ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — FCC Česká republika, s.r.o. v Ministerstvo životního prostředí, Městská část Ďáblice, Spolek pro Ďáblice

(Case C-43/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/75/EU - Article 3(9) - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Procedure for amending a permit - Participation of the public concerned - Concept of ‘substantial change’ to the installation - Extension of the duration of operation of a landfill)

(2022/C 284/07)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FCC Česká republika, s.r.o.

Defendants: Ministerstvo životního prostředí, Městská část Ďáblice, Spolek pro Ďáblice

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(9) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) must be interpreted as meaning that the mere extension of the duration of waste disposal at a landfill, without any change in the maximum approved dimensions of the installation or its total capacity, does not constitute a ‘substantial change’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 July 2022 — SGI Studio Galli Ingegneria Srl v European Commission

(Case C-371/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreement - The MARSOL Project - Eligible costs - European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) investigation report finding certain expenses incurred to be ineligible - Repayment of sums paid - Right to access OLAF’s file - Right to be heard - Burden of proof - Distortion of the facts - Probative value - Principle of proportionality - Unjust enrichment)

(2022/C 359/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: SGI Studio Galli Ingegneria Srl (represented by: V. Catenacci, F.S. Marini and R. Viglietta, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders SGI Studio Galli Ingegneria Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 310, 2.8.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis AG, Novartis Farma SpA, Roche SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

(Case C-261/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Obligation on Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law - Article 267 TFEU - Obligation on the referring court to give full effect to the interpretation of EU law provided by the Court of Justice - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Access to an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law - Judgment of a national court of last instance after a preliminary ruling by the Court - Alleged non-conformity of that judgment with the interpretation of EU law provided by the Court - National legislation preventing the bringing of an action for revision of that judgment)

(2022/C 318/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis AG, Novartis Farma SpA, Roche SpA

Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Interveners: Società Oftalmologica Italiana (SOI) — Associazione Medici Oculisti Italiani (AMOI), Regione Emilia-Romagna, Regione Lombardia, Altroconsumo, Novartis Farma SpA, Roche SpA, Novartis AG, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Associazione Italiana delle Unità Dedicate Autonome Private di Day Surgery e dei Centri di Chirurgia Ambulatoriale (Aiudapds), Coordinamento delle associazioni per la tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e consumatori (Codacons), Ministero della Salute — Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) and Article 19(1) TEU, and Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of procedural law of a Member State which, while observing the principle of equivalence, have the effect that, where the supreme court of the administrative system of that Member State gives a decision settling a dispute in which it had made a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, the parties to that dispute may not seek a revision of that decision of the national court based on the contention that the latter disregarded the interpretation of EU law provided by the Court of Justice in response to that request.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 — PNB Banka AS v European Central Bank

(Case C-326/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Insolvency proceedings - Refusal by the European Central Bank (ECB) to grant the request of the board of directors of a credit institution seeking an order instructing the insolvency administrator of that institution to grant the lawyer authorised by that board access to the premises, information, staff and resources of that institution - Competence of the author of the measure - Article 263 TFEU - Measure open to an annulment action - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 418/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PNB Banka AS (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Bonnard, V. Hümpfner and E. Koupepidou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: J. Davidoviča, I. Hūna and K. Pommere)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders PNB Banka AS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

(1) OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
4.

Directive 93/13, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as: precluding national case-law according to which the 10-year limitation period for a consumer’s action for the restitution of sums unduly paid to a seller or supplier in performance of an unfair term contained in a credit agreement with a duration of 30 years begins to run on the date of each performance by the consumer, even though the consumer was not in a position, at that date, to assess the unfairness of the contractual term himself or herself or was not aware of the unfairness of the term, and regardless of the fact that the contract had a repayment period, in this case 30 years, which is much longer than the statutory limitation period of 10 years.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 September 2022 — ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation v Single Resolution Board (SRB), European Commission

(Case C-202/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary policy - Banking union - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms - Single Resolution Fund - Annual contributions - Liquidation of a credit institution - Reimbursement of contributions paid - Pro rata temporis)

(2022/C 432/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: C.J. Flynn and J. Kerlin, acting as Agents, and by S. Ianc, T. Klupsch, B. Meyring and S. Schelo, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis, A. Steiblytė and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
1.

Article 23(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 45(4) of that directive and in the light of the general principle of EU law relating to the right to sound administration and of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as: precluding national legislation which provides that, where a decision rejecting an application for international protection or withdrawing such protection is based on information the disclosure of which would jeopardise the national security of the Member State in question, the person concerned or his or her legal adviser can access that information only after obtaining authorisation to that end, are not provided even with the substance of the grounds on which such decisions are based and cannot, in any event, use, for the purposes of administrative procedures or judicial proceedings, the information to which they may have had access.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz — Germany) — ID v Stadt Mainz

(Case C-544/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) - Services in the internal market - Fees of architects and engineers - Fixed minimum tariffs - Direct effect of provisions of EU law and possible inapplicability of national legislation)

(2022/C 472/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ID

Defendant: Stadt Mainz

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market does not apply to a situation in which a contract was concluded before the entry into force of that directive and where all the effects of that contract were exhausted prior to the deadline for the transposition of the directive.

(1) OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp.k. v Procter & Gamble International Operations SA

(Case C-355/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Article 10 - Corrective measures - Destruction of goods - Concept of ‘infringement of an intellectual property right’ - Goods bearing an EU trade mark)

(2022/C 463/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp.k.

Defendant: Procter & Gamble International Operations SA

Intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights,

must be interpreted as:

precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law according to which a protective measure in the form of the destruction of goods may not be applied to goods which have been manufactured and to which an EU trade mark has been affixed, with the consent of the proprietor of that mark, but which were placed on the market in the European Economic Area without his or her consent.

(1) OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2022 — Laboratoire Pareva v Biotech3D Ltd & Co. KG, European Commission, French Republic, European Chemicals Agency

(Case C-702/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Biocidal products - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 - Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) - Refusal of approval as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 - Approval as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 - Teratogenic effect - Human health risk assessment)

(2023/C 7/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Laboratoire Pareva (represented by S. Englebert, M. Grunchard and M. Ombredane, avocats, P. Sellar, advocaat, and by K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Biotech3D Ltd & Co. KG, European Commission (represented by R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by G. Bain and J.-L. Carré, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by C. Buchanan, M. Heikkilä and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Laboratoire Pareva to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.
2.

Articles 60 and 62 of Directive of the Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC must be interpreted as meaning that in the light of the definition of the term ‘manufacturer’ in Article 3(27) of Directive 2007/46, they preclude a contracting authority from accepting, in the context of a call for tenders for the supply of spare parts for buses intended for public service, as proof of the equivalence of components, covered by the regulatory acts listed in Annex IV to Directive 2007/46 and proposed by the tenderer, a declaration of equivalence issued by that tenderer where that tenderer cannot be regarded as being the manufacturer of those components.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 — Vincent Thunus and Others v European Investment Bank (EIB)

(Case C-90/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) - Remuneration - Annual salary adjustment - Action for annulment and damages)

(2023/C 24/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Vincent Thunus, Jaime Barragán, Marc D’hooge, Alexandra Felten, Christophe Nègre, Patrick Vanhoudt (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: A. V. García Sanchez, T. Gilliams, J. Klein and E. Manoukian, acting as Agents, and by P.–E. Partsch, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Vincent Thunus, Mr Jaime Barragán, Mr Marc D’hooge, Ms Alexandra Felten, Mr Christophe Nègre and Mr Patrick Vanhoudt to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 — Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd, Greenoge Windfarm Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-578/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 4 - Member State legislation on business property taxation - Methods for valuation of property used to calculate the basis of assessment of the rate payable - Complaint from wind farm operators - Allegation of an under-assessment of the basis of assessment for the business rate payable by fossil fuel electricity producers and, consequently, of a level of business rate of those electricity generators lower than that of other electricity producers due to the choice of valuation method used - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision finding that there is no State aid - No economic and selective advantage - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Concept of ‘serious difficulties’ - Extent of the European Commission’s investigative duty - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to conduct the investigation procedure diligently and impartially - Scope of review by the General Court of the European Union)

(2023/C 15/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd, Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (represented by: M. Segura Catalán, abogada, and M. Clayton, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Georgiopoulos, S. Noë and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg, Carrons Windfarm Ltd, Foyle Windfarm Ltd and Greenoge Windfarm Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — P GmbH v Finanzamt Österreich

(Case C-378/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 203 - Adjustment of the VAT return - Recipients of services who are not entitled to make deductions - No risk of loss of tax revenue)

(2023/C 35/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich

Operative part of the judgment

Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016

must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who has supplied a service and who has stated on the invoice an amount of value added tax (VAT) calculated on the basis of an incorrect rate is not liable, under that provision, for the part of the VAT invoiced incorrectly if there is no risk of loss of tax revenue on the ground that the recipients of that service are exclusively final consumers who do not have a right to deduct input VAT.

(1) OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2022 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-259/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EU) 2021/92 - Fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters - Conservation of fishery resources and protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures - Articles 15 to 17 and 20 and the second paragraph of Article 59 - Article 43(3) TFEU - Misuse of powers - Principle of sincere cooperation)

(2023/C 24/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Falek, F. Naert and A. Nowak-Salles, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/21

Order of the President of the Court of 20 August 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Special Commissioner of Income Tax, London — United Kingdom) — Vodafone 2 v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-203/05) (1)

(2008/C 313/32)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/30

Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Charleroi — Belgium) — SA Sporting du Pays de Charleroi, G-14 Groupement des clubs de football européens v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

(Case C-243/06) (1)

(2009/C 69/56)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/29

Order of the President of the Court of 28 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 3 Valladolid, Spain) — Vicente Pascual García v Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero

(Case C-87/06) (1)

(2008/C 171/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/32

Order of the President of the Court of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-346/07) (1)

(2008/C 64/50)

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/30

Order of the Court of 27 November 2007 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-163/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Public works contracts - Admissibility - Essential procedural conditions - Mandatory representation of natural or legal persons by a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Member State - Appeal clearly unfounded)

(2008/C 51/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar (represented by: C. Șahin, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and F. Hoffmeister, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2007 in Case T-129/06 Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Akar v Commission in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an application for, first, the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 23 December 2005 relating to the award of the public works contract for the construction of educational establishments in the provinces of Siirt and Diyarbakir and, secondly, suspension of the implementation of the procedure in question — No information, in the contested decision, as to the need to be represented by a lawyer qualified to practise before a court of a Member State in the event of proceedings being brought against the contested decision — Regularised application lodged out of time.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar are ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.
1.

Following the judgment in Case C-207/04 Vergani [2005] ECR I-7453, in which national legislation was found to be incompatible with Community law, it is for the authorities of the Member State concerned to adopt the general or specific measures necessary to ensure that Community law is complied with in their territory, those authorities retaining the choice of measures to be taken to ensure that national law is changed so as to comply with Community law and that the rights which individuals derive from Community law are given full effect. Where there has been found to be discrimination contrary to Community law, for as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, a national court must set aside any discriminatory provision of national law, without having to request or await its prior removal by the legislature, and apply to members of the disadvantaged category the same arrangements as those enjoyed by the persons in the other category.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/24

Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-433/07) (1)

(2008/C 79/45)

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.