ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Vodafone Kabel Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

(Case C-484/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive (EU) 2015/2366 - Payment services - Article 62(4) - Charges applicable - Article 107(1) - Full harmonisation - Article 115(1) and (2) - Transposition and application - Subscriptions for cable television and internet access - Contracts of indefinite duration concluded before the date for transposition of that directive - Charges applied to payment transactions without direct debit authorisation that are initiated after that date)

(2022/C 51/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vodafone Kabel Deutschland GmbH

Respondent: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 62(4) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national practice under which, in the context of contracts of indefinite duration concluded with consumers, the prohibition on requesting charges for the use of payment instruments, and for payment services, referred to in Article 62(4) applies only to payment transactions initiated in performance of contracts concluded after 13 January 2018, with the result that such charges remain applicable to payment transactions initiated after that date in performance of contracts of indefinite duration concluded before that date.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
2.

Article 292 of Directive 2009/138/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the law of the Member State in which the proceedings are pending, within the meaning of that article, is intended to govern all the effects of the winding-up proceedings on the pending lawsuit. In particular, it is appropriate to apply the law of that Member State which, first, provides that the opening of such proceedings results in the suspension of the pending lawsuit, secondly, make the resumption of the proceedings conditional upon the creditor having lodged his claim for an insurance indemnity against the insurance undertaking and upon notice of the dispute having been given to the bodies responsible for conducting the winding-up proceedings, and thirdly, precludes an order to pay the insurance compensation, since such an order can no longer be the subject of a judgment except relating to the determination and fixing the amount of the compensation, since, in principle, such provisions do not encroach on the jurisdiction reserved to the law of the home Member State pursuant to Article 274(2) of that directive.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — EP, GM v Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Taşımacılık A.Ş.

(Case C-395/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 2(l) - Article 5(1) - Change in the departure time of a flight - Departure postponed by approximately three hours - Passengers notified nine days before departure - Concepts of ‘cancellation’ and ‘delay’)

(2022/C 84/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EP, GM

Defendant: Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Taşımacılık A.Ş.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(l) and 5(1) 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 a flight is not regarded as ‘cancelled’, within the meaning of those provisions, in the case where the operating air carrier postpones the time of departure of that flight by less than three hours, without making any other change to that flight.

(1) OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet v Dustin Sverige AB

(Case C-461/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 72 - Modification of contracts during their term - Transfer of a framework agreement - New contractor assuming on the insolvency of the initial contractor the rights and obligations attributed to the latter under a framework agreement - Whether need for a new procurement procedure)

(2022/C 128/02)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet

Defendant: Dustin Sverige AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 72(1)(d)(ii) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator which, following the insolvency of the initial contractor which led to its liquidation, has taken over only the rights and obligations of the initial contractor arising from a framework agreement concluded with a contracting authority must be regarded as having succeeded in part to that initial contractor, following corporate restructuring, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2022 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-51/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Obligation of recovery - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-compliance - Failure to comply with the obligation to recover unlawful and incompatible aid - Financial penalties - Proportionality and dissuasiveness - Periodic penalty payment - Lump sum - Ability to pay - Weighting of the Member State’s voting rights in the European Parliament)

(2022/C 119/07)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and A. Samoni-Rantou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 9 November 2017, Commission v Greece (C-481/16, not published, EU:C:2017:845), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment in the amount of EUR 4 368 000 per six-month period from the date of delivery of the present judgment up to the date of full compliance with the judgment of 9 November 2017, Commission v Greece (C-481/16, not published, EU:C:2017:845);

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 5 500 000;

4. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 — Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL v European Commission, HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade

(Case C-226/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine - Termination of the proceedings against imports originating in Serbia - Determination of injury - Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from more than one third country - Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Article 3(4) - Termination of the proceedings without measures - Article 9(2) - ‘Negligible’ imports - De minimis threshold - European Commission’s discretion)

(2022/C 165/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by T. Maxian Rusche and by A. Demeneix, and subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche and G. Luengo, acting as Agents), HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade (represented by: R. Luff, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade.

(1) OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-451/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 3(1) - Scope - Flight with connecting flight departing from and arriving in a third country - Single reservation through a Community air carrier - Stopover in the territory of a Member State - Article 5(1)(c)(iii) and Article 7 - Delayed alternative flight - Taking into account of the actual arrival time for the purposes of compensation)

(2022/C 165/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Airhelp Limited

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) 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 that regulation is not applicable to a flight with a connecting flight, booked under a single booking but consisting of two flights, both of which are operated by a Community air carrier, if both the departure airport of the first flight and the arrival airport of the second flight are in the territory of a third country and only the airport where the stopover takes place is in the territory of a Member State.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 1 de Pontevedra — Spain) — UN v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Pontevedra

(Case C-409/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 6(1) and Article 8(1) - National legislation providing for the imposition, in the event of illegal stay, of a fine together with an obligation to leave the territory - Possibility of regularising the stay within a prescribed period - Article 7(1) and (2) - Period for voluntary departure)

(2022/C 171/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 1 de Pontevedra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UN

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Pontevedra

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, in particular Article 6(1) and Article 8(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 6(4), and Article 7(1) and (2) of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which penalises a third-country national staying illegally in the territory of that Member State, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, initially by a fine together with an obligation to leave the territory of that Member State within a prescribed period unless, before the expiry of that period, that third-country national’s stay is regularised and, subsequently, if that third-country national’s stay is not regularised, by a decision ordering his or her compulsory removal, provided that that period is set in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 7(1) and (2) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Acacia Srl v Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

(Case C-421/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 82(5) - Action brought before the courts of the Member State in which an act of infringement has been committed or threatened - Claims supplementary to the action for infringement - Applicable law - Article 88(2) - Article 89(1)(d) - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 - Law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) - Article 8(2) - Country in which the intellectual property right was infringed)

(2022/C 171/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Acacia Srl

Defendant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 88(2) and Article 89(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 of Community designs, and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that the Community design courts before which an action for infringement pursuant to Article 82(5) of Regulation No 6/2002 is brought concerning acts of infringement committed or threatened within a single Member State must examine the claims supplementary to that action, seeking the award of damages, the submission of information, documents and accounts and the handing over of the infringing products with a view to their being destroyed, on the basis of the law of the Member State in which the acts allegedly infringing the Community design relied upon are committed or are threatened, which is the same, in the circumstances of an action brought pursuant to that Article 82(5), as the law of the Member State in which those courts are situated.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2022 — Solar Ileias Bompaina AE v European Commission

(Case C-429/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Market for electricity generated from renewable energy sources - National legislation which allegedly has the effect of conferring an unlawful advantage on electricity suppliers - Complaint to the European Commission - Rejection decision without initiating the formal investigation procedure - Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 1(h) - Concept of ‘interested party’ - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 213/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Solar Ileias Bompaina AE (represented by: A. Metaxas, dikigoros, and A. Bartosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Solar Ileias Bompaina AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.
1.

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding an undertaking from having proceedings brought against it by the competition authority of a Member State and, as the case may be, fined for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and the corresponding provisions of the national competition law, on the basis of conduct which has had an anticompetitive object or effect in the territory of that Member State, even though that conduct has already been referred to by a competition authority of another Member State, in a final decision adopted by that authority in respect of that undertaking following infringement proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and the corresponding provisions of the competition law of that other Member State, provided that that decision is not based on a finding of an anticompetitive object or effect in the territory of the first Member State.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — Happy Education SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-612/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(i) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Exemptions related to children’s or young people’s education, school or university education - Supply of educational services supplementing the school curriculum - Private law body providing those services for commercial purposes)

(2022/C 237/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Happy Education SRL

Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘organisation recognised as having similar objects’ to those of an educational body governed by public law, for the purposes of that provision, does not cover a private entity which carries out teaching activities in the public interest consisting of, inter alia, the organisation of activities supplementing the school curriculum, such as homework support classes, educational programmes and foreign language classes, and which has obtained authorisation from the National Trade Register Office in the form of the attribution of the CAEN code 8559 — ‘Other education n.e.c.’, within the meaning of the Classification of National Economic Activities, where that entity does not, in any event, satisfy the conditions under national law for obtaining such recognition.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — V A, Z A v TP

(Case C-645/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 10 - Subsidiary jurisdiction in matters of succession - Deceased person habitually resident at the time of his or her death in a State that is not bound by Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Deceased person who is a national of a Member State and has assets in that Member State - Obligation for the court of that Member State seised to examine of its own motion the criteria as regards its subsidiary jurisdiction - Appointment of an administrator of the estate)

(2022/C 213/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants in the appeal on a point of law: V A, Z A

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: TP

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State must raise of its own motion its jurisdiction under the rule of subsidiary jurisdiction referred to in that provision where, having been seised on the basis of the rule of general jurisdiction established in Article 4 of that regulation, it finds that it has no jurisdiction under that latter provision.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře — Czech Republic) — CityRail a.s. v Správa železnic, státní organizace

(Case C-453/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFUE - Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ - Criteria relating to the constitution and function of that body - Exercise of judicial or administrative functions - Directive 2012/34/EU - Articles 55 and 56 - Single national regulatory body for the railway sector - Independent regulatory authority for the sector - Entitlement to act on an ex officio basis - Power to impose penalties - Decisions that are open to challenge before the courts - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2022/C 244/09)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CityRail a.s.

Defendant: Správa železnic, státní organizace

Intervening party: ČD Cargo a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře (Transport infrastructure access authority, Czech Republic) is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — DuoDecad Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-596/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2, 24 et 43 - Place of supply of services - Technical support services provided to a company established in another Member State - Abuse of rights - Assessment of the facts - Lack of jurisdiction)

(2022/C 303/05)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DuoDecad Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), made by decision of 28 September 2020.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
1.

Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the Single European Sky, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky (‘the framework regulation’) as amended by Regulation No 1070/2009, and in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as conferring on airspace users, such as airlines, the right to an effective remedy, before the national courts, against air traffic service providers with a view to submitting to judicial review the alleged breaches of the latter’s obligation to provide services;