ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 17 and 22 of that protocol, must be interpreted as meaning that the national authority responsible for the criminal proceedings, that is to say, depending on the stage of the proceedings, the authority responsible for criminal prosecutions or the competent criminal court, has the competence to assess, in the first place, whether the offence potentially committed by the governor of a national central bank, in his or her capacity as a member of an organ of the European Central Bank, is an act of that governor carried out in the performance of his or her duties within that organ, but in the event of doubt it is required, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, to request the opinion of the European Central Bank and to comply with the latter. Conversely, it is for the European Central Bank alone to assess, when it receives an application for waiver of that governor’s immunity, whether such a waiver of immunity is contrary to the interests of the European Union, subject to the potential review of that assessment by the Court of Justice.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Insolvency and Companies List) — United Kingdom) — BJ and OV, joint trustees in bankruptcy of Mr M, v Mrs M, MH, ILA, Mr M

(Case C-168/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement of persons - Citizenship of the Union - Article 21 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Equal treatment - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(1) - Legislation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland making the exclusion, in principle in full and automatically, from the bankruptcy estate of pension rights accrued under a pension scheme dependent on prior registration of the pension scheme with the tax authorities - Application of that requirement in bankruptcy proceedings in respect of an EU citizen who has exercised his right to freedom of movement in order to pursue a self-employed occupation in the United Kingdom on a permanent basis - That EU citizen’s pension rights accrued under a pension scheme established and tax approved in his home Member State - Inability to avail of the protection of exclusion from the bankruptcy estate of those pension rights - Application to those pension rights of a system of exclusion from the bankruptcy estate significantly less advantageous to the bankrupt)

(2022/C 11/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Insolvency and Companies List)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BJ and OV, joint trustees in bankruptcy of Mr M

Defendants: Mrs M, MH, ILA, Mr M

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State which makes, in principle, the full and automatic exclusion from the bankruptcy estate of pension rights accrued under a pension scheme dependent on the requirement that, at the time of the bankruptcy, the pension scheme concerned be tax approved in that Member State, where that requirement is imposed in a situation where an EU citizen, who had, prior to becoming bankrupt, exercised his right of free movement by moving permanently to that Member State for the purposes of pursuing a self-employed economic activity there, has pension rights accrued under a pension scheme established and tax approved in his home Member State, unless the restriction on freedom of establishment constituted by that national provision is justified in so far as it furthers an overriding reason relating to the public interest, is appropriate to ensure that the objective it pursues is achieved and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
3.

Regulation No 2271/96, as amended by Regulation No 37/2014 and Delegated Regulation 2018/1100, in particular Articles 5 and 9 thereof, read in the light of Article 16 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the annulment of the termination of contracts effected by a person referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, as amended, in order to comply with the requirements or prohibitions based on the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended, even though that person does not have an authorisation, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 5 of the same regulation, as amended, provided that that annulment does not entail disproportionate effects for that person having regard to the objectives of Regulation No 2271/96, as amended, consisting in the protection of the established legal order and the interests of the European Union in general. In that assessment of proportionality, it is necessary to weigh in the balance the pursuit of those objectives served by the annulment of the termination of a contract effected in breach of the prohibition laid down in the first paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation, as amended, and the probability that the person concerned may be exposed to economic loss, as well as the extent of that loss, if that person cannot terminate his or her commercial relationship with a person included in the list of persons covered by the secondary sanctions at issue resulting from the laws specified in the annex to that regulation, as amended.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 — Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-374/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Plant protection products - Active substance - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Article 6(f) - Annex II, point 2.2 - Definition of ‘further confirmatory information’ - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 - Article 13(3) - Non-renewal of approval of the active substance ‘oxasulfuron’ for its placing on the market - Scope of the rapporteur Member State’s decision to declare the application for renewal to be admissible - Right of that Member State and of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to require the applicant to provide further information - Right of the rapporteur Member State to amend its draft renewal assessment report - Precautionary principle)

(2022/C 73/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, I. Naglis and G. Koleva, and subsequently by G. Koleva, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: J. Lundberg, O. Simonsson, C. Meyer-Seitz, A.M. Runeskjöld, H. Shev, H. Eklinder, R. Shahsavan Eriksson and M. Salborn Hodgson, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Agrochems-Maks d.o.o. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie — Poland) — Proceedings initiated by the Minister Sprawiedliwości

(Case C-55/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Article 267 TFEU - Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Bar Association Disciplinary Court - Disciplinary investigation initiated against a lawyer - Decision of the Disciplinary Agent finding that there was no disciplinary offence and terminating the investigation - Appeal by the Minister for Justice to the Bar Association Disciplinary Court - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Article 4, point (6), and Article 10(6) - Authorisation scheme - Withdrawal of authorisation - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Not applicable)

(2022/C 109/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Sprawiedliwości

Intervening parties: Prokurator Krajowy — Pierwszy Zastępca Prokuratora Generalnego, Rzecznik Dyscyplinarny Izby Adwokackiej w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as not having the effect of rendering Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applicable to appeal proceedings brought by a State authority before a Bar Association Disciplinary Court and seeking annulment of a decision by which a Disciplinary Agent closed an investigation into a lawyer after finding that there was no disciplinary offence attributable to that lawyer and, should that decision be annulled, to the referral back of the file to that disciplinary agent.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Randstad Italia SpA v Umana SpA, Azienda USL Valle d’Aosta, IN. VA SpA, Synergie Italia agenzia per il Lavoro SpA

(Case C-497/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Obligation of Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law - Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 1(1) and (3) - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Judgment of a Member State’s highest administrative court declaring inadmissible, in breach of the case-law of the Court of Justice, an action brought by a tenderer excluded from a public procurement procedure - No remedy against that judgment before the highest court in that Member State’s judicial order - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)

(2022/C 84/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Randstad Italia SpA

Defendants: Umana SpA, Azienda USL Valle d’Aosta, IN. VA SpA, Synergie Italia agenzia per il Lavoro SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) and Article 19(1) TEU, and Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of a Member State’s domestic law which, according to national case-law, has the effect that individual parties, such as tenderers who participated in a procedure for the award of a public contract, cannot challenge the conformity with EU law of a judgment of the highest court in the administrative order of that Member State by means of an appeal before the highest court in that Member State’s judicial order.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — XXXX v HR Rail SA

(Case C-485/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability - Dismissal of a worker who had become permanently incapable of performing the essential functions of the post - Staff member completing training as part of recruitment - Article 5 - Reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities - Requirement to reassign to another post - Obligation subject to it not being a disproportionate burden for the employer)

(2022/C 148/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XXXX

Defendant: HR Rail SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ for disabled persons, within the meaning of that article requires that a worker, including someone undertaking a traineeship following his or her recruitment, who, owing to his or her disability, has been declared incapable of performing the essential functions of the post that he or she occupies, be assigned to another position for which he or she has the necessary competence, capability and availability, unless that measure imposes a disproportionate burden on the employer.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
2.

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the competent national authorities and, as the case may be, the national courts of the host Member State are required to ascertain whether the decision to revoke the assurance as to the grant of the nationality of that Member State, which makes the loss of the status of citizen of the Union permanent for the person concerned, is compatible with the principle of proportionality in the light of the consequences it entails for that person’s situation. That requirement of compatibility with the principle of proportionality is not satisfied where such a decision is based on administrative traffic offences which, under the applicable provisions of national law, give rise to a mere pecuniary penalty.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — XXXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-483/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 33(2)(a) - Inadmissibility of an application for international protection lodged in a Member State by a third-country national who has obtained refugee status in another Member State, where the minor child of that third-country national, who is a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, resides in the first Member State - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 7 - Right to respect for family life - Article 24 - Best interests of the child - No infringement of Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights due to the inadmissibility of the application for international protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 23(2) - Obligation on the Member States to ensure the family unity of beneficiaries of international protection is maintained)

(2022/C 165/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: XXXX

Respondent: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33(2)(a) 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 the light of Article 7 and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from exercising the option available to it under that provision to refuse to grant an application for international protection on the ground that it is inadmissible because the applicant has already been granted refugee status by another Member State, where that applicant is the father of a child who is an unaccompanied minor who has been granted subsidiary protection in the first Member State, without prejudice, nevertheless, to the application of Article 23(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bund Naturschutz in Bayern eV v Landkreis Rosenheim

(Case C-300/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘plans and programmes’ - Article 3(2)(a) - Measures prepared for certain sectors and setting a framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive 2011/92/EU - Article 3(4) - Measures setting a framework for future development consent of projects - Landscape conservation regulation adopted by a local authority)

(2022/C 165/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Bund Naturschutz in Bayern eV

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Landkreis Rosenheim

Intervening parties: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern and Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure which is intended to protect nature and the landscape and, to that end, lays down general prohibitions and makes provision for compulsory permits without laying down sufficiently detailed rules regarding the content, preparation and implementation of the projects referred to in Annexes I and II to 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 does not fall within the scope of that provision.

2. Article 3(4) of Directive 2001/42 must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure which is intended to protect nature and the landscape and, to that end, lays down general prohibitions and makes provision for compulsory permits without laying down sufficiently detailed rules regarding the content, preparation and implementation of projects does not fall within the scope of that provision.

(1) OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.
2.

Articles 1(1) and 5(5) of Directive 2008/104 are to be interpreted as meaning that the renewal of successive assignments for the same job to a user undertaking for a duration of 55 months constitutes a misuse of the attribution of successive assignments to a temporary agency worker, should the successive assignments of the same temporary agency worker to the same user undertaking result in a period of service with that undertaking which is longer than can reasonably be characterised as ‘temporary’, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, which include in particular the specific nature of the sector, and in the context of the national legislative framework, no explanation having been given for the user undertaking having had recourse to a series of successive temporary agency contracts, which is for the referring court to decide.
3.

Orders the EEAS to repay to the appellant the amounts wrongly deducted from her remuneration, amounting to 71,5 days, together with interest at the rate of 5 % per annum from the date on which they were deducted;
1.

Article 3(1)(a), read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 7 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 on a connecting flight, comprising two legs and subject to a single booking with a Community carrier, departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State and arriving at an airport located in a third country via another airport in that third country, is entitled to compensation from the third-country air carrier which operated the entirety of that flight acting on behalf of that Community carrier, where that passenger has reached his or her final destination with a delay of more than three hours caused in the second leg of the said flight;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — bpost SA v Autorité belge de la concurrence

(Case C-117/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Postal services - Tariff system adopted by a universal service provider - Fine imposed by a national postal regulator - Fine imposed by a national competition authority - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Non bis in idem principle - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the non bis in idem principle - Duplication of proceedings and penalties - Conditions - Pursuit of an objective of general interest - Proportionality)

(2022/C 198/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: bpost SA

Defendant: Autorité belge de la concurrence

Intervening parties: Publimail SA, European Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding a legal person from being fined for an infringement of EU competition law where, on the same facts, that person has already been the subject of a final decision following proceedings relating to an infringement of sectoral rules concerning the liberalisation of the relevant market, provided that there are clear and precise rules making it possible to predict which acts or omissions are liable to be subject to a duplication of proceedings and penalties, and also to predict that there will be coordination between the two competent authorities; that the two sets of proceedings have been conducted in a sufficiently coordinated manner within a proximate timeframe; and that the overall penalties imposed correspond to the seriousness of the offences committed.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.