ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 — BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

(Case C-669/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Access to documents - Protection of personal data - Allegedly irregular disclosure of such data - Regulations (EC) No 1049/2001 and No 45/2001 - Admissibility of pleas and offers of evidence before the General Court of the European Union - Allocation of costs)

(2020/C 390/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BP (represented by: E. Lazar, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders BP to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 September 2020 — Mylène Troszczynski v European Parliament

(Case C-12/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union - Article 8 - Parliamentary immunity - Activity not connected to parliamentary duties - Publication on the Member’s Twitter account - Article 9 - Parliamentary privilege - Scope - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity)

(2020/C 390/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Mylène Troszczynski (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alonso de León and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mylène Troszczynski to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Göteborg — Sweden) — Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket v Combinova AB

(Case C-476/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Union Customs Code - Article 124(1)(k) - Extinction of the customs debt in the event the goods are not used - Concept of ‘goods that have been used’ - Inward processing procedure - Customs debt incurred through non-compliance with requirements provided for under the inward processing procedure - Bill of discharge not submitted within the prescribed time limit)

(2020/C 414/11)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Göteborg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket

Opposing party: Combinova AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 124(1)(k) 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 the use of the goods referred to in that provision concerns only use which goes beyond the processing operations authorised by the customs authority under the inward processing procedure provided for in Article 256 of that code, and not use in accordance with those authorised processing operations.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Razan Othman v Council of the European Union

(Case C-158/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria - List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Action for annulment)

(2020/C 399/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Razan Othman (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mrs Razan Othman to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Burgo Group SpA v Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

(Case C-92/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Promotion of cogeneration - Provision of national law establishing a support scheme - Scheme supporting non-high-efficiency cogeneration plants extended beyond 31 December 2010)

(2020/C 423/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Burgo Group SpA

Defendant: Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Interveners: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Autorità per l’Energia elettrica e il Gas

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 92/42/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which allows cogeneration plants which are not high-efficiency cogeneration plants within the meaning of that directive to continue to be eligible, even after 31 December 2010, for a cogeneration support scheme under which they are, inter alia, exempt from the obligation to purchase green certificates.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Crown Van Gelder BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt

(Case C-360/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market for electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 37 - Duties and powers of the regulatory authority - Out-of-court dispute settlement - Concept of ‘party having a complaint’ - Complaint submitted by a final customer against the operator of a transmission system to which that customer’s installation is not directly connected - Failure on the grid - No contractual relationship between that customer and the operator of that grid - Admissibility of the complaint)

(2020/C 414/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Crown Van Gelder BV

Defendant: Autoriteit Consument en Markt

Other party: TenneT TSO BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the regulatory authority may not dismiss a complaint submitted by a final customer against the operator of a transmission system, following a power failure in that system, on the ground that that final customer’s installation is connected not to that transmission system directly, but only to a distribution system fed by it.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — UQ v Marclean Technologies SLU

(Case C-300/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - First subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) - Definition of ‘collective redundancies’ - Methods of calculating the number of redundancies - Reference period take into account)

(2021/C 19/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UQ

Defendant: Marclean Technologies SLU

Other parties: Ministerio Fiscal, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1), first subparagraph, (a) of Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted in the sense that, with a view to determining whether a contested individual dismissal forms part of an instance of collective redundancy, the reference period laid down in that provision for determining the existence of collective redundancies must be calculated taking into account any period of 30 or 90 consecutive days during which that individual dismissal occurred and during which the largest number of dismissals were effected by the employer for one or more reasons not related to the individual worker concerned, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.
2.

Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, read in conjunction with Article 1(5) of that directive, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which provides that the exclusive right to operate certain games of chance awarded to a public entity for the entire national territory is to include such operations on the internet constitutes a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of the first of those provisions, and the failure to communicate that regulation to the European Commission, in accordance with Article 8(1) of that directive, as amended, makes that legislation unenforceable against individuals.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino — Italy) — Techbau SpA v Azienda Sanitaria Locale AL

(Case C-299/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Combating late payments in commercial transactions - Directive 2000/35/EC - Concept of ‘commercial transactions’ - Concepts of ‘delivery of goods’ and ‘provision of services’ - Article 1 and first subparagraph of Article 2(1) - Public works contract)

(2021/C 28/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Techbau SpA

Defendant: Azienda Sanitaria Locale AL

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that a public works contract constitutes a commercial transaction which leads to the delivery of goods or the provision of services within the meaning of that provision and, therefore, falls within the material scope of that directive.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2020 — Stephan Fleig v European External Action Service

(Case C-446/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Contract staff - European External Action Service (EEAS) - Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Termination of a contract of indefinite duration - Occupational disease - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Right to a fair hearing - Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Duty of care - Articles 30 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Distortion of the facts - Scope of judicial review)

(2021/C 19/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Stephan Fleig (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R.C. Weiss, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Stephan Fleig to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien — Austria) — Criminal proceedings against A and Others

(Case C-584/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European investigation order - Directive 2014/41/EU - Article 1(1) - Article 2(c)(i) and (ii) - Concepts of ‘judicial authority’ and ‘issuing authority’ - European investigation order issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State - Independence from the executive)

(2021/C 44/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien

Party to the main criminal proceedings

A and Others

Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Wien

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and Article 2(c) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the concepts of ‘judicial authority’ and ‘issuing authority’, within the meaning of those provisions, include the public prosecutor of a Member State or, more generally, the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State, regardless of any relationship of legal subordination that might exist between that public prosecutor or public prosecutor’s office and the executive of that Member State and of the exposure of that public prosecutor or public prosecutor’s office to the risk of being directly or indirectly subject to orders or individual instructions from the executive when adopting a European investigation order.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Ingredion Germany GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-320/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - Article 3(h) - New entrants - Article 10a - Transitional rules for free allocation of emission allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 18(1)(c) - Fuel-related activity level - Second subparagraph of Article 18(2) - Relevant capacity utilisation factor)

(2021/C 35/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ingredion Germany GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 18(2) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of allocating emission allowances free of charge to new entrants, the relevant capacity utilisation factor is limited to a value of less than 100 %.

(1) OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

(Case C-601/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - New decision adopted following an annulment by the General Court - Irregularities allegedly committed during the implementation of the General Court judgment)

(2021/C 62/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BP (represented by: E. Lazar, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders BP to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).

(1) OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier v Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS

(Case C-490/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 13(1)(d) - Practice liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product - Reproduction of the shape or appearance of a product which has a protected name - Protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Morbier’)

(2021/C 53/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier

Defendant: Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs and Article 13(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not prohibit solely the use by a third party of a registered name.

Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation No 510/2006 and Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation No 1151/2012 must be interpreted as prohibiting the reproduction of the shape or appearance characterising a product covered by a registered name where that reproduction is liable to lead the consumer to believe that the product in question is covered by that registered name. It is necessary to assess whether such reproduction may mislead the European consumer, who is normally informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account all relevant factors in the case.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Saarlandes — Germany) — QM v Finanzamt Saarbrücken

(Case C-288/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Supplies of services for consideration - Article 26(1) - Transactions treated as supplies of services for consideration - Article 56(2) - Determination of the point of reference for tax purposes - Hiring of means of transport - Making cars available to employees)

(2021/C 79/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht des Saarlandes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QM

Defendant: Finanzamt Saarbrücken

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of the first subparagraph of Article 56(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, the act of making a vehicle forming part of the assets of the business of a taxable person available to one of that taxable person’s employees does not fall within the scope of that provision if that transaction does not constitute a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of that directive. By contrast, the first subparagraph of Article 56(2) of Directive 2006/112 does apply to such a transaction if it involves a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of that directive and if that employee has a permanent right to use that vehicle for private purposes and to exclude other persons from using it, in exchange for rent and for an agreed period of more than 30 days.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
1.

Article 57(6) 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, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2170 of 24 November 2015, must be interpreted as precluding a practice whereby an economic operator is required, at the time of submission of their requests to participate or of their tenders, to provide voluntarily evidence of the corrective measures taken to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence, in respect of that operator, of an optional ground for exclusion referred to in Article 57(4) of that directive, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2015/2170, where such an obligation does not arise either from the applicable national rules or from the tender specifications. By contrast, Article 57(6) of that directive, as amended by Delegated Regulation 2015/2170, does not preclude such an obligation where it is laid down in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner in the applicable national rules and is brought to the attention of the economic operator concerned by means of the tender specifications.
3.

Articles 45, 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, unless he or she can show that he or she satisfies equivalent conditions in another Member State, a worker must, in order to be recognised as a docker: — be declared medically fit for port work by an external prevention and protection at work service, to which is affiliated an organisation to which all employers active in the port area concerned must obligatorily become affiliated; — pass the psychotechnical tests conducted by the body designated for that purpose by that employers’ organisation; — attend a three-week preparatory course relating to work safety and obtaining a professional qualification, and — pass the final test, in so far as the role conferred on the employers’ organisation and, as the case may be, on the recognised dockers’ unions in the designation of the bodies responsible for conducting such examinations or tests is not such as to call into question the transparent, objective and impartial nature of those examinations or tests.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 — Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Europe Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-466/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for UMTS-compliant baseband chipsets - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(3) - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Proportionality - Burden of proof - Self-incrimination)

(2021/C 88/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Europe Inc. (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato, avocat, and M. Davilla, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, G. Conte, M. Farley and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Europe Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Frenetikexito — Unipessoal Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-581/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Supplies subject to VAT - Exemptions - Article 132(1)(c) - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Nutrition monitoring and advice - Sports, physical well-being and fitness activities - Concepts of a single complex supply, a supply ancillary to the main supply, and independent supplies - Criteria)

(2021/C 163/08)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frenetikexito — Unipessoal Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to verification by the referring court, a nutrition monitoring service provided by a certified and authorised professional in sports facilities, potentially in the context of programmes that also include physical well-being and fitness services, constitutes a separate and independent supply of services and is not capable of falling under the exemption laid down in Article 132(1)(c) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.