ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — EB v Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Università degli Studi ‘Roma Tre’

(Case C-326/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 5 - Successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships - Misuse - Preventive measures - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - University researchers)

(2021/C 289/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EB

Defendants: Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Università degli Studi ‘Roma Tre’

Intervening parties: Federazione Lavoratori della Conoscenza — CGIL (FLC-CGIL), Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Anief — Associazione Professionale e Sindacale, Confederazione Generale Sindacale, Cipur — Coordinamento Intersedi Professori Universitari di Ruolo

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which provision is made, in respect of the recruitment of university researchers, for the conclusion of a fixed-term contract for a period of three years, with a single possibility of extension, for a maximum period of two years, making the conclusion of such contracts subject, first, to the condition that resources are available ‘for planning for the purposes of carrying out research, teaching, non-curricular activities and student service activities’, and, second, that such contracts are extended on condition that there is a ‘positive appraisal of the teaching and research activities carried out’, without it being necessary for those rules to define objective and transparent criteria making it possible to verify that the conclusion and renewal of such contracts do indeed meet a genuine need, and that they are likely to achieve the objective pursued and are necessary for that purpose.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
2.

Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, read in the light of Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from the right to be affiliated to the public sickness insurance scheme of the host Member State, in order to receive medical care financed by that State, economically inactive Union citizens, who are nationals of another Member State and who fall, by virtue of Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, within the scope of the legislation of the host Member State and who are exercising their right of residence in the territory of that State under Article 7(1)(b) of that directive; Article 4 and Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, and Article 7(1)(b) and Article 24 of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted, by contrast, as not precluding the affiliation of such Union citizens to that system from not being free of charge, in order to prevent those citizens from becoming an unreasonable burden on the public finances of the host Member State.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 June 2021 — Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v Council of the European Union

(Case C-872/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela - Action for annulment brought by a third State - Admissibility - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Locus standi - Condition that the applicant must be directly concerned by the measure that forms the subject matter of the action - Concept of a ‘legal person’ - Interest in bringing proceedings - Regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures)

(2021/C 320/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 September 2019, Venezuela v Council (T-65/18, EU:T:2019:649), in so far as it dismisses the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s action for annulment of Articles 2, 3, 6 and 7 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela;

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the merits;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Criminal proceedings against FO

(Case C-906/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Harmonisation of certain provisions of social legislation - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 3(a) - Non-application of the regulation to carriage by road by vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on regular services where the route covered by the service in question does not exceed 50 km - Vehicle for mixed-use - Article 19(2) - Extraterritorial penalty - Infringement detected on the territory of a Member State committed on the territory of another Member State - Principle that offences and penalties must have a proper legal basis - Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 - Recording equipment in road transport - Article 15(2) - Obligation to insert the driver card - Article 15(7) - Obligation to produce the driver card whenever an inspecting officer so requests - Failure to insert the driver card in the recording equipment on several of the 28 days preceeding the inspection day)

(2021/C 462/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Party to the main criminal proceedings

FO

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, must be interpreted as meaning that a driver who engages in carriage by road falling within the scope of that regulation is required to produce, whenever an inspecting officer so requests, the driver card, record sheets and any information in respect of the 28 days preceeding that day, in accordance with Article 15(2), (3) and (7) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, as amended by Regulation No 561/2006, even when, during that period, that driver has also engaged in, using the same vehicle, carriage of passengers on regular services where the route covered by the service does not exceed 50 km.

2. Article 19(2) of Regulation No 561/2006 must be interpreted as precluding the competent authorities of a Member State from imposing a penalty on a driver of a vehicle or a transport undertaking, in respect of an infringement of Regulation No 3821/85, as amended by Regulation No 561/2006, committed on the territory of another Member State or a third country, but detected on its territory and for which a penalty has not already been imposed.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers — Belgium) — X v Belgian State

(Case C-930/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 13(2) - Right of residence of family members of a Union citizen - Marriage between a Union citizen and a third-country national - Retention, in the event of divorce, of the right of residence by a third-country national who is the victim of acts of domestic violence committed by his or her spouse - Requirement to demonstrate the existence of sufficient resources - No such requirement in Directive 2003/86/EC - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 20 and 21 - Equal treatment - Difference in treatment based on whether the sponsor is a Union citizen or a third-country national - Non-comparability of situations)

(2021/C 431/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du contentieux des étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Belgian State

Operative part of the judgment

The consideration of the question referred by the national court has disclosed no factor of a kind such as to affect the validity of Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, in the light of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (C-51/19 P), Kingdom of Spain (C-64/19 P) v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland

(Joined Cases C-51/19 P and C-64/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification for the difference in treatment)

(2021/C 481/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados) (C-51/19 P), Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by A. Rubio González and A. Sampol Pucurull, and subsequently by S. Centeno Huerta and S. Jiménez García, Agents) (C-64/19 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and R. Kanitz, Agents), Ireland

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders World Duty Free Group SA and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — ClientEarth v European Commission, European Chemicals Agency

(Case C-458/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 3549 final - Authorisation for uses of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Articles 60 and 62 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Request for internal review - Commission Decision C(2016) 8454 final - Rejection of the request)

(2021/C 481/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister, and J. Stratford BL)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and F. Becker, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
1.

Article 2(1) and Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which permits the inclusion, within the boundaries of an installation subject to the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme at EU level, of ancillary units which do not emit greenhouse gases, provided that they meet the criteria set out in Article 3(e) of that directive, as amended, and, in particular, that they could have an effect on emissions and pollution relating to the greenhouse gases listed in Annex II to that directive, as amended.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA

(Case C-824/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability - Article 2(2)(a) - Article 4(1) - Article 5 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 21 and 26 - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Duties of juror in criminal proceedings - Blind person - Total exclusion from participation in criminal proceedings)

(2021/C 502/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TC, UB

Defendants: Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA

Interested party: Varhovna administrativna prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude that a blind person be totally deprived of any possibility of performing the duties of a juror in criminal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — YT and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania

(Case C-282/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 4 and 5 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Catholic religious education teachers - Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying the renewal of such contracts - Permanent need for replacement staff)

(2022/C 109/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: YT, ZU, AW, BY, CX, DZ, EA, FB, GC, IE, JF, KG, LH, MI, NY, PL, HD, OK

Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania

Intervener: Federazione GILDA-UNAMS

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted, first, as precluding national legislation excluding Catholic religious education teachers in public education establishments from the scope of the rules intended to penalise abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term contracts where there is no other effective measure in the domestic legal system penalising that abuse and, second, as meaning that the requirement to hold a suitability certificate issued by an ecclesiastical authority for the purposes of allowing those teachers to provide Catholic religious education does not constitute an ‘objective reason’ within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement, because that certificate is issued once and not before each school year leading to the conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 September 2019, Hamas v Council (T-308/18, EU:T:2019:557), in so far as it upholds the eighth plea relied on at first instance and annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/475 of 21 March 2018 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1426; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/468 of 21 March 2018 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420; Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1084 of 30 July 2018 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2018/475; and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1071 of 30 July 2018 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/468, in so far as those acts concern Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem;
2.

Annuls Article 1(h) of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives) in so far as it finds that Quanta Storage Inc. infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 by participating, from 14 February to 28 October 2008, in several separate infringements;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — M.F. v J.M.

(Case C-508/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Interpretation sought by the referring court necessary to enable it to give judgment - Concept - Disciplinary proceedings brought against a judge of an ordinary court - Designation of the disciplinary court having jurisdiction to hear those proceedings by the President of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) - Civil action for a declaration that a service relationship does not exist between the President of that disciplinary chamber and the Supreme Court - Lack of jurisdiction of the referring court to review the validity of the appointment of a Supreme Court judge and inadmissibility of such an action under national law - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2022/C 198/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.F.

Defendant: J.M.

Intervening party: Prokurator Generalny, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Izba Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) (Supreme Court (Labour and Social Insurance Chamber), Poland) is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Attunda tingsrätt — Sweden) — Airhelp Ltd v Scandinavian Airlines System SAS

(Case C-28/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Pilots’ strike organised within a legal framework - Circumstances that are ‘internal’ and ‘external’ to the operating air carrier’s activity - Articles 16, 17 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - No impairment of the air carrier’s freedom to conduct a business, right to property and right of negotiation)

(2021/C 189/05)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Attunda tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Airhelp Ltd

Defendant: Scandinavian Airlines System SAS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that strike action which is entered into upon a call by a trade union of the staff of an operating air carrier, in compliance with the conditions laid down by national legislation, in particular the notice period imposed by it, which is intended to assert the demands of that carrier’s workers and which is followed by a category of staff essential for operating a flight does not fall within the concept of an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 85, 23.3.2020.