ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 2 February 2022 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-69/22)

(2022/C 171/22)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and M. Ioan, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt and notify to the European Commission a National Air Pollution Control Programme, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 14 December 2016] on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC; (1)

— order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that, by Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, commitments have been made to reduce emissions of five key atmospheric pollutants for the period 2020-2029, beginning in 2030. With a view to honouring those commitments to reduce emissions and in order to contribute to the achievement of the Union’s air quality objectives, Member States are requested, by Article 6(1) of that directive, to adopt a National Air Pollution Control Programme (NAPCP).

Under Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284, Romania was required to notify the Commission of its NAPCP by 1 April 2019 at the latest, and any planned actions by the Romanian authorities should have been commenced before that date.

Therefore, the Commission submits that, by failing to adopt and notify the Commission of its NAPCP before the date of the present application, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/2284.

(1) OJ 2016 L 344, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 1 February 2022 — IA v DER Touristik Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-62/22)

(2022/C 165/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IA

Defendant: DER Touristik Deutschland GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 18(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 (recast) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to regulating international jurisdiction, the provision also lays down a rule to be observed by the adjudicating court as to the territorial jurisdiction of the national courts in matters pertaining to travel contracts where both the consumer, as the traveller, and his or her contractual partner, the tour operator, are domiciled in the same Member State, however the destination is not in that Member State but is located abroad, with the consequence that the consumer can bring contractual claims against the tour operator before the court for his or her place of domicile as a supplement to national rules?

(1) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against EV

(Case C-174/22)

(2022/C 191/30)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad

Party to the main proceedings

EV

Question referred

Do the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, which supplement the blanket provision of Article 354a of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code) in conjunction with Article 3(4) of the Zakon za kontrol varhu narkotichnite veshtestva i prekursorite (Law on the control of narcotic substances and drug precursors), allow a person to be found guilty of possession of a category 3 substance as per Annex I, namely toluene in a quantity of two litres?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1).
—

On the contrary, must the rule laid down in Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 that the competent institutions are to divide the amounts of the benefit or benefits or other income, as they have been taken into account, by the number of benefits subject to the said rules be interpreted as meaning that it is not the income as such taken into account when applying the rule to prevent overlapping, but rather it is the portion of the income which exceeds a ceiling in respect of overlapping, as, for example, laid down by the national rule at issue, that must be divided by the number of survivors’ pensions impacted by the rules against overlapping?
4.

May the solution adopted in Portuguese law under Article 55(1)(f) of the CCP, (2) whereby the exclusion of an economic operator from a tendering procedure on grounds of infringement of competition rules unrelated to that specific procurement procedure is subject to a decision from the competition authority in the context of an application of an ancillary penalty consisting of a prohibition from tendering, a procedure in which it is the competition authority itself that assesses the relevance of the corrective measures taken, be regarded as consistent with EU law, specifically, Article 57(4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU?
1.

Does EU law, in particular Article 15(1) of the Second Life Assurance Directive, (1) Article 31 of the Third Life Assurance Directive (2) and Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC, (3) read where appropriate in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national legislation or case-law under which a policyholder — who has legitimately exercised his or her right of cancellation — is required to bear the burden of demonstration and proof for the purpose of quantifying the benefits of use derived by the insurer itself? Where such an imposition of the burden of demonstration and proof is permissible, does EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness, require that the policyholder enjoy, in return, rights to information or some other assistance from the insurer that will enable him or her to enforce his or her rights?
1.

On the basis of what criteria does the entitlement to obtain the fixed sum of at least EUR 40 arise pursuant to Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council in the case of agreements with recurring or ongoing performance?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 15 February 2022 — P.M. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-105/22)

(2022/C 207/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: P.M.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

Question referred

Must Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union …, the principle that excise duty is a single-stage tax on actual consumption, and the principle of proportionality be interpreted as precluding the application of a provision of national law such as Article 107(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 6 grudnia 2008 r. o podatku akcyzowym (Law of 6 December 2008 on Excise Duty) … in so far as it precludes the reimbursement to a taxable person of excise duty upon the export of a registered passenger car, calculated in proportion to the period during which that car was used in the national territory?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2022 — TAP Portugal v Myflyright GmbH

(Case C-158/22)

(2022/C 222/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TAP Portugal

Respondent: Myflyright GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of that provision exists where a flight departing from an airport outside the base of the operating air carrier is cancelled because a crew member deployed on that flight (in casu the co-pilot), who has passed the prescribed regular medical examinations without restriction, dies suddenly and in a way that the air carrier is unable to foresee shortly before the flight or falls so seriously ill that he or she cannot perform the flight?

(1) Regulation 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 1 February 2022 — RL v Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden

(Case C-61/22)

(2022/C 213/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RL

Defendant: Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden

Questions referred

Does the obligation to take fingerprints and store them in identity cards in accordance with Article 3(5) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 (1) infringe higher-ranking EU law, in particular

(a) Article 77(3) TFEU,

(b) Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

(c) Article 35(10) of the General Data Protection Regulation, (2)

and is it therefore invalid on one of those grounds?

(1) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement (OJ 2019 L 188, p. 67).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is it sufficient, for a finding that there is an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, that the change of slot allocation was attributable to a weather-related reduction in flight capacity, but the weather situation did not bring air traffic as a whole largely to a standstill?
Appeal brought on 5 April 2022 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 26 January 2022 in Case T-286/09 RENV, Intel Corporation v Commission

(Case C-240/22 P)

(2022/C 222/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, N. Khan, M. Kellerbauer and C. Sjödin, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Intel Corporation Inc., Association for Competitive Technology, Inc., Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal, save for paragraph 3 of its operative part;

— refer the proceedings back to the General Court;

— reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises six grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal: The review by the judgment under appeal of the extent of the Decision’s (1) analysis of the criteria of coverage and duration is ultra petita. Furthermore, the judgment under appeal errs in law in denying any overall assessment of the capability of Intel’s practices to foreclose competition in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case and in misinterpreting the guidance given in that respect in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2017, Intel v Commission, C-413/14 P, EU:C:2017:632.

Second ground of appeal: The judgment’s under appeal review of the as-efficient-competitor test (the AEC test) carried out in the Decision infringes the Commission’s rights of defence.

Third ground of appeal: The judgment’s under appeal review of the Decision’s AEC test in relation to Dell errs with respect to the standard of proof, distorts the clear meaning of the evidence, applies contradictory reasoning and infringes the Commission’s rights of defence.

Fourth ground of appeal: The judgment’s under appeal review of the Decision’s AEC test in relation to Hewlett-Packard Company errs with respect to the standard of proof, infringes the Commission’s rights of defence and contains several other errors of law.

Fifth ground of appeal: The judgment’s under appeal review of the Decision’s AEC test in relation to Lenovo errs in its interpretation of the AEC test and of Article 102 TFEU, distorts the evidence and infringes the Commission’s rights of defence.

Sixth ground of appeal: Insofar as the judgment under appeal relies on its review of the Decision’s AEC test for the purposes of partly annulling the Decision, it fails to consider properly the implications of its findings on the AEC test.

(1) Commission Decision C(2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article [102 TFEU] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C-3/37.990 — Intel).
3.

a. Must Article 46(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 2013/32/EU be interpreted as meaning that the judicial remedy against an inadmissibility decision taken by the determining authority within the meaning of Article 33(2)(d) and Article 40(5) of Directive 2013/32/EU is limited to examining whether the determining authority has correctly concluded that the conditions for the subsequent application for asylum to be considered inadmissible under Article 33(2)(d) and Article 40(2) and (5) of Directive 2013/32/EU have been met? b. If Question 3a is answered in the negative: must Article 46(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 2013/32/EU be interpreted as meaning that the judicial remedy against an inadmissibility decision also covers the examination of whether the conditions for the grant of international protection within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU have been met if the court finds, after conducting its own examination, that the conditions for the rejection of the subsequent application for asylum as inadmissible are not met? c. If Question 3b is answered in the affirmative: does such a decision by the court require that the applicant has first been granted the special procedural guarantees under the third sentence of Article 40(3) in conjunction with the rules in Chapter II of Directive 2013/32/EU? May the court conduct that procedure itself or must it delegate it to the determining authority, where necessary after suspending the court proceedings? Can the applicant waive compliance with those procedural guarantees?
2.b.1.

If it is to be assumed that the right to compensation for non-material damage has both a compensatory and a satisfaction function: is it to be determined on the basis that the compensatory function has structural precedence over the satisfaction function or, at least, that the relationship between the two is that of the rule and the exception? Does that mean that it can have a satisfaction function only when the infringement is deliberate or a result of gross negligence?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2022 — Stappert Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hanover (Germany)

(Case C-210/22)

(2022/C 257/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stappert Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hanover

Questions referred

1. Does the term ‘hollow profiles’ in the rule of origin on subheading 7304 41 HS of Annex 22-01 UCC-DR, (1) which makes the acquisition of origin conditional on the ‘change from hollow profiles of subheading 7304 49’ (Rule of Origin for Hollow Profiles), cover hot-formed primary material under subheading 7304 49 HS, straight and of uniform wall thickness, which does not meet the requirements of a technical standard for seamless hot-formed stainless steel pipes and from which pipes with a different cross-section and wall thickness are produced by way of cold working?

2. If the first question is answered in the negative or need not be answered: does the Rule of Origin for Hollow Profiles infringe Article 60(2), and 284 UCC (2) and 290 TFEU because (a) it lacks reasons, (b) it is too vague or (c) machining processes are excluded from the determination of origin, which would confer origin under Article 60(2) UCC [?]

3. If the second question referred is answered in the affirmative: is the acquisition of origin of goods in subheading 7304 41 HS in the main proceedings determined in accordance with the rule of origin for subheading 7304 41 HS of Annex 22-01 UCC-DR ‘CTH’, the residual rule of Chapter 73 HS in Annex 22-01 UCC-DR or in accordance with Article 60(2) UCC?

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).
Action brought on 25 March 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-220/22)

(2022/C 257/30)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— Declare that, by systematically and persistently exceeding the annual limit value of NO2, from 1 January 20202 onwards, in the zones PT-3001 Lisboa Norte, PT-1004 Porto Litoral and PT-1009 Entre Douro e Minho (previously PT-1001 Braga), Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, (1) read in conjunction with Part B of Annex XI thereto;

— Declare that Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, individually and read in conjunction with Part A of Annex XV to that directive, in relation to all of those zones, and in particular its obligation, under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1), to take appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible;

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The data submitted by Portugal show that that Member State has, since 1 January 2010, been in breach of its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Part B of Annex XI thereto, in which reference is made to the zones Porto Litoral (PT-1004), Entre Douro e Minho (PT-1009) and Lisboa Norte (PT-3001).

Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities have failed to adopt or implement all appropriate measures required to ensure that the exceedance period, in the zones Lisboa Norte (PT-3001), Porto Litoral (PT-1004) and Entre Douro e Minho (PT-1009), in respect of the annual limit value of NO2 laid down in Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Part B of Annex XI thereto, was kept as short as possible in accordance with the requirements under Article 23(1) of that directive.

(1) OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1
3.

Can granting public authorities access to traffic and location data (other than mere identification data) for the purpose of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences be permissible under Directive 2002/58/EC if no serious criminal offences or serious crime are involved, that is to say, if in the specific case the granting of access to such data — in so far as may be assumed — causes only a minor interference with, in particular, the right to the protection of the private life of the user as referred to in Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/58/EC?
4.

In the absence of standards, methods, criteria and indicators established in the [Combined Nomenclature], the Explanatory Notes to the [Combined Nomenclature] and the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System for the purpose of testing the consistency of palm oil and proving that it has been processed by means of ‘texturation’, is it permissible for the competent customs authorities independently to develop and apply analytical working methods — such as RAP 66, version 02/17.11.2020, which was applied in the present case — in order to establish the texturation of fats by means of penetration, that method being based on the officially published method AOCS Cc 16-[60], for the purposes of the tariff classification of goods under heading 1511 or heading 1517? If that is not permissible, according to what standards, methods, criteria and indicators may the product be tested in order to establish that it has undergone a ‘texturation’ process, that is to say, that it constitutes ‘palm shortening’?
Appeal brought on 1 March 2022 by Mr Jörg Lück against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-188/21, Jörg Lück v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-145/22 P)

(2022/C 294/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Jörg Lück (represented by: L. Becker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, R.H. Investment UG

By order of 17 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 16 February 2022 — C. Sp. z o.o. (currently in liquidation) v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

(Case C-108/22)

(2022/C 284/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C. Sp. z o.o. (currently in liquidation)

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Question referred

Must Article 306 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as being applicable to a taxable person who is a hotel services consolidator and who purchases accommodation services and resells them to other economic operators, in cases where those transactions are not accompanied by any other ancillary services?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.