ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — BQ v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-380/20)

(2020/C 423/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BQ

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, are Articles 2(b) and 7(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (2) of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and Articles 2(1)(d) and 70 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (3) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to pay excise duty and/or VAT is not extinguished where, as in the present case, smuggled goods are seized and subsequently confiscated after they have already been unlawfully introduced (released for consumption) into the customs territory of the European Union, even if the customs debt has been extinguished on the ground provided for in Article 124(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

(Case C-444/20)

(2020/C 433/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flightright GmbH

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Questions referred

1. Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)?

2. Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier?

3. Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
II.

Does Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 preclude national legislation according to which the beneficiary of a subsidy may not rely on the expiry of the four- or eight-year time limit in the course of judicial proceedings for enforcement which have been brought against him, since that issue can be assessed only in the context of an administrative action brought against the measure ordering repayment of the amounts received unduly by reason of the establishment of an irregularity? In the event that the aforementioned questions are answered in the negative:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2020 — FS v Wallonische Region

(Case C-42/20)

(2021/C 19/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FS

Defendant: Wallonische Region

Questions referred

1. Does national legislation which, as applied by the authorities, makes the use without any re-registration requirement of a foreign vehicle provided occasionally and for short periods of time to a citizen resident in Belgium by a citizen established in a different Member State contingent upon the citizen resident in Belgium carrying in the vehicle the private attestation of permission to use the vehicle, that is, an attestation within the meaning of Article 3(2), point 6, of the Royal Decree of 20 July 2001 on the registration of vehicles, conflict with the relevant provisions of EU law, in particular Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on freedom of movement, Article 45 TFEU (freedom of movement for workers), Article 49 TFEU (freedom of establishment) and Article 56 TFEU (freedom to provide services)?

2. Is national legislation, as described above and applied by the Walloon Region, justified by requirements of public security or other protective measures and is compliance with the national legislation, interpreted as meaning that a document issued by the foreign owner of the vehicle granting permission to use the vehicle for a limited and specified period of time must be carried in the vehicle, necessary in order to attain the objective pursued or could the objective have been attained by other, less strict and formalistic means?

By order of 10 September 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) ruled as follows:

Article 63(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State according to which a person residing in that Member State may rely on a derogation from the requirement to register vehicles laid down in that Member State, in respect of a vehicle registered in another Member State and made available to that person free of charge, for short periods of time, by the owner of that vehicle who resides in that other Member State, only where the documents attesting that the person concerned fulfils the conditions for that derogation are carried in the vehicle at all times, with no possibility of providing those documents subsequently.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 August 2020 — SP v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Direktion für Deutschland

(Case C-367/20)

(2021/C 9/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SP

Defendant: KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Direktion für Deutschland

Question referred

Must Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1), read together with Article 3(5) of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of connecting flights, where there are two flights which are the subject of a single reservation, departing from an airport located outside the territory of any Member State (in a third country) for an airport located within the territory of a Member State via an airport in another [Member State], a passenger who suffers a delay of three hours or more in reaching his or her final destination, the cause of that delay arising in the journey’s first segment operated, under a code-share agreement, by an air carrier established in a third country, may bring his or her action for compensation under that regulation against the Community air carrier through which the flight was reserved in its entirety and which operated only the second segment of the journey?

By order of 12 November 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) ruled as follows:

Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read together with Article 3(1)(b) and (5) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of connecting flights, where there are two flights which are the subject of a single reservation, departing from an airport located within the territory of a third country for an airport located in a Member State via the airport of another Member State, a passenger who suffers a delay of three hours or more in reaching his or her final destination, the cause of that delay arising in the first flight operated, under a code-share agreement, by a carrier established in a third country, may bring his or her action for compensation under that regulation against the Community air carrier that performed the second flight.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Action brought on 26 October 2020 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-553/20)

(2021/C 19/40)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1(6)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs (1);

— order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

In the alternative, should the Court of Justice consider that the contested provision of Regulation 2020/1054 cannot be separated from the rest of that regulation without altering its substance, the Republic of Poland seeks the annulment of Regulation 2020/1054 in its entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Poland raises the following pleas in law against the contested provisions of Regulation 2020/1054, alleging:

(1) infringement of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU), by arbitrarily determining the places where drivers are required to take a rest;

(2) infringement of Article 91(2) TFEU, by adopting measures without taking account of their impact on the quality of life and level of employment in certain regions, as well as on the functioning of the transport infrastructure;

(3) infringement of Article 94 TFEU, by adopting measures without taking account of the economic situation of carriers;

(4) infringement of the principle of legal certainty, in that the provision is worded in a way that is imprecise and does not allow the obligations arising from it to be determined;

(5) infringement of Article 11 TFEU and Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by failing to take account of environmental protection requirements.

In particular, the Republic of Poland claims that the contested provision infringes the principle of proportionality. As a result of the adoption of inappropriate criteria for deciding where drivers should take their rest, the principle, resulting from Regulation No 561/2006, that the driver may make free disposal of his or her time during the rest period is infringed. At the same time, excessive burdens have been imposed on road hauliers, which will have a negative impact not only on the situation of individual entrepreneurs, especially small and medium-sized undertakings, and on the transport services market, but also on the natural environment. The negative effects of the application of the contested provision will be felt in particular by entrepreneurs from countries outside the centre of the European Union. At the same time, the solution adopted is not objectively justified in view of the situation of drivers. Nor does it reflect the specific nature of the regulated services.

(1) OJ 2020 L 249, p. 1.
1.

The first plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality, provided for in Article 5(4) TEU Romania submits that the measure governed by Article 1(6)(c) — consisting in the prohibition of taking in a vehicle the regular weekly rest period and any weekly rest period of more than 45 hours taken in compensation for previous reduced weekly rest periods — is inappropriate for achieving the objectives pursued, in particular improving road safety and working conditions for drivers. In addition, that measure does not eliminate the risks and impediments identified by the Commission. Furthermore, the data and information which indicated that that measure was manifestly inappropriate were known to the co-legislators at the time it was adopted. Romania further submits that the measure governed by Article 1(6)(d) — concerning the return of drivers every four consecutive weeks (and, respectively, before the regular weekly rest period of more than 45 hours taken in compensation, after two consecutive reduced weekly rest periods) to the employer’s operational centre in the latter’s EU Member State of establishment or to the driver’s place of residence — is manifestly inappropriate, having regard, in particular, to the new administrative obligations established, the considerable expenditure incurred by operators, the limitation of their commercial activity and also the fact that the measure does not ensure the adequate protection of drivers. Furthermore, the impact assessment does not seem to have considered all those aspects, a context in which the co-legislators could not take into consideration all the relevant factors and circumstances of the situation.
1.

Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation No 1215/2012’) (1), in particular Article 2(a) and Article 39, to be interpreted as meaning that a judgment that is to be enforced exists even if, in a Member State, the judgment debtor is obliged, after summary examination in adversarial proceedings, albeit relating only to the binding nature of the force of res judicata of a judgment given against him in a third State, to pay to the party who was successful in the third State proceedings the debt that was judicially recognised in the third State, when the subject matter of the proceedings in the Member State was limited to examination of the existence of a claim derived from the judicially recognised debt against the judgment debtor?
1.

Article 1(3) of Regulation 2020/1055, in so far as it inserts an Article 5(1)(b) into Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 providing that ‘in the Member State of establishment an undertaking shall … organise its vehicle fleet’s activity in such a way as to ensure that vehicles that are at the disposal of the undertaking and are used in international carriage return to one of the operational centres in that Member State at least within eight weeks after leaving it’, is contrary to: 1.1 Article 3(3) TEU, Articles 11 and 191 TFEU and the EU policy on the environment and climate change. The requirement to return to the operational centre will increase the number of unloaded vehicles driving on European roads, as well as the amount of CO2 emissions and environmental pollution. When the EU institutions adopted the contested provision, they failed to have regard for measures relating to the European Union’s policy on the environment and climate-change policy, particularly the requirements relating to protection of the environment and the environmental-protection objectives promoted in the European Green Deal and confirmed by the European Council; 1.2 Article 26 TFEU and the general principle of non-discrimination. The contested provision is a protectionist measure by which the EU transport market is partitioned, competition restricted and a discriminatory regime established in regard to hauliers in the Member States situated on the geographical fringes of the European Union (peripheral Member States). By this provision, the international road transport sector is also subjected to discrimination in comparison with other transport sectors; 1.3 Articles 91(2) and 94 TFEU. The EU institutions were required to have regard for the fact that the contested provision will have a particularly significant impact on the standard of living and level of employment in the peripheral Member States of the European Union and will impact in a particularly negative way on the economic situation of hauliers established on the periphery; the EU institutions, however, failed to comply with that duty; 1.4 The principles of sound legislative procedure, in that the contested provision was adopted without any assessment as to its impact and without a proper examination of its negative social and economic consequences and its effect on the environment; 1.5 The principle of proportionality, in that the fixed requirement for the regular return of vehicles is a manifestly disproportionate measure and inappropriate for achieving the publicly declared objective, namely that of combatting so-called letterbox companies.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 19 October 2020 — Koppány 2007 Zrt. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

(Case C-523/20)

(2021/C 28/27)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Koppány 2007 Zrt.

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

Questions referred

1. Must the expression ‘are legally resident’ contained in Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 (1), extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (3) to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these regulations solely on the ground of their nationality, be interpreted as meaning that it is also applicable to nationals of third countries who reside and have a residence permit in the Member State concerned and have a document stating their place of accommodation issued by the immigration authority?

2. May the expression ‘are legally resident’ be applied to nationals of third countries who have a certified place of accommodation at the registered office of their employer?

3. When interpreting the expression ‘are legally resident’, should account be taken of the concept of ‘residence’ within the meaning of Article 1(j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems or of the concept of ‘residence’ as defined in the national legislation of the Member State in question?

4. What meaning should be given to the expression ‘are legally resident’ as a uniform concept of EU law?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality (OJ 2010 L 344, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1),

(3) Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 12 November 2020 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ SA v Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala

(Case C-597/20)

(2021/C 28/46)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ SA

Defendant: Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala

Question referred

Must Article 16(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that where an individual complaint has been made by a passenger to the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation, that body cannot compel the airline in question to pay the compensation due to the passenger under the regulation?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 19 October 2020 — J.P. v B.d.S.L.

(Case C-521/20)

(2021/C 35/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant: J.P.

Defendant authority: B.d.S.L.

Question referred

Is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (in particular in conjunction with the Eurovignette Directive 1999/62/EC) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the combination of national rules which — as in the case of Paragraph 20(2) of the BStMG in conjunction with Paragraph 22(2) of the VStG — requires the cumulative prosecution and punishment of serial breaches of the obligation to pay tolls committed on separate stretches of road is contrary to the prohibition of multiple prosecution and punishment if there is not simultaneously, at the legislative level, both an obligation of coordination for all the authorities and courts competent to conduct such proceedings and an explicit obligation to apply the principle of proportionality effectively in relation to the amount of the overall penalty?

(1) Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 1999 L 187, p. 42).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2020 — PR and Others v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-558/20)

(2021/C 28/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PR, BV

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
If it does constitute a public service obligation within the meaning of Regulation No 1370/2007: Is a Member State entitled under Article 4(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1370/2007 to exclude, by a national law, the payment of compensation to the carrier for the discharge of such an obligation?

If a Member State is entitled to exclude compensation to the carrier, under what conditions can it do so?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

Does that infringement of the prohibition of discrimination mean that, based on the fundamental rule laid down in the fifth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003, a period of residence of 12 months is required for all applicants, irrespective of their nationality, in order to rely upon the jurisdiction of the courts in the place of residence or is it to be assumed that a period of 6 months’ residence is the precondition for all applicants?