ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Federal Republic of Germany v Republic of Poland, European Commission, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania

(Case C-848/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 194(1) TFEU - Principle of energy solidarity - Directive 2009/73/EC - Internal market in natural gas - Article 36(1) - Decision of the European Commission on review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the requirements on third-party access and tariff regulation following a request by the German regulatory authority - Action for annulment)

(2021/C 349/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and D. Klebs, acting as Agents, and by H. Haller, T. Heitling, L. Reiser and V. Vacha, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Kawnik and M. Nowacki, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented: initially by K. Pommere, V. Soņeca and E. Bārdiņš, and subsequently by K. Pommere, V. Kalniņa and E. Bārdiņš, acting as Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Dzikovič and K. Dieninis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland;

3. Orders the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — KA

(Case C-937/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 - Article 1(5)(d) - Article 8 - International carriage of goods by road from one Member State to another Member State - Cabotage operations following that international carriage in the territory of the latter Member State - Restrictions - Requirement of a Community licence and, where appropriate, a carriage authorisation - Exemptions - Cabotage operations following an international carriage on one’s own account - Conditions)

(2021/C 338/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

KA

Interveners: Staatsanwaltschaft Köln, Bundesamt für Güterverkehr

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market must be interpreted as meaning that a haulier who has carried out an international carriage of goods on its own account, for the purposes of Article 1(5)(d) of that regulation, from one Member State to another Member State, is permitted, under Article 8(6) of that regulation, to carry out cabotage operations following that international carriage within the territory of the latter Member State, subject, nevertheless, to compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — G. Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy

(Case C-855/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 69 - Chargeability of VAT - Intra-Community acquisition of motor fuels - Obligation to make early payment of VAT - Article 206 - Concept of ‘interim payments’ - Article 273 - Correct collection of VAT and prevention of evasion - Discretion of the Member States)

(2021/C 462/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: G. Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 69, 206 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which imposes an obligation to pay value added tax (VAT) on the intra-Community acquisition of motor fuels before that VAT becomes chargeable, within the meaning of Article 69 of Directive 2006/112.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 — European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) v European Commission, Jan Willem Goudriaan

(Case C-928/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Social policy - Articles 154 and 155 TFEU - Social dialogue between management and labour at EU level - Informing and consulting civil servants and employees of central government administrations of the Member States - Agreement concluded between the social partners - Joint request of the signatories to that agreement seeking its implementation at EU level - Refusal of the European Commission to submit a proposal for a decision to the Council of the European Union - Standard of judicial review - Obligation to state reasons for the decision refusing to submit the proposal)

(2021/C 431/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) (represented by: R. Arthur, Solicitor, and K. Apps, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Jan Willem Goudriaan (represented by: R. Arthur, Solicitor, and K. Apps, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, M. Kellerbauer and B.R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
1.

Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a national law that provides that a pharmaceutical company may not reduce its taxable amount for value added tax by the portion of its revenue obtained from the sale of medicinal products subsidised by the State health insurance agency which it reimburses to that organisation under a contract entered into by the State health insurance agency and that company, because the amounts paid in that regard were not set out in advance by that company in its commercial policy and because those payments were not made for promotional purposes.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — TS, UT, VU v Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa de Asigurări de Sănătate Constanţa

(Case C-538/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Sickness insurance - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 20(1) and (2) - Medical treatment received in a Member State other than that in which the insured person resides - Prior authorisation - Conditions - Requirement for a report prescribing treatment, drawn up by a doctor of the national public sickness insurance scheme - Prescription, by way of a second medical opinion, drawn up in a Member State other than that in which the insured person resides, of an alternative treatment which has the advantage of not causing a disability - Full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred in respect of that alternative treatment - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU)

(2021/C 481/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants and appellants: TS, UT, VU

Defendants and respondents: Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa de Asigurări de Sănătate Constanţa

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, read in conjunction with Article 56 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that an insured person who has received, in a Member State other than that in which he or she resides, treatment that is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State of residence, is entitled to full reimbursement of the expenses for that treatment, under the conditions laid down in that regulation, where that person could not obtain authorisation from the competent institution in accordance with Article 20(1) of that regulation on the ground that, even though the diagnosis and the need to administer treatment as a matter of urgency had been confirmed by a doctor belonging to the sickness insurance scheme of his or her Member State of residence, that doctor had prescribed him or her a different treatment as compared to the treatment which that person chose in accordance with a second medical opinion, drawn up by a doctor in another Member State, and which, unlike the former treatment, does not give rise to a disability.

(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
1.

Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, read in conjunction with Article 24(7) of that directive and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which has issued a European Investigation Order that does not provide for any legal remedy against the issuing of a European Investigation Order, the purpose of which is the carrying out of searches and seizures as well as the hearing of a witness by videoconference.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 — European Parliament v UZ

(Case C-894/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Administrative enquiry - Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Requirement for objective impartiality - Cross-appeal - Rejection of a request for assistance - Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to be heard)

(2021/C 513/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: UZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

3. Orders UZ to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 January 2022 — European Commission v European Food SA and Others

(Case C-638/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Articles 107 and 108 TFEU - Bilateral Investment Treaty - Arbitration clause - Romania - Accession to the European Union - Repeal of a tax incentives scheme prior to accession - Arbitral award granting payment of damages after accession - European Commission decision declaring that payment to be State aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Competence of the Commission - Application ratione temporis of EU law - Determination of the date at which the right to receive aid is conferred on the beneficiary - Article 19 TEU - Articles 267 and 344 TFEU - Autonomy of EU law)

(2022/C 119/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Food SA, Starmill SRL, Multipack SRL, Scandic Distilleries SA, Ioan Micula (represented by: K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt, and G. Forwood, avocat, and by A. Kadri, Solicitor), Viorel Micula, European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Transilvania General Import-Export SRL, West Leasing SRL, formerly West Leasing International SRL (represented by: J. Derenne, D. Vallindas and O. Popescu, avocats), Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent, and subsequently by A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent), Hungary

Interveners in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs, R. Kanitz and J. Möller, acting as Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: K. Pommere, acting as Agent), Republic of Poland (represented by: D. Lutostańska, B. Majczyna and M. Rzotkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 June 2019, European Food and Others v Commission (T-624/15, T-694/15 and T-704/15, EU:T:2019:423);

2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the cross-appeal;

3. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to adjudicate on the pleas and arguments raised before it on which the Court of Justice of the European Union has not given a ruling;

4. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Aeris Invest Sàrl v Single Resolution Board (SRB)

(Case C-874/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA - Sale of business tool - Write-down and conversion of capital instruments - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Article 20 - Concept of ‘definitive valuation’ - Consequences - Refusal or failure to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation - Remedies - Action for annulment)

(2022/C 84/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (represented: initially by R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, abogados, and subsequently by R. Vallina Hoset, E. Galán Burgos and M. Varela Suárez, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: J. King, L. Pogarcic Mataija and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, F. Louis and G. Barthet, avocats, and H. G. Kamann and L. Hesse, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
4.

Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and those on appeal, all of the costs incurred by Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. in the present appeal and half of the costs that they incurred at first instance;
2.

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning, first, that a relationship of dependency capable of justifying the grant of a derived right of residence under that article does not exist on the sole ground that a national of a Member State who is an adult and has never exercised his or her right of freedom of movement, and his or her spouse, who is an adult and a third-country national, are required to live together under the obligations arising from marriage according to the law of the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national and in which the marriage was entered into and, second, that, where the Union citizen is a minor, the assessment of the existence of a relationship of dependency capable of justifying the grant of a derived right of residence under that article to that child’s parent, who is a third-country national, must be based on the taking into account, in the child’s best interests, of all of the circumstances of the case. Where that parent lives on a stable basis with the other parent, who is a Union citizen, of that minor, there is a rebuttable presumption of such a relationship of dependency;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. KG v Spreewaldverein eV

(Case C-53/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph - Article 53(2), first subparagraph - Amendment to a product specification - Spreewald gherkins (Germany) ‘Spreewälder Gurken (PGI)’ - Amendments which are not minor - Opposition procedure - Statement of opposition to the application for amendment - Appeal against the decision granting that application - Concept of ‘legitimate interest’)

(2021/C 217/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Spreewaldverein eV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, in conjunction with Article 53(2), first subparagraph, thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the procedure applicable to applications for non-minor amendments to the specification of a product covered by a protected geographical indication, any natural or legal person actually or potentially affected economically — without such effect being entirely implausible — by the amendments applied for may be sufficient to establish the ‘legitimate interest’ required to declare an opposition to the application for amendment submitted or to lodge an appeal against the decision granting that application, provided that the risk of harm to the interests of such a person is not purely improbable or hypothetical, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — XI v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants

(Case C-129/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2010/18/EU - Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave - National legislation making the grant of a right to parental leave subject to a condition of employment and to the mandatory affiliation in that regard of the worker to the social security scheme concerned on the date on which the child was born)

(2021/C 138/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XI

Defendant: Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants

Operative part of the judgment

Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 and 3.1(b) of the Framework Agreement on parental leave (revised) of 18 June 2009, annexed to Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes the grant of a right to parental leave subject to the condition that the parent concerned is employed without interruption for a period of at least 12 months immediately preceding the start of the parental leave. By contrast, those clauses preclude national legislation which makes the grant of a right to parental leave subject to the condition that the parent has the status of a worker at the time of the birth or adoption of his or her child.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 May 2021 — Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament

(Case C-122/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Amendment of the voluntary additional pension scheme - Concept of ‘individual decision taken with regard to a Member of the Parliament’ - Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the Parliament - Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Time limit for bringing proceedings)

(2021/C 278/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bruno Gollnisch (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and Z. Nagy, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to pay the costs

(1) OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes — France) — PF, QG v Caisse d’allocations familiales (CAF) d’Ille-et-Vilaine

(Case C-27/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Ceilings related to resources - Account taken of the resources received in the penultimate year preceding the period of payment of allowances - Worker returning to his Member State of origin - Reduction in the entitlement to family allowances)

(2021/C 278/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PF, QG

Defendant: Caisse d’allocations familiales (CAF) d’Ille-et-Vilaine

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which uses, as the reference year for the calculation of family allowances to be allocated, the penultimate year preceding the payment period, so that, in the event of a substantial increase in the income received by a national official in the course of a secondment to an EU institution situated in another Member State, the amount of family allowances is, at the time of the return of that official to the Member State of origin, significantly reduced for two years.

(1) OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
1.

Articles 70 to 73 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 read in the light of Article 5(1) and Article 6(1) of that directive are to be interpreted as precluding, subject to the implementation of the derogation provided for in Article 5(1), a medicinal product which can be dispensed without medical prescription in one Member State from also being regarded as a medicinal product which can be dispensed without medical prescription in another Member State, including where, in that State, that medicinal product does not have a marketing authorisation and has not been classified.