ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Fulmen v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-680/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of its name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on a claim seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2022/C 24/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Fulmen (represented by: A. Bahrami, avocat, and N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Boquet and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Fulmen to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Iaşi — Romania) — BX v Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială D.

(Case C-909/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Article 2(1) and (2) - Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest period’ - Mandatory vocational training undertaken at the employer’s request)

(2022/C 2/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Iaşi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BX

Defendant: Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială D.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that the period during which a worker attends vocational training required by his or her employer, which takes place away from his or her usual place of work, at the premises of the training services provider, during which he or she does not perform his or her normal duties, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2022 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz

(Case C-594/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid for airports and airlines - Decision classifying the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport - Inadmissibility of an action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Natural or legal person not directly and individually concerned by the decision at issue - Effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 119/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Land Rheinland-Pfalz (represented by: Professor C. Koenig)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Deutsche Lufthansa AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Land Rheinland-Pfalz.

(1) OJ C 319, 23.9.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Algebris (UK) Ltd, Anchorage Capital Group LLC v Single Resolution Board (SRB)

(Case C-934/19 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 84/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Algebris (UK) Ltd, Anchorage Capital Group LLC (represented by: T. Soames, avocat, R. East, Solicitor, N. Chesaites, advocaat, and D. Mackersie, Barrister)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Algebris (UK) Ltd and Anchorage Capital Group LLC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 July 2022 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-743/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the institutions - Bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union - European Labour Authority (ELA) - Competence to determine the location of the seat - Article 341 TFEU - Scope - Decision adopted by the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States in the margins of a Council meeting - Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 263 TFEU - Author and legal nature of the act - Absence of binding effects in the EU legal order)

(2022/C 340/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Anagnostopoulou, C. Biz and L. Visaggio, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, J. Bauerschmidt and E. Rebasti, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, M. Jacobs, C. Pochet and L. Van den Broeck, Agents, Czech Republic (represented by: L. Březinová, D. Czechová, K. Najmanová, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: M. Jespersen, V. Pasternak Jørgensen, J. Nymann-Lindegren and M. Søndahl Wolff, Agents), Ireland (represented by: M. Browne, G. Hodge, A. Joyce and J. Quaney, Agents, and by D. Fennelly, Barrister-at-Law), Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and E.-M. Mamouna, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta and A. Gavela Llopis, Agents), French Republic (represented by: A. Daly, A.-L. Desjonquères, E. Leclerc and T. Stehelin, Agents), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: A. Germeaux, C. Schiltz and T. Uri, Agents), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, J.M. Hoogveld and J. Langer, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent), Slovak Republic (represented by: E.V. Drugda and B. Ricziová, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
1.

The Republic of Bulgaria, by failing to ensure that, first, the hourly limit value for sulphur dioxide (S02) as from 2007 up to and including 2018, and, second, the daily fixed limit values for SO2 as from 2007 up to and including 2018, with the exception of 2010 and 2012, were not systematically and persistently exceeded in zone BG006 (South-East) has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with the combined provisions of Article 13(1) and Annex XI of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the fixed limit values for SO2 in that zone and, in particular, by failing to ensure that the plans concerning air quality provide for appropriate measures to ensure that the period during which those limit values are exceeded is as short as possible, has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with the combined provisions of Article 23(1) and Annex XV section A of Directive 2008/50/CE.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Lifosa’ UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-75/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 29(1) - Article 32(1)(e)(i) - Union Customs Code - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 70(1) - Article 71(1)(e)(i) - Determination of the customs value - Transaction value - Adjustment - Price including delivery at the border)

(2021/C 228/10)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Lifosa’ UAB

Respondent: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Third parties: Kauno teritorinė muitinė, ‘Transchema’ UAB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 29(1) and Article 32(1)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 70(1) and Article 71(1)(e)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining the customs value of imported goods, the costs actually incurred by the producer for their transport to the place where they have been brought into the customs territory of the European Union should not be added to the transaction value of the goods when, according to the agreed delivery terms, the obligation to cover those costs lies with the producer, even though those costs exceed the price actually paid by the importer, provided that that price corresponds to the real value of the goods, a matter which is for the referring court to establish.

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — VS v Hauptzollamt Münster

(Case C-7/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Union Customs Code - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 87(4) - Place where the customs debt is incurred - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1) - Articles 70 and 71 - Chargeable event and place where the import VAT becomes chargeable - Place where the tax debt is incurred - Finding of a failure to comply with an obligation imposed by EU customs legislation - Goods which were physically introduced into the customs territory of the Union in a Member State but entered the economic network of the Union in the Member State where that finding was made)

(2021/C 163/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VS

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Münster

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that import VAT on goods subject to customs duties arises in the Member State in which it is established that an obligation imposed by EU customs legislation has not been complied with, where the goods in question, even if they have been physically introduced into the customs territory of the Union in another Member State, entered the economic network of the Union in the Member State where that finding was made.

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘BalevBio’ EOOD v Teritorialna direktsia Severna morska, Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

(Case C-76/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common customs tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Goods made of different materials - Plant fibres - Melamine resin - Headings 3924 and 4419 - Goods described as ‘bamboo beakers’)

(2021/C 289/18)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘BalevBio’ EOOD

Defendant: Teritorialna direktsia Severna morska, Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Intervener: Okrazhna prokuratura — Varnenska

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016, must be interpreted as meaning that goods described as ‘bamboo beakers’, made up of 72,33 % plant fibres and 25,2 % melamine resin, must, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all the facts available to it, be classified under heading 3924 of that nomenclature, in particular under subheading 3924 10 00.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
1.

Article 4(1) and (5) as well as Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 must be interpreted as precluding the interpretation of national legislation according to which accreditation may be performed by bodies other than the single national accreditation body, within the meaning of that regulation, which have their seat in a third State, even where those bodies ensure compliance with international standards and demonstrate, inter alia by means of mutual recognition arrangements, that they have a qualification equivalent to that of the said single accreditation body.
1.

Article 18(2) and Articles 58 and 70 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a procedure for the award of a public contract for waste management services, the obligation on an economic operator who wishes to ship waste from one Member State to another Member State to possess, in accordance in particular with Article 2(35) and Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, the consent of the competent authorities of the States concerned by that shipment constitutes a condition for the performance of that contract.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — K (C-58/20), DBKAG (C-59/20) v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Linz

(Joined Cases C-58/20 and C-59/20) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1) - Exemptions - Management of special investment funds - Outsourcing - Services provided by a third party)

(2021/C 310/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: K (C-58/20), DBKAG (C-59/20)

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Linz

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the provision of services by third parties to management companies of special investment funds, such as tax-related responsibilities consisting in ensuring that the income received from the fund by the unit-holders is taxed in accordance with national law and the grant of a right to use software which is used exclusively to carry out calculations which are essential for risk management and performance measurement, fall within the scope of the exemption provided for in that provision if they are intrinsically connected to the management of such funds and if they are provided exclusively for the purpose of managing such funds, even if those services are not outsourced in their entirety.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale — Italy) — O.D. and Others v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

(Case C-350/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/98/EU - Rights for third-country workers who hold single permits - Article 12 - Right to equal treatment - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Coordination of social security systems - Article 3 - Maternity and paternity benefits - Family benefits - Legislation of a Member State excluding third-country nationals holding a single permit from entitlement to a childbirth allowance and a maternity allowance)

(2021/C 462/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte costituzionale

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: O.D., R.I.H.V., B.O., F.G., M.K.F.B., E.S., N.P, S.E.A.

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Intervener: Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes the third-country nationals referred to in Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of that directive from entitlement to a childbirth allowance and a maternity allowance provided for by that legislation.

(1) OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Telekom Deutschland GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

(Case C-34/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 - Article 3 - Open internet access - Article 3(1) - End users’ rights - Article 3(2) - Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights - Article 3(3) - Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic - Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures - Additional ‘zero tariff’ option - Limitation on bandwidth)

(2021/C 462/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telekom Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a limitation on bandwidth, on account of the activation of a ‘zero tariff’ option, applied to video streaming, irrespective of whether it is streamed by partner operators or other content providers, is incompatible with the obligations arising from Article 3(3).

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank (ECB)

(Case C-272/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - European Central Bank (ECB) staff members - Remuneration - Competitions - Equality of treatment between internal and external candidates - Classification in step)

(2021/C 490/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Sebastian Veit (represented by: K. Kujath, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and M. Rötting, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Mr Sebastian Veit to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Central Bank.

(1) OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Toplofikatsia Sofia’ EAD, ‘CHEZ Elektro Bulgaria’ AD and ‘Agentsia za control na prosrocheni zadalzhenia’ EOOD (C-208/20); ‘Toplofikatsia Sofia’ EAD (C-256/20)

(Joined Cases C-208/20 and C-256/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 20(2)(a) TFEU - Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 - Cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters - Article 1(1)(a) - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Article 5(1) - Outstanding debts - Legal decisions - Orders for payment - Service - Debtor residing at an unknown address in a Member State other than that of the court seised)

(2021/C 471/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski Rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:‘Toplofikatsia Sofia’ EAD, ‘CHEZ Elektro Bulgaria’ AD, and ‘Agentsia za control na prosrocheni zadalzhenia’ EOOD (C-208/20); ‘Toplofikatsia Sofia’ EAD (C-256/20)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a situation where the court of a Member State seeks the address, in another Member State, of a person on whom a judicial decision is to be served.

2. Article 5(1) 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 must be interpreted as not precluding an order for payment against a debtor from becoming enforceable, and as not obliging the court to annul such an order.

(1) OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.