ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Gmalieva and Others

(Case C‑79/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Freedom to provide services — Games of chance — Monopoly on games of chance in a Member State — National legislation prohibiting the operation of slot machines without prior authorisation from the administrative authorities)

Freedom to provide services—Restrictions—Games of chance—National legislation prohibiting the operation of slot machines without prior authorisation from the administrative authorities—Justification—Restriction of the availability of games of chance and combatting criminality—Duty to meet the requirements of proportionality and non-discrimination—Conditions—Genuine pursuit of those objectives in a coherent and systematic manner—Determination by the national court

(Art. 56 TFEU)

(see paras 22-31, operative part)

Operative part

It is for the referring court to determine, in the light of the guidance given by the Court of Justice inter alia in the judgment of 30 April 2014, Pfleger and Others (C‑390/12, EU:C:2014:281), whether a national statutory monopoly scheme in respect of games of chance, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is to be regarded as coherent, in the light of Article 56 TFEU et seq., where national judicial proceedings have established that:

– gambling addiction does not represent a societal problem justifying State intervention;

– the playing of prohibited games gives rise to police involvement in an administrative context and not to criminal offences;

– annual State income from games of chance exceeds EUR 500 million, being 0.4% of the annual budget; and

– the advertising measures undertaken by licensees also seek principally to entice persons who have not previously played games of chance to do so.

( 1 ) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.
Appeal—Grounds—Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded—Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paras 3, 5, 6)
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of 4 April 2019 — ECB v Wall Street Systems UK

(Case C‑576/17 P(R)-DEP)

(Taxation of costs)

Procedure — Costs — Recoverable costs — Costs incurred in connection with appeal and taxation of costs proceedings — No need to adjudicate

(see paras 8, 9)

Operative part

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for taxation of costs in Case C‑576/17 P(R)-DEP.
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 — GX v Commission

(Case C‑233/17 P-REV OST)

(Article 155 of the Rules of Procedure — No failure to adjudicate on the application for revision)

Judicial proceedings — Revision of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility thereof — New fact — Definition

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 159(1))

(see para. 9)

Operative part

1. The application under Article 155(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice brought on 14 January 2019 by GX is dismissed.
Appeal—Grounds—Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded—Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paras 5, 6)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 June 2018 — flightright

(Case C‑130/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(1)(c) — Right to compensation in the event of flight cancellation — Re-routing not allowing a passenger to reach his final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival of the cancelled flight — Delay of between two and three hours)

Transport—Air transport—Regulation No 261/2004—Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights—Right to compensation if flight is cancelled—Re-rerouting offered to a passenger who arrived at his final destination more than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival of the cancelled flight, but less than three hours after that scheduled time of arrival—Included

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art. 5(1)(c)(iii))

(see para. 23, operative part)

Operative part

Article 5(1)(c)(iii) 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 passenger who was informed of the cancellation of his flight less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure of that flight has the right to the compensation provided for in that provision where the re-routing offered by the carrier allowed him to reach his final destination more than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival of the cancelled flight, but less than three hours after that scheduled time of arrival.

( 1 ) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Appeal—Grounds—Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded—Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paras 4, 6)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 — Mennica Wrocławska

(Case C‑491/18)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168, 178 and 226 — Refusal of the right to deduct — Erroneous designation of goods on invoices)

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Origin and scope of the right to deduct — Rules governing exercise of the right to deduct — Refusal of the right to deduct on the ground of the erroneous designation of goods on invoices — Not permissible — Earlier provision to the tax authorities of the documents and clarifications necessary to determine the actual subject of the transactions — Irrelevant

(Council Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, Arts 168(a), 178(a) and 226)

(see para. 47, operative part)

Operative part

Article 168(a), 178(a), and Article 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as precluding national tax authorities from refusing taxable persons the right to deduct value added tax due or paid upstream on the sole ground that the invoices issued contain an error relating to the identification of the goods to which the transactions concerned relate, even where the taxable person has provided those authorities, before the latter took a decision in its regard, with the documents and clarifications necessary to determine the actual subject of those transactions and attesting thereto.
Appeal — Grounds — Lack of specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning and of legal arguments in support of the appeal — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see para. 5)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 — Saga Furs v EUIPO

(Case C‑805/18 P)

Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word sign SAGA — Application lodged with the General Court of the European Union signed by a ‘licensed legal counsel’ — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — No representation by a lawyer — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Signature by a lawyer — Application signed by a lawyer not authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the European Economic Area Agreement — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, fourth para.)

(see para. 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2.

Clause 4(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not provide for any compensation to be paid to workers employed under pre-doctoral contracts, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, upon expiry of those contracts, even where compensation is payable to permanent workers when their employment contract is terminated on objective grounds.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 April 2019 — Finanzamt Linz (Austrian legislation on games of chance)

(Case C‑545/18)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Principles of EU law — Primacy — National rules requiring the lower courts to follow the interpretation of the higher courts — Restriction of the matters referred to the higher courts to the assessment of points of law and of the pleas raised before the lower courts)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Statement of the reasons for requiring an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Scope of the obligation in the context of the fundamental freedoms

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 19-21, 25-31)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Regional Administrative Court of Upper Austria, Austria), by decision of 16 August 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

(Case C‑645/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers — Article 56 TFEU — Directive 2014/67/EU — Articles 9 and 20 — Reporting of workers — Retention of records of wages — Penalties — Proportionality — Fines of a predefined minimum amount — Cumulative — No upper limit — Court fees)

Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services — Directive 2014/67 — Administrative requirements and control measures — Labour law obligations relating to the reporting of workers and the retention of records of wages — Penalties for failure to comply — Imposition of fines of a predefined amount — Cumulation of fines — No cap — Legal costs amounting to 20% of the amount of the fine in the event of rejection of the appeal brought against that fine — Not permissible — Justification — None — Breach of principle of proportionality

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/67)

(see paras 21, 28, 29, 32-41, 43, operative part)

Operative part

Article 20 of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which lays down, in the event of non-compliance with labour law obligations relating to the reporting of workers and the retention of records of wages, the imposition of high fines:

– which may not be lower than a predefined amount;

– which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned and without an upper limit, and

– to which is added a contribution to court costs of 20% of the amount of the fines if the appeal against the decision imposing those fines is dismissed.

( 1 ) OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Appeal — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paras 3, 4)
Community designs – Appeals procedure – No need to adjudicate – Appeal lodged by the proprietor of a Community design against a judgment of the General Court dismissing the action brought against the decision of a Board of Appeal declaring the contested design invalid – Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community design – End of the dispute

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 149 and 190(1); Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 55(1) and 60(3))

(see para. 13)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 July 2019 — Seven v Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial

(Case C‑31/19 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘sevenoak’ — Earlier international figurative mark 7SEVEN — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b))

Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of Justice of the General Court’s assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paragraph 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
1.

Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision of the Board of Appeal to stay the proceedings and remit the case to the examiner for an examination of the absolute grounds for refusal — Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 5, 6)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 September 2019 — PITEE Fogyasztóvédelmi Egyesület v Commission

(Case C‑358/19 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Law governing the institutions — Actions for damages — Failure by the European Commission to adopt appropriate measures to ensure compliance, by Hungarian courts, with the principles of a fair procedure — Inadmissibility — Duty of the General Court to state reasons — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Scope of the obligation to state reasons

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 58, first para.)

(see paras 17-20)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.
European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds of persons involved in the misappropriation of public funds and of natural or legal persons, bodies or organisations associated with them — Ambit of the review

(Art. 275, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381; Council Regulation 2017/374)

(see paras 23-27, 40, 41)
Appeal — Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Inadequate or contradictory grounds — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to show the significance of the issue — Appeal not allowed to proceed

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see paras 10-12)
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 13)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 September 2019 — Wallonische Region

(Case C‑315/19)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Road traffic — Registration of motor vehicles — Driver resident in one Member State — Vehicle registered in another Member State — Vehicle made available to an employee by an employer established in that other Member State — Obligation to provide on the spot evidence of lawful use of such a vehicle during an inspection — Proportionality)

Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Restrictions — Workers resident in national territory and employed in another Member State — Use of a vehicle with foreign registration plates — National legislation laying down an obligation to provide on the spot evidence of lawful use, failing which a fine will be imposed — Not permissible — Justification — None — Breach of principle of proportionality

(Art. 45 TFEU)

(see paras 23, 27-31, 33-36, operative part)

Operative part

Article 45 TFEU is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which an employee residing in that Member State can rely on an exception to the obligation to register in the employee’s Member State of residence a vehicle, which has been made available to the employee by an employer established in a different Member State where the vehicle is registered, only if the documents proving that the condition for the exception is met are at all times carried by the employee in the vehicle.
Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services — Directive 2014/67 —Administrative requirements and control measures — Obligations relating to the reporting of workers and the retention of records of wages — Penalties for failure to comply — Imposition of fines of a predetermined minimum amount — Lack of a cap — Court costs amounting to 20% of the fine in the event of rejection of the action brought against that fine — Not permissible — Justification — None — Breach of principle of proportionality

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/67, Arts 9 and 20; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99)

(see paras 23, 30, 31, 34-43, 45, operative part)
2.

Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Prima facie examination of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a decision of the Parliament to take note of the list of candidates elected to the Parliament notified by the national authorities and excluding certain candidates — Plea relating to the incorrect assessment of the concept of the (officially proclaimed results) within the meaning of the 1976 Act — Plea not prima facie lacking in foundation (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, Art. 12) (see paras 52, 60, 64, 75-78)
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law — Burden of proof

(Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 12)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 February 2020 — PAGE International

(Case C‑630/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168 and 176 — Exclusion from the right to deduct — Acquisition of food services — Standstill clause — Accession to the European Union)

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Limitations on the right to deduct — Retention of the exceptions from the right to deduct in place at the date of accession to the European Union — Subsequent amendment restricting the exception — Whether permissible — Expenditure entirely assigned to the economic activity of the taxable person — Irrelevant

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 168(a) and 176, second para.)

(see paras 23, 26-30, 35, 36, 38, operative part)

Operative part

Article 168(a) and Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, after the accession of the Member State concerned to the European Union, reduces the scope of expenditure excluded from the right to deduct value added tax by authorising, under certain conditions, partial deduction of value added tax on such expenses, including inter alia those relating to food, even where the taxable person asserts that those expenses were entirely assigned to the exercise of his or her taxable economic activity.

( 1 ) JO C 383 du 11.11.2019.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 19-21, 23-26, 31, 33)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for interpretation of provisions of EU law manifestly inapplicable in the dispute in the main proceedings – Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Tax regime providing for a tax on the possession of motor vehicles with an exemption for vintage vehicles – Classification as internal taxation and not as quantitative restriction, measure having equivalent effect or tax having equivalent effect to a customs duty – Inapplicability of Articles 30 and 34 to 36 TFEU – Manifest inadmissibility

(Arts 30, 34 to 36, 110 and 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

(see paras 26-28, 32-36, 46, 47, operative part)
15

Accordingly, a request that an appeal be allowed to proceed must, in any event, set out clearly and in detail the grounds on which the appeal is based, identify with equal clarity and detail the issue of law raised by each ground of appeal, specify whether that issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law and set out the specific reasons why that issue is significant according to that criterion. As regards, in particular, the grounds of appeal, the request that an appeal be allowed to proceed must specify the provision of EU law or the case-law that has been infringed by the judgment under appeal, explain succinctly the nature of the error of law allegedly committed by the General Court, and indicate to what extent that error had an effect on the outcome of the judgment under appeal (order of 10 October 2019, KID-Systeme v EUIPO, C‑577/19 P, not published, EU:C:2019:854, paragraph 13 and the case-law cited). Where the error of law relied on results from an infringement of the case-law, the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed must explain, in a succinct but clear and precise manner, first, where the alleged contradiction lies, by identifying the paragraphs of the judgment or order under appeal which the appellant is calling into question as well as those of the ruling of the Court or the General Court alleged to have been infringed, and secondly, the concrete reasons why such a contradiction raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (see, to that effect, order of 7 October 2019, L’Oréal v EUIPO, C‑586/19 P, not published, EU:C:2019:845, paragraph 16).