ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 January 2022 — European Commission v Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Válcovny trub Chomutov a.s., Vallourec Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-891/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/804 - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Article 3(2), (3) and (6), and Article 17 - Determination of injury - Examination of the effect of dumped imports on the prices of like products sold on the EU market - Analysis of price undercutting - Application of the product control number (PCN) method - Obligation of the European Commission to take into account the different market segments relating to the product under consideration and all sales of like products by the sampled EU producers)

(2022/C 119/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by T. Maxian Rusche and N. Kuplewatzky, and subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche and A. Demeneix and, finally, by T. Maxian Rusche and by K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd (represented by E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, advocaten), ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Válcovny trub Chomutov a.s., Vallourec Deutschland GmbH (represented by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2019, Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission (T-500/17, not published, EU:T:2019:691);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against HP

(Case C-724/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European Investigation Order (EIO) - Directive 2014/41/EU - Article 2(c)(i) - Concept of ‘issuing authority’ - Article 6 - Conditions for issuing an EIO - Article 9(1) and (3) - Recognition of an EIO - EIO seeking to obtain traffic and location data associated with telecommunications, issued by a public prosecutor designated as ‘issuing authority’ by the national measure transposing Directive 2014/41 - Exclusive competence of the judge, in a similar domestic case, to order the investigative measure indicated in that order)

(2022/C 84/05)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main proceedings

HP

Interested party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(c)(i) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters must be interpreted as precluding a public prosecutor from having competence to issue, during the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, an European Investigation Order, within the meaning of that directive, seeking to obtain traffic and location data associated with telecommunications, where, in a similar domestic case, the judge has exclusive competence to adopt an investigative measure seeking access to such data.

2. Article 6 and Article 9(1) and (3) of Directive 2014/41 must be interpreted as meaning that recognition, on the part of the executing authority, of an European Investigation Order issued with a view to obtaining traffic and location data associated with telecommunications may not replace the requirements applicable in the issuing State, where that European Investigation Order was improperly issued by a public prosecutor, whereas, in a similar domestic case, the judge has exclusive competence to adopt an investigative measure seeking to obtain such data.

(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 July 2022 — Italian Republic (C-106/19), Comune di Milano (C-232/19) v Council of the European Union, European Parliament

(Joined Cases C-106/19 and C-232/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the institutions - Regulation (EU) 2018/1718 - Location of the seat of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in Amsterdam (Netherlands) - Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Locus standi - Direct and individual concern - Decision adopted by the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States in the margins of a Council meeting in order to determine the location of the seat of an EU agency - Absence of binding effects in the EU legal order - Prerogatives of the European Parliament)

(2022/C 340/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by C. Colelli, S. Fiorentino and G. Galluzzo, avvocati dello Stato) (C-106/19), Comune di Milano (represented by: J. Alberti, M. Condinanzi, A. Neri and F. Sciaudone, avvocati) (C-232/19)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, J. Bauerschmidt, F. Florindo Gijón and E. Rebasti, Agents), European Parliament (represented by: I. Anagnostopoulou, A. Tamás and L. Visaggio, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, Agents), European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, D. Nardi and P.J.O. Van Nuffel, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders the Italian Republic, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own costs in Case C-106/19;

3. Orders the Comune di Milano, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own costs in Case C-232/19;

4. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
—

from 2010 up to 2012 and from 2014 up to 2017 inclusive, in zone IT1914 (industrial zones), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe and, by failing to adopt as from 11 June 2010 appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in all those zones and, in particular, by failing to ensure that the air quality plans provide for appropriate measures to ensure that the period of exceedance of that limit value is kept as short as possible, has failed to meet its obligations under Article 23(1) of that directive, on its own and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to the directive.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — ZM, in his capacity as liquidator in the insolvency of Oeltrans Befrachtungsgesellschaft mbH v E.A. Frerichs

(Case C-73/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Article 4 - Law applicable to insolvency proceedings - Law of the Member State within the territory of which the proceedings are opened - Article 13 - Acts detrimental to all the creditors - Exception - Conditions - Act subject to the law of a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings - Act which is not open to challenge on the basis of that law - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Law applicable to contractual obligations - Article 12(1)(b) - Scope of the law applicable to the contract - Performance of the obligations arising from the contract - Payment made in performance of a contract subject to the law of a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings - Performance by a third party - Action for repayment of that payment in insolvency proceedings - Law applicable to that payment)

(2021/C 228/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: ZM, in his capacity as liquidator in the insolvency of Oeltrans Befrachtungsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant in the appeal on a point of law: E.A. Frerichs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings and Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) must be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to the contract under the latter regulation also governs the payment made by a third party in performance of a contracting party’s contractual payment obligation where, in insolvency proceedings, that payment is challenged as an act detrimental to all the creditors.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ordine Nazionale dei Biologi, MX, NY, OZ v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-96/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public health - Article 168 TFEU - Directive 2002/98/EC - Standards of quality and safety of human blood and of blood components - Objective of ensuring a high level of protection of human health - Article 4(2) and Article 9(2) - Blood establishments - Responsible person - Minimum conditions of qualification - Option for a Member State to provide for a more stringent regime - Discretion afforded to the Member States)

(2021/C 182/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ordine Nazionale dei Biologi, MX, NY, OZ

Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

intervening parties: Sds Snabi, Agenzia Regionale Protezione Ambiente (ARPA)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2)(a) of Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that only individuals holding a degree in medicine and in surgery may be designated as the responsible person of a blood establishment, provided that that legislation complies with EU law in all aspects.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — BY, CX, FU, DW, EV v Stadt Duisburg

(Case C-194/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Articles 6 and 7 - Legal employment - Article 9 - Access to education for children of a Turkish worker - Right of residence - Refusal)

(2021/C 289/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BY, CX, FU, DW, EV

Defendant: Stadt Duisburg

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be relied on by Turkish children whose parents do not satisfy the conditions laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of that decision.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — F. v Stadt Karlsruhe

(Case C-47/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Driving licences - Withdrawal of the licence in the territory of a Member State other than the issuing Member State - Renewal of the licence by the issuing Member State after the withdrawal decision - No automaticity of mutual recognition)

(2021/C 278/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F.

Defendant: Stadt Karlsruhe

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, in the territory of which the holder of a driving licence in categories A and B issued by another Member State has been deprived of the right to drive on account of unlawful conduct, which occurred during a temporary stay in that territory after the issue of the licence, from subsequently refusing to recognise the validity of that driving licence, after that licence has been renewed, pursuant to Article 7(3) of that directive, by the Member State where the holder of that licence normally resides, within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 12 of that directive. It is, however, for the referring court to examine whether, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the rules, provided for by the legislation of the first Member State, laying down the conditions with which the holder of the driving licence must comply in order to recover the right to drive in its territory, do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to attain the objective pursued by Directive 2006/126, consisting in improving road safety.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
3.

The fact that, pursuant to a convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the Member State of residence and the Member State of employment, the taxpayer concerned has, in connection with the taxing of income that he or she received in the second Member State, enjoyed tax advantages under the tax legislation of it, is of no relevance to the answer to the first question referred, since neither that convention nor the tax legislation of the Member State of residence provide for those advantages to be taken into account and since the latter do not include some of the advantages to which the taxpayer is in principle entitled in the Member State of residence.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 June 2021 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission, Czech Republic

(Case C-153/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Lithuania - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Administrative checks - On-the-spot check - Quality of checks - Quality of the applicants - Artificial conditions - Expenditure incurred through projects)

(2021/C 310/08)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Dzikovič and K. Dieninio, acting as agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and A. Steiblytė, acting as agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil, acting as agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
1.

Article 40(2) and (3) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘new elements or findings’ which ‘have arisen or been presented by the applicant’, within the meaning of that provision, includes elements or findings which arose after the final closure of the procedure concerning the earlier application for international protection as well as elements or findings which already existed before the closure of that procedure but which were not relied on by the applicant.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peek & Cloppenburg KG, legally represented by Peek & Cloppenburg Düsseldorf Komplementär BV v Peek & Cloppenburg KG, legally represented by Van Graaf Management GmbH

(Case C-371/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Commercial practices deemed to be unfair in all circumstances - Misleading commercial practices - First sentence of point 11 of Annex I - Advertising campaigns - Use of editorial content in the media to promote a product - Promotion financed by the trader itself - Concept of ‘payment’ - Promotion of sales of the products of the media operator company and of the trader - Advertorial)

(2021/C 462/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, legally represented by Peek & Cloppenburg Düsseldorf Komplementär BV

Defendant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, legally represented by Van Graaf Management GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of point 11 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the promotion of a product by the publication of editorial content is ‘paid for’ by a trader, within the meaning of that provision, in the case where that trader provides consideration with an asset value for that publication, whether in the form of payment of a sum of money or in any other form, provided that there is a definite link between the payment thus made by that trader and that publication. That will, inter alia, be the case where that trader makes available, free of charge, images protected by copyright on which are visible the commercial premises and products which it offers for sale.

(1) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Járásbíróság — Hungary) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and enforcement of a financial penalty imposed on LU

(Case C-136/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA - Enforcement of financial penalties - Principle of mutual recognition - Article 5(1) - Offences giving rise to the recognition and enforcement of penalty decisions without verification of the double criminality of the act - Article 5(3) - Offences in respect of which the Member State has the option of making the recognition and enforcement of penalty decisions subject to the double criminality of the act - Verification by the executing Member State of the legal characterisation given to the offence by the issuing Member State in the certificate accompanying the penalty decision)

(2021/C 490/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Zalaegerszegi Járásbíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: LU

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the authority of the executing State, apart from where one of the grounds for non-recognition or non-execution expressly provided for in that framework decision apply, may not, in principle, refuse to recognise and execute a decision imposing a final financial penalty where the authority of the issuing State has classified the offence in question, in the certificate provided for in Article 4 of that framework decision, as falling within one of the categories of offences in respect of which Article 5(1) of that framework decision does not provide for verification of the double criminality of the act.

(1) OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
1.

Article 7(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, in order for there to have been a declining of jurisdiction, within the meaning of Article 6(a) of that regulation, in favour of the courts of the Member State whose law was chosen by the deceased, it is not necessary for the court previously seised to have expressly declined jurisdiction, but that intention must be unequivocally apparent from the decision that it delivered in that regard.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ferrari SpA v Mansory Design Holding GmbH, WH

(Case C-123/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community designs - Articles 4, 6 and 11 - Infringement proceedings - Unregistered Community design - Appearance of a part of a product - Conditions for protection - Component part of a complex product - Individual character - Act of making available to the public)

(2022/C 2/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferrari SpA

Defendant: Mansory Design Holding GmbH, WH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the making available to the public of images of a product, such as the publication of photographs of a car, entails the making available to the public of a design of a part of that product, within the meaning of Article 3(a) of that regulation, or of a component part of that product, as a complex product, within the meaning of Article 3(c) and Article 4(2) of that regulation, provided that the appearance of that part or component part is clearly identifiable at the time the design is made available.

In order for it to be possible to examine whether that appearance satisfies the condition of individual character referred to in Article 6(1) of that regulation, it is necessary that the part or component part in question constitute a visible section of the product or complex product, clearly defined by particular lines, contours, colours, shapes or texture.

(1) OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — F.C.I. v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-244/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 3(2) - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Survivors’ benefits - Survivor’s pension based on a de facto partnership - Exclusion clause - Validity - Prohibition of any discrimination based on sex - Benefit which does not come within the scope of Directive 79/7 - Inadmissibility - Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Non-discrimination on grounds of sex - Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to property - Legal situation which does not come within the scope of EU law - Lack of jurisdiction)

(2021/C 502/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Appelant: F.C.I.

Respondent: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia, Spain) is inadmissible;

2. The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the second to fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (High Court of Justice of Catalonia).

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.