ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — ET acting as insolvency administrator of Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-165/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 3e - Inclusion of aviation activities - Directive 2008/101/EC - Allocation and issue of allowances free of charge to aircraft operators - Cessation, by such an operator, of its activities due to insolvency - Decision of the competent national authority refusing to issue allowances to the insolvency administrator of the company in liquidation)

(2022/C 119/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ET acting as insolvency administrator of Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3e 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 Regulation (EU) 2017/2392 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2017, must be interpreted as meaning that the number of greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge to an aircraft operator must, in the event of cessation of that operator’s aviation activities during the period of greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in question, be reduced in proportion to the part of that period during which those activities are no longer carried out.

(1) OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
1.

Declares that, by failing, first, to draw up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, and, secondly, by not communicating to the European Commission summaries of those action plans, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and under Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, respectively;
1.

Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted under Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which authorises a developer to derogate from applicable measures for the protection of species, with a view to executing a project, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92, falls within the consent procedure of that project, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of that directive, if, first, the execution of that project cannot take place without the developer having obtained that decision and, second, the authority competent for authorising such a project retains the ability to determine its environmental effects more strictly than was done in that decision.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Grundstücksgemeinschaft Kollaustraße 136 v Finanzamt Hamburg-Oberalster

(Case C-9/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 66 - Chargeability of VAT - The time the payment is received - Article 167 - Origin and scope of the right of input VAT deduction - Article 167a - Derogation - Cash accounting - Letting and subletting of a property used for industrial or commercial purposes)

(2022/C 148/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grundstücksgemeinschaft Kollaustraße 136

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Oberalster

Operative part of the judgment

Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of valued added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that the right of input tax deduction arises at the time the transaction takes place if, pursuant to a national derogation under point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 66 of Directive 2006/112, such as amended by Directive 2010/45, the tax becomes chargeable to the supplier of goods or services only when the remuneration is received and has not yet been paid.

(1) OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A

(Case C-634/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Scope - Conditions for obtaining authorisation to pursue the profession of doctor independently in the host Member State - Diploma issued in the home Member State - Right to pursue the profession of doctor limited to a period of three years - Supervision of a licensed doctor and concomitant completion of three years of special training in general medical practice - Articles 45 and 49 TFEU)

(2022/C 171/16)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A

Other party: Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the competent authority of the host Member State from granting, on the basis of national legislation, a person a right to pursue the profession of doctor which is limited to a period of three years and subject to the twofold condition, first, that the person concerned may practise only under the direction and supervision of a licensed doctor and, second, that he or she must successfully complete three years of special training in general medical practice during the same period in order to obtain authorisation to pursue the profession of doctor independently in the host Member State, taking account of the fact that the person concerned, who has obtained an undergraduate degree in medicine in the home Member State, holds the evidence of formal qualifications, with regard to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, referred to in point 5.1.1 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, but not the certificate referred to therein attesting to the completion of a professional traineeship of one year’s duration, which is required as a further condition for obtaining the professional qualification in the home Member State.

(1) OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
1.

Point 2 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that not only a natural or legal person who is acting for purposes relating to his own trade, business, craft or profession in relation to contracts covered by that directive, but also a natural or legal person who is acting as an intermediary, in the name of or on behalf of that person, is a ‘trader’ within the meaning of that provision, since that intermediary and the principal trader may both be classified as ‘traders’ for the purposes of that provision, without there being any need to establish the existence of a twofold provision of services;
2.

Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the competent national court from deciding to restore the parties to a loan contract to the situation they would have been in if that contract had not been concluded on the ground that a term of that contract relating to its main subject matter must be declared unfair under that directive, it being understood that, if that restoration proves to be impossible, it is for that court to ensure that the consumer is ultimately in the situation he or she would have been in if the term found to be unfair had never existed.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — W.G. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w L.

(Case C-697/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9 - Taxable person - Articles 295 and 296 - Flat-rate scheme for farmers - Spouses engaged in an agricultural activity using property forming part of the marital community of property - Possibility for those spouses to be regarded as separate taxable persons for VAT purposes - Choice on the part of one of the spouses to give up flat-rate farmer status and to bring her activity under the normal VAT arrangements - Loss of flat-rate farmer status for the other spouse)

(2022/C 198/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: W.G.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w L.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 9, 295 and 296 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as:

— precluding a practice of a Member State which prohibits spouses carrying out an agricultural activity in the same holding, using property forming part of the marital community of property, from being regarded as separate taxable persons for value added tax (VAT) purposes where each of those spouses carries out an economic activity independently;

— not precluding, in circumstances in which spouses carry out that agricultural activity under the flat-rate scheme for farmers, the choice of one spouse to place her activity under the normal VAT arrangements from resulting in the other spouse losing the status of flat-rate farmer, where, after examination of the specific situation, such an effect is necessary in order to counter the risk of abuse and tax evasion which cannot be addressed by the spouses’ production of appropriate evidence, or where the carrying out of that activity by those spouses, independently and each under the normal VAT arrangements, is not likely to give rise to administrative difficulties, compared with a situation entailing the simultaneous existence of two different statuses for those spouses.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
2.

Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 is to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which provides that, in a situation where the infringement of an intellectual property right has been committed by a natural person outside his or her trade or profession, the reimbursement of ‘other expenses’ referred to in that provision, which the rightholder may claim, is calculated on a flat-rate basis of the value in dispute limited by that provision, unless the national court considers that, in view of the specific characteristics of the case before it, the application of such a limitation is unfair.
1.

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the financial interests [of the European Union] must be interpreted as not precluding, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, national legislation under which, for the purposes of challenging a decision to recover amounts wrongly paid, adopted after the expiry of the limitation period for proceedings referred to in that provision, the addressee thereof is required to plead the irregularity of that decision within a certain period before the administrative court having jurisdiction, failing which the challenge will be time-barred, and the addressee is no longer able to object to the enforcement of that decision by relying on that irregularity in the context of the judicial proceedings for enforced recovery brought against that addressee.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — W.J. v L.J. and J.J., legally represented by A.P.

(Case C-644/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Determination of the applicable law - Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations - Article 3 - Habitual residence of the creditor - Point in time when habitual residence is to be determined - Wrongful retention of a child)

(2022/C 257/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: W.J.

Respondents: L.J. and J.J., legally represented by A.P.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/941/EC of 30 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining the law applicable to the maintenance claim of a minor child removed by one of his or her parents to the territory of a Member State, the fact that a court of that Member State has ordered, in separate proceedings, the return of that child to the State where he or she was habitually resident with his or her parents immediately before his or her removal is not sufficient to prevent that child from acquiring habitual residence on the territory of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Yieh United Steel Corp. v European Commission, Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL

(Case C-79/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 - Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2 - Calculation of the normal value - Calculation of the production cost - Production losses - Refusal to deduct the value of recycled scrap - Determination of the normal value on the basis of sales of the like product intended for domestic consumption - Exclusion from the basis of calculation used to determine the normal value of sales on the domestic market of the exporting country where those sales concern products intended for export)

(2022/C 237/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Yieh United Steel Corp. (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by J. F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Demeneix, and subsequently by J.F. Brakeland and G. Luengo, acting as Agents), Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, avocats, and by G. Papaconstantinou, dikigoros)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Yieh United Steel Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL.

(1) OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Silistra, Bulgaria) — DB, LY v Nachalnik na Rayonno upravlenie Silistra pri Oblastna direktsia na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti — Silistra

(Case C-520/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - Decision 2007/533/JHA - Articles 38 and 39 - Alert on an object sought - Objectives of the alert - Seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings - Execution - Measures to be taken and action based on an alert - Surrender of the object seized to the Member State issuing the alert - National legislation not permitting a refusal to execute the alert)

(2022/C 294/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Silistra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DB, LY

Defendant: Nachalnik na Rayonno upravlenie Silistra pri Oblastna direktsia na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti — Silistra

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which the competent authorities of the executing Member State are required to execute an alert on an object entered in the second generation Schengen Information System, even though those authorities have doubts regarding the reasons, set out in Article 38(1) of that decision, for the entry of that alert.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
2.

Article 9 of Directive 2008/95 and Articles 54, 110 and 111 of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted to mean that the limitation in consequence of acquiescence referred to in those provisions may not be prevented by the bringing of a court action in which the proprietor of an earlier mark or other earlier right sought a declaration of invalidity of a later mark or opposed the use of that mark, where the application initiating proceedings, although filed before the date of expiry of the period of limitation, did not, owing to a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant, satisfy the requirements of the applicable national law for service and was rectified only after that date for reasons attributable to the applicant;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — proceedings brought by Boriss Cilevičs and Others

(Case C-391/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Restriction - Justification - The organisation of education systems - Institutions of higher education - Obligation to provide courses of study in the official language of the Member State concerned - Article 4(2) TEU - National identity of a Member State - Defence and promotion of the official language of a Member State - Principle of proportionality)

(2022/C 408/07)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Latvijas Republikas Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Boriss Cilevičs, Valērijs Agešins, Vjačeslavs Dombrovskis, Vladimirs Nikonovs, Artūrs Rubiks, Ivans Ribakovs, Nikolajs Kabanovs, Igors Pimenovs, Vitālijs Orlovs, Edgars Kucins, Ivans Klementjevs, Inga Goldberga, Evija Papule, Jānis Krišāns, Jānis Urbanovičs, Ļubova Švecova, Sergejs Dolgopolovs, Andrejs Klementjevs, Regīna Ločmele-Luņova, Ivars Zariņš

Interested party: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which, in principle, obliges higher education institutions to provide teaching solely in the official language of that Member State, in so far as such legislation is justified on grounds related to the protection of its national identity, that is to say, that it is necessary and proportionate to the protection of the legitimate aim pursued.

(1) OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 26 de Barcelona — Spain) — KM v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-625/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4(1) - Indirect discrimination on ground of sex - National legislation providing that two or more total occupational invalidity pensions acquired under the same statutory social security scheme are incompatible - Compatibility of such pensions where they come under different statutory social security schemes - Finding of indirect discrimination on the basis of statistical data - Determination of the affected groups to be compared - Justification)

(2022/C 318/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 26 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KM

Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prevents workers affiliated to social security from receiving a combination of two total occupational invalidity pensions where those pensions come under the same social security scheme, while permitting such a combination where those pensions come under different social security schemes, where that legislation places female workers at a particular disadvantage as compared with male workers, in particular in so far as that legislation permits a significantly higher proportion of male workers, determined on the basis of all male workers subject to that legislation, as compared with the corresponding proportion of female workers, to benefit from that combination and where that legislation is not justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on ground of sex.

(1) OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt B v W AG

(Case C-538/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Articles 49 and 54 TFEU - Deduction of final losses incurred by a non-resident permanent establishment - State which has waived its power to impose taxes under a double taxation convention - Comparability of situations)

(2022/C 424/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt B

Defendant: W AG

Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a tax system of a Member State under which a company resident in that Member State may not deduct from its taxable profits the final losses incurred by its permanent establishment situated in another Member State where the Member State of residence has waived its power to tax the profits of that permanent establishment under a double taxation convention.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.