracts of indefinite duration’ by an employer in relation to other and future workers, which fulfil the conditions established by the case-law of the CJEU in its judgments of 7 March 2018 in Case C-494/16, Santoro, and of 8 May 2019 in Case C-494/17, Rossato, where those measures consist of legal provisions introduced with effect from 2017 (34th additional provision of Law 3/2017 on General State Budgets for 2017 (Ley 3/2017 de Presupuestos Generales del Estado para el año 2017) of 27 June 2017; 43rd additional provision of Law 6/2018 on General State Budgets for 2018 (Ley 6/2018 de Presupuestos Generales del Estado para el año 2018) of 3 July 2018; and Royal Decree-Law 14/2021 (Real Decreto-ley 14/2021) of 6 July 2021) which state that liability will be established for ‘unlawful actions’ without specifying that liability other than by a general reference to legislation which does not specify [it] and without any specific instance of the establishment of liability existing in the context of thousands of judgments which have ruled that workers have non-permanent contracts of indefinite duration on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions on temporary contracts?
Appeal brought on 27 June 2022 by the European Economic and Social Committee against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-750/20 Correia v EESC

(Case C-423/22 P)

(2022/C 359/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, A. Carvajal García-Valdecasas, L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Paula Correia

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 in so far as it declares admissible the request for career reconstitution, and reject the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance;

2. Order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In its appeal, the EESC argues that the concept of a reasonable period for submitting a request for career reconstitution, and the case-law on the factors to be taken into account in determining whether the period is reasonable, have been misinterpreted.

The first ground of appeal alleges an incorrect legal characterisation of the facts. It is argued that the General Court misrepresented part of the content of the defence and rejoinder and failed to undertake a complete characterisation of the points of fact and of law.

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of legal certainty.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2022 — Mapfre España Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros, S. A. v MACS Maritime Carrier Shipping GmbH & Co.

(Case C-346/22)

(2022/C 368/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mapfre España Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros, S. A.

Defendant: MACS Maritime Carrier Shipping GmbH & Co.

Questions referred

The facts and pleas in law are essentially the same and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling are identical to those in Case C-345/22.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

(Case C-397/22)

(2022/C 359/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Other party: LM

Questions referred

1. In the case where a summons is served on an adult member of the addressee’s household, is Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, (2) still to be interpreted as meaning that the issuing judicial authority must prove that the person concerned actually received the summons, or is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that service on the adult member of the addressee’s household proves actual knowledge where the person concerned does not plausibly demonstrate that (and explain why) he or she did not obtain knowledge of the summons?

2. Where appeal proceedings have been conducted, is the concept of ‘trial’ in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, to be interpreted as relating to the trial which preceded the decision at first instance if only the requested person lodged an appeal and it was dismissed without examination of the merits?

3. Is it compatible with the primacy of EU law for the German legislature to have configured the case of conviction in absentia as an absolute impediment to surrender in Paragraph 83(1)(3) of the Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters), even though Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, provides only for an optional ground for refusal in that regard?

(1) Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

(2) Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 3 June 2022 — Industria de Diseño Textil, S. A. (Inditex) v Buongiorno Myalert, S.A.

(Case C-361/22)

(2022/C 368/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Industria de Diseño Textil, S. A. (Inditex)

Respondent: Buongiorno Myalert, S.A.

Question referred

Must Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 89/104/EC (1) be interpreted as implicitly including within the limitation on trade mark rights the more general conduct now referred to in Article 14(1)(c) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436, (2) namely the use of ‘the trade mark for the purpose of identifying or referring to goods or services as those of the proprietor of that trade mark’?

(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).

(2) Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1).