ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought on 3 March 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-795/19, HB v European Commission

(Case C-160/22 P)

(2022/C 244/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and B. Araujo Arce, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: HB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— Set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court on 21 December 2021 (T-795/19), in so far as it dismisses as inadmissible the action for annulment against Commission Decision C(2019) 7319 final of 15 October 2019 (point 1 of the operative part), and orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings (point 3 of the operative part);

— Refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance;

— Order HB to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission puts forward three grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of legal characterisation, in that the General Court overlooked and rendered ineffective the provisions of the Decision adopted by the Commission in the exercise of its public powers within a contractual framework, by characterising those measures as contractual and subject to adjudication by the courts with jurisdiction to hear contractual disputes. That incorrect legal characterisation concerns paragraphs 67 to 90 of the judgment under appeal.

The second ground of appeal alleges an incorrect legal characterisation of Article 1 of the Decision (paragraphs 67 to 78 of the judgment) and a distortion of the facts. In its characterisation of Article 1 of the Decision, which establishes HB’s liability for an irregularity in the contract award procedure, the General Court distorted the facts and incorrectly characterised Article 1 as contractual in nature.

The third ground of appeal alleges an incorrect legal characterisation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Decision (paragraphs 79 to 86 of the judgment). In applying the reduction of the price of the contract to EUR 0 and recovering the amounts already paid, the Commission did not act within a contractual framework, but exercised its public powers. The General Court erred in treating those provisions in the same way as if they were the consequences of a contractual annulment on grounds of fraud or vitiated consent.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2022 — Fallimento Villa di Campo Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-250/22)

(2022/C 266/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Fallimento Villa di Campo Srl

Cross-appellant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Do Article 5(8) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) and Article 19 of Directive 2006/112/EC (2) preclude national legislation such as Article 20 of Presidential Decree No 131 of 26 April 1986, as amended by points (1) and (2) of Article 1(87)(a) of Law No 205 of 27 December 2017 and by Article 1(1084) of Law No 145 of 30 December 2018, which requires that the tax authorities classify transactions between parties solely on the basis of the textual information contained in the relevant contract and prohibits the use of extrinsic (extratextual) information (even if it objectively exists and is proven), with the result that the tax authorities are absolutely precluded from proving that an economic supply, constituting a transfer of a business, which is in itself indissociable, has in reality been artificially broken down into a number of different supplies — multiple supplies of goods — and therefore gives rise to a right to deduct VAT where the requirements laid down by EU law are not met?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

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

Must Article 4(7) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s official gazette — vested with a public task of publishing and archiving official documents, which, under the applicable national legislation, is responsible for publishing official documents whose publication is ordered by third-party public bodies, as they stand when received from those bodies after the latter have themselves processed the personal data contained in those documents, without the national legislature having granted the official gazette any discretion over the content of the documents to be published or the purpose and means of publication — has the status of data controller?
1.

Is Article 24(4) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (1) 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 to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents … irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence’ implies that a national court, which, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, has declared that it has jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement dispute, no longer has jurisdiction to consider the issue of infringement if a defence is raised that alleges that the patent at issue is invalid, or is the provision to be interpreted as meaning that the national court only lacks jurisdiction to hear the defence of invalidity?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 26 April 2022 — CK v Familienkasse Bayern Nord

(Case C-284/22)

(2022/C 276/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CK

Defendant: Familienkasse Bayern Nord

Question referred

Must Article 4 of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 (1)(in conjunction with Articles 18, 21 and 45 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a migrant worker who earns income which is subject to German income tax but who is not in a compulsory insurance relationship with the Bundesagentur für Arbeit (Federal Employment Agency) and is not subject to unlimited income tax liability in Germany does not receive German child allowance?

(1) Regulation 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).
Appeal brought on 13 June2022 by Martinair Holland NV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-323/17, Martinair Holland v Commission

(Case C-386/22 P)

(2022/C 303/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Martinair Holland NV (represented by: R. Wesseling and F. Brouwer, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it holds that the Commission has jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA to inbound airfreight services on EEA-third country routes; and

— annul, the entire 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) (the Decision); or

— in the alternative, partly annul the Decision insofar as it finds that the appellant infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement with regard to inbound airfreight services on EEA-third country routes; and

— in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by the appellant before the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on the following plea in law.

The General Court erred in law and infringed its duty to state reasons by concluding that the inbound freight services fall within the scope of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement.

First part: The General Court infringed its duty to state reasons, erred in law and violated Article 101 TFEU in concluding that inbound freight services sorted relevant effects in the EEA.

Second part: The General Court infringed its duty to state reasons, erred in law and violated Article 101 TFEU in concluding that inbound freight services sorted probable effects in the EEA.

Third part: The General Court erred in law by relying on arguments and evidence not advanced by the Commission.

Fourth part: The General Court erred in law and violated Article 101 TFEU by concluding that the single and continuous infringement can extend the Commission’s jurisdiction over conduct outside the EEA.
A.

The General Court erred in law and in its assessment and breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH in ruling that ECHA did not manifestly err by considering that serious effects on human health of an equivalent level of concern would have been established. In particular, (a) the General Court erred in its assessment, breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH in ruling that ECHA could conclude that effects, which are acknowledged not to form ‘the basis’ of the contested decision, may nevertheless contribute to establishing ‘an equivalent level of concern’; (b) the General Court erred in its assessment, breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH in ruling that ECHA established that the developmental toxicity and the repeated dose toxicity effects would be of ‘equivalent level of concern’; and (c) the General Court erred in its assessment, breached and misinterpreted Article 57(f) of REACH by considering as lawful ECHA’s decision to (i) apply weight of evidence considerations to the individual effects for human health and (ii) consider the effects for human health and the environment jointly.
Appeal brought on 9 June 2022 by Japan Airlines Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-340/17, Japan Airlines v Commission

(Case C-381/22 P)

(2022/C 303/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Japan Airlines Co. Ltd (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat, K. Van Hove, advocaat, and R Burton, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it holds that Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA apply to inbound airfreight services on EEA-third country routes;

— annul 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) (the Decision) in its entirety or, in the alternative, annul the Decision insofar as it finds that Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement apply to inbound airfreight services on EEA-third country routes and reduce the fine imposed on the appellant to EUR 26 775 000 or to such other amount as the Court sees fit;

— order the Commission to bear all of the costs of these proceedings, including those before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas.

The General Court erred in law by refusing to address the appellant’s plea that the Decision infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement by prohibiting conduct with respect to inbound airfreight services that do not restrict competition within the EEA and wrongly relying instead on the public international law concept of qualified effects to establish the Commission’s jurisdiction under EU law; and

In the alternative, the General Court erred in law in its application of the qualified effects test in finding that the Commission had jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in relation to inbound airfreight services on EEA-third country routes.
1.

In the event of a derogation in accordance with Article 90(2) of the VAT Directive, (1) do the principle of neutrality and Article 90 of that directive allow a provision of national law such as the second sentence of Article 129(1) of the Danachno-osiguritelen protsesualen kodeks (Tax and Social Security Procedure Code), which provides for a limitation period for the submission of an application for a set-off or refund of the tax charged by the taxable entity in respect of the supply of goods or services in the event of total or partial non-payment by the recipient of the supply?
1.

Must Article 14(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1) be interpreted as precluding the trade mark proprietor / court from prohibiting a third party from using in the course of trade a sign which is identical or confusingly similar to an EU trade mark, in relation to automotive spare parts (radiator grilles) where that sign constitutes a mounting element for an automotive accessory (an emblem reflecting the EU trade mark), and: — where it is technically possible to affix the original emblem reflecting the EU trade mark to an automotive spare part (radiator grille) without reproducing on that part a sign identical or confusingly similar to the EU trade mark; or in a situation — where it is technically impossible to affix the original emblem reproducing the EU trade mark to an automotive spare part (radiator grille) without reproducing on that part a sign identical or confusingly similar to the EU trade mark? — if the answer to any of the questions in 1(a) is in the affirmative:
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 24 February 2022 by HG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-693/16 P RENV-RX, HG v Commission

(Case C-150/22 P)

(2022/C 311/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 30 June 2022, the Court (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal for manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 1 July 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München v HF

(Case C-435/22)

(2022/C 326/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München

Defendant: HF

Question referred

Must Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 in Schengen, read in conjunction with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (1) be interpreted as meaning that that those provisions preclude the extradition of a third-country national who is not an EU citizen in terms of Article 20 of the TFEU by the authorities of a contracting state to that Convention and an EU Member State to a third country if final judgment has been passed against the person concerned by another Member State of the European Union for the same offences to which the extradition request relates and that judgment has been enforced and where the decision to refuse to extradite that person to the third country would be possible only at the cost of breaching a bilateral extradition treaty that exists with that third country?

(1) OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.
1.

Can Article 5(2)(b) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC (1) of 12 February 2008 be interpreted as precluding the application of stamp duty to fees for financial intermediation services provided by a bank in connection with the placement of securities — bonds and commercial papers — issued by various commercial companies, as part of which services the applicant is under an obligation to do all that it can, identifying and making contact with investors, to distribute the securities, obtain orders for subscription or acquisition and, in some cases, acquire the securities on offer?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 June 2022 — Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance v Manitou BF SA

(Case C-407/22)

(2022/C 340/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance

Respondent: Manitou BF SA

Question referred

Does Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude legislation of a Member State relating to a tax integration scheme under which a tax-integrated parent company benefits from the neutralisation of the proportion of costs and expenses added back in respect of dividends received by it from resident companies which are parties to the integration and, for the purpose of taking account of the judgment of 2 September 2015, Groupe Steria SCA (C-386/14), in respect of dividends received from subsidiaries established in another Member State which, had they been resident, would objectively have been eligible, if they so elected, for the tax integration scheme but which refuses the benefit of that neutralisation to a resident parent company which, despite the existence of capital links with other resident entities allowing for the constitution of a tax-integrated group, has not opted to belong to such a group, both in respect of the dividends distributed to it by its resident subsidiaries and in respect of those from subsidiaries established in other Member States which meet the eligibility criteria other than residence?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 June 2022 — AB v Disziplinarrat der Österreichischen Apothekerkammer

(Case C-417/22)

(2022/C 326/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: AB

Respondent authority: Disziplinarrat der Österreichischen Apothekerkammer

Question referred

Must Articles 87(3) and 90 of Directive 2001/83/EC, (1) as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC, (2) be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which prohibits price-based advertising of medicinal products?

(1) 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 (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(2) Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 May 2022 — Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, in the presence of: Adama Registrations B.V. (Adama)

(Case C-309/22)

(2022/C 359/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe)

Defendant: College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

In the presence of: Adama Registrations B.V. (Adama)

Questions referred

1. Does Article 2 of Regulation 2018/605 (1) imply that the competent authority must also apply the new criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties in the assessment and decision-making process relating to applications for authorisation which were still pending on 10 November 2018, also in view of Article 29(1)(e) in conjunction with Article 4(3) of Regulation 1107/2009? (2)

2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is it incumbent on the competent authority to stay the assessment and decision-making process relating to applications for authorisation pending the findings of the European Commission on the effects of Regulation 2018/605 on any proceedings pending under Regulation 1107/2009, having regard to recital 8 of the preamble to Regulation 2018/605?

3. If the answer to that second question is in the negative, is it sufficient for the competent authority to make an assessment solely on the basis of data known at the time of the application, even if the scientific and technical knowledge reflected therein is no longer current at the time when the contested decision is taken?

(1) Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 of 19 April 2018 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 by setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties (OJ 2018 L 101, p. 33).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 June 2022 — Scuola europea di Varese v PD and LC, as persons exercising parental responsibility over the minor NG

(Case C-431/22)

(2022/C 359/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Scuola europea di Varese

Defendants: PD and LC, as persons exercising parental responsibility over the minor NG

Question referred

Is the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, done in Luxembourg on 21 June 1994, to be interpreted as meaning that the Complaints Board referred to therein is to have sole jurisdiction in the first and final instance, once all administrative channels provided for in the General Rules have been exhausted, in any dispute concerning a decision on repeating a year adopted in relation to a secondary-school pupil by the Class Council?