ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 May 2019 — ‘Unipack’ AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia ‘Dunavska’ of the Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, The Public Prosecutor at the Varhovna administrativna prokuratura of the Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-391/19)

(2019/C 280/32)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law:‘Unipack’ AD

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia ‘Dunavska’ of the Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, The Public Prosecutor at the Varhovna administrativna prokuratura of the Republic of Bulgaria

Question referred

Does it constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 172(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (1) of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code, which would provide a basis for the granting of authorisation with retroactive effect pursuant to Article 211(2) of the Union Customs Code for the use of the end-use customs procedure pursuant to Article 254 of the Union Customs Code in relation to an import of products that took place before the date of acceptance of the application for authorisation and after the expiry of the validity of a BTI decision in favour of the holder of the procedure for those products due to an amendment to the Combined Nomenclature, if, in the period (of approximately 10 months) between the expiry of the validity of the BTI decision and the import for which the use of the end-use procedure was requested, several (nine) imports of products were made without the customs authorities having corrected the declared Combined Nomenclature code, and the goods were used for a purpose exempted from the anti-dumping duty?

(1) OJ 2015 L 343, p. 1.
4.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are obliged to adopt the necessary measures to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law through the removal of any risk of political influence on criminal proceedings before certain judges, [in] the event of the creation, as a matter of urgency, of a section of the prosecutor’s office charged with the exclusive investigation of offences committed by members of the judiciary, which gives rise to particular concerns as regards the fight against corruption and may be used as an additional means of intimidating members of the judiciary and putting pressure on them?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2019 — HF v Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler

(Case C-374/19)

(2019/C 288/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HF

Defendant: Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler

Question referred

Does a taxable person who produces an investment object with regard to taxable use with entitlement to input tax deduction (in this case: construction of a building for the operation of a cafeteria) have to adjust the input tax deduction under Article 185(1) and Article 187 of the VAT Directive (1) if he ceases the sales activity justifying the input tax deduction (in this case: operation of the cafeteria) and the investment object now remains unused in the scope of the previously taxable use?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1).
1.

Must Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999/EC of 22 March 1999, (1) applicable ratione temporis, which provides that ‘Without prejudice to Article 23, the Commission may in cases of misuse of aid open the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 4(4). Articles 6, 7, 9 and 10, Article 11(1), Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 shall apply mutatis mutandis’, be interpreted as meaning that a preliminary decision to recover aid must be adopted by the European Commission also in cases involving misuse of aid (without prejudice to the Commission’s power to refer the matter directly to the Court of Justice of the European Union, pursuant to Article 23 of Regulation No 659/1999/EC)? If the previous question is answered in the negative, must Article 16 of Regulation No 659/1999/EC of 22 March 1999 be declared invalid on the basis that it is in breach of Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 88(2) EC)?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 27 February 2019 by UC against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-572/17, UC v Parliament

(Case C-196/19 P)

(2019/C 295/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: UC (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 23 July 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.
1.

Can a limited liability company which carries out an economic activity not be regarded as a small and medium-sized enterprise (‘SME’) pursuant to Article 3(4) of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 (1) on the ground that 90 % of its share capital is held by a foundation established under civil law in whose Board of Trustees of 17 members, which is not empowered to manage the foundation, two of the members are representatives of ministries, one is the mayor of a city, one is the rector of a university, three are professors of that university, one is the president of a separate institute of higher education and one is the director of a chamber of commerce and industry?
1.

Should Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 56 of that Treaty, with Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the principle of equality, be interpreted as precluding national legislative provisions that oblige persons or undertakings which, in a Belgian port area, wish to engage in dock-work activities within the meaning of the wet van 8 juni 1972 betreffende de havenarbeid (Law of 8 June 1972 organising dock work) — including activities which, strictly speaking, are unrelated to the loading and unloading of ships — to have recourse solely to recognised dockers?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 25 June 2019 — Antonio Capaldo SpA v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno

(Case C-496/19)

(2019/C 357/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Antonio Capaldo SpA

Defendant and respondent: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno

Question referred

Where goods have been physically inspected upon importation, does this preclude initiating the procedure for the review of assessments referred to in Article 78 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) establishing the Community Customs Code?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
4.

When assessing the question of whether a stateless person is not to be granted ipso facto refugee status because the conditions of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU ceased to apply once he left the area of operations of the UNRWA, is account to be taken solely of the field of operation of the last habitual residence? If not: Is consideration also, by analogy, to be given to the areas of which account is to be taken under No 2 for the time of leaving? If not: Which criteria are to be used to determine the areas which are to be taken into consideration at the time of the ruling on the application? Does the cessation of application of the conditions of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU require the (state or quasi-state) bodies in the relevant field of operation to be prepared to (re)admit the stateless person?
2.

If the answer to question 1 is no, is the single source test for comparability in Article 157 distinct from the question of equal value, and if so, does that test have direct effect?
4.

Does the fact that national legislation lays down a general principle of access to public documents in accordance with which any person who makes a request can access procedural documents submitted to a court, except where they contain confidential information, affect the assessment of whether submission to a court of a protected work amounts to a ‘communication to the public’ or a ‘distribution to the public’?
3.

In such circumstances, is the condition that there be a direct and immediate link between the goods purchased and the output transaction satisfied and, more specifically, is it permissible to apply, in the present case, the traditional interpretation of the right of deduction based on a direct and immediate link between the goods purchased and the output transactions with regard to cost components that have not arisen in relation to the goods and that cannot therefore be reflected in the price of the output supply?
Appeal brought on 12 September 2019 by Fereydoun Mahmoudian against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2019 in Case T-406/15, Mahmoudian v Council

(Case C-681/19 P)

(2019/C 372/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Fereydoun Mahmoudian (represented by: A. Bahrami, N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

Primarily:

— set aside the judgment under appeal in part;

— give final judgment in the matter;

— order the Council to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 966 581 in respect of material damage and EUR 500 000 in respect of non-material damage, together with default interest;

— order the Council to pay all of the costs.

In the alternative:

— set aside the judgment under appeal in part;

— refer the case back to the General Court;

— order the Council to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Concerning the material damage, the General Court, in the first place, erred in law, infringed the principle of full reparation and deprived Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of their practical effect. The standard of proof required by the General Court made any compensation for the harm suffered impossible, despite the existence of a sufficiently serious and flagrant breach of EU law. In the second place, the judgment under appeal was vitiated by an error of law and by contradictory reasoning. In the third place, the General Court distorted the evidence and the facts.

Concerning the non-material damage, the judgment under appeal contains no statement of reasons as regards the criteria taken into account in order to assess ex aequo et bono the amount of the compensation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 12 February 2019 by Vitromed GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-821/17, Vitromed GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(C-124/19 P)

(2019/C 372/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Vitromed GmbH (represented by: M. Linß, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Vitromed Healthcare

By order of 11 September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v XD

(Case C-625/19)

(2019/C 383/52)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: XD

Question referred

Can a Public Prosecutor who participates in the administration of justice in the issuing Member State, who acts independently in the execution of those of its responsibilities which are inherent in the issuing of a European arrest warrant, and who has issued an EAW, be regarded as an issuing judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) if a judge in the issuing Member State has assessed the conditions for issuing an EAW and, in particular, its proportionality prior to the actual decision of that Public Prosecutor to issue the EAW?

(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).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 30 January 2019 by João Miguel Barata against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2018 in Case T-854/16: Barata v Parliament

(Case C-71/19 P)

(2019/C 383/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: João Miguel Barata (represented by G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, avocats, and by J. Grayston, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 26 September 2019 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Mr João Miguel Barata shall bear his own costs.
2.

Do the provisions contained in Articles 20 and 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in Directive 98/59/EC (2) preclude a legal provision such as Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 23/15 which introduces exclusively for workers hired (or whose fixed-term contract was converted) for an indefinite duration after 7 March 2015 an arrangement whereby, in the event of collective redundancies that are unlawful due to non-compliance with the selection criteria, reinstatement is not an option — unlike for the other similar employment relationships established beforehand and involved in the same procedure — and which instead introduces a concurrent system of compensation only which is insufficient to make good the financial consequences resulting from the loss of employment and which is inferior to the other coexisting model, applied to other workers whose relationships have the same characteristics with the sole exception of the date of conversion or creation?
Appeal brought on 14 June 2019 by Stada Arzneimittel AG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 April 2019 in Case T-804/17, Stada Arzneimittel AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-460/19 P)

(2019/C 383/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (represented by: A.K. Marx, R. Kaase, J.-C. Plate, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 1 October 2019, 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.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 6 September 2019 — flightright GmbH v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-661/19)

(2019/C 406/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Question referred

Should the second sentence of Article 7(1), read in conjunction with Article 7(4), 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, (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where passengers are transported on a flight which consists of two connecting flights, without any significant stopover at the connecting airport, only the distance of the second leg of the journey is relevant for the amount of the entitlement to compensation, where the claim is brought against the air carrier operating the second leg of the journey upon which an irregularity has occurred, and the transport on the first leg of the journey was operated by a different air carrier?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
1)

declare that — by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, (1) — and by not communicating such provisions to the Commission, — the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 106 of that directive;
Appeal brought on 14 August 2019 by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2019 in Case T-209/18, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-613/19 P)

(2019/C 413/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (represented by: C. Klawitter, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Autec AG

By order of 24 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.
(4)

If the second question is answered in the negative and the first and third questions are answered in the affirmative, are the provisions in heading 2 403 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014, to be construed as meaning that such components of water-pipe tobacco as (1) sugar syrup, (2) flavourings and/or (3) glycerine are not to be treated as ‘tobacco substitutes’?
1.

Is Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (1) to be interpreted as precluding a penalty such as that laid down in Article 653(i) of Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 707/2006 (Government Decree No 707/2006), which provides that cash in excess of EUR 10 000 that has not been declared in writing to the customs authority is to be confiscated in its entirety and permanently?
Action brought on 23 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-787/19)

(2019/C 413/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Jokubauskaitė and M. Wasmeier, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by excluding from the special value-added-tax scheme applicable to travel agents travel services that are provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business, and by allowing travel agents, in so far as they are subject to that scheme, to determine the taxable amount for value added tax on a flat-rate basis for groups of services or for all services provided during a taxable period, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1); order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the scheme laid down in Austria for calculating the value added tax on travel services does not comply with Directive 2006/112. That directive lays down, in Articles 306 to 310, a special scheme pursuant to which travel services provided by a travel agent to a customer are to be regarded as a single service. Austrian law impermissibly departs from that scheme.

First, it is not permissible to exclude from the application of that special scheme taxable persons who use travel services for their business. In its judgment of 26 September 2013, Commission v Spain (C-189/11, EU:C:2013:587), the Court of Justice already held that the special scheme in question is applicable not only to services provided to private end consumers, but also to services provided to taxable undertakings. It is not open to Member States to restrict the application of that scheme to the former category. This was confirmed once more by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 8 February 2018, Commission v Germany (C-380/16, EU:C:2018:76).

Secondly, the calculation method provided for under the Austrian law on turnover tax is incompatible with Directive 2006/112. Under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of that directive, the taxable amount is to be determined separately for each journey. Austrian law, by contrast, allows the profit margin for ‘groups of services’ or for all journeys in a specific time period to be calculated at a flat-rate. In the abovementioned judgments the Court of Justice also held that a flat-rate calculation of that kind is not consistent with the common system of value added tax.

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
2.

In any event, notwithstanding the foregoing, does the practice of the Spanish State of automatically applying the rule laid down in Article 7 of Royal Decree 240/2007, and refusing to grant a residence permit to the third-country national who is the minor child of an EU citizen’s third-country spouse, where that EU citizen has never exercised freedom of movement (those spouses in turn having a Spanish child who is a minor who has also never exercised freedom of movement), solely and exclusively on the ground that the EU citizen does not satisfy the conditions laid down in that provision, without having examined specifically and individually whether there exists a relationship of dependency between that EU citizen and the third-country national of such a nature that, for any reason and in the light of the circumstances, it would mean that were the third-country national refused a right of residence, the EU citizen could not be separated from the family member dependent on him and would have to leave the territory of the European Union, infringe Article 20 TFEU in the terms set out above? And is this the case in particular where the Spanish citizen and his third-country spouse are in turn the parents of a Spanish minor who could also have to leave Spanish territory following his parents? All of this is in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including, inter alia, [the] judgment of 8 May 2018, C-82/16, K.A. and Others v Belgische Staat. (2)
Appeal brought on 6 August 2019 by Rietze GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2019 in Case T-43/18, Rietze GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-599/19 P)

(2019/C 432/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Krogmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 24 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.