ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 October 2020 — RR and JG, applicants in the context of criminal proceedings

(Case C-505/20)

(2021/C 9/15)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Applicants in the context of criminal proceedings

RR and JG

Questions referred

Does Article 8 of Directive 2014/42 (1) preclude a national law pursuant to which a person whose property has been seized as an alleged instrumentality or as alleged proceeds of a criminal offence and has been frozen is not entitled to apply to the court during the trial stage of the criminal proceedings for the return of that property?

Is a national law which does not permit the confiscation of an ‘instrumentality’ which is the property of a third party who is not involved in the criminal offence but who has made that property available to the accused for the latter’s permanent use in such a way that, from the perspective of the relationship between them, it is the accused who exercises the rights of ownership, in line with Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/42 in conjunction with Article 2(3) thereof and Article 17 of the Charter?

If the [second] question is answered in the negative: Do the second sentence of Article 8(6) and Article 8(7) of Directive 2014/42 establish an obligation to interpret the national law as granting a third party whose property has been frozen and may be confiscated as an instrumentality the right to participate in the proceedings which may result in confiscation and to challenge the confiscation decision in court?

(1) Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39).
(4)

Do the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and practical effect of EU law, with regard to the Framework Agreement, and the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in clause 4 thereof, preclude national legislation (Article 24(3)(a) of Law No 240/2010 and Article 29(2)(d) and (4) of Legislative Decree No 81/2015) which — notwithstanding the existence of rules applicable to all public-sector and private-sector workers recently set out in Legislative Decree No 81 which establish (from 2018) that the maximum duration of a fixed-term relationship is 24 months (including extensions and renewals) and make the use of fixed-term relationships by the public authorities contingent on the existence of ‘temporary and exceptional requirements’ — allows universities to hire researchers on a three-year fixed-term contract, which may be extended for two years in the event of a favourable assessment of the research and teaching activities carried out during those three years, without making either the conclusion of the initial contract or its extension conditional on the university having such temporary or exceptional requirements, and even allowing it, at the end of the five-year period, to enter into another fixed-term contract of the same type with the same individuals or with other individuals, in order to cover the same teaching and research requirements as those of the earlier contract?
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, laid down in Article 18 TFEU and in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of the principle of equality of Member States before the Treaties, laid down in Article 4(2) TEU, and, in so far as the Court considers it necessary, of Article 95(1) TFEU.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — NovaText GmbH v Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

(Case C-531/20)

(2021/C 28/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: NovaText GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Question referred

Are Article 3(1) and Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation imposing an obligation on the unsuccessful party to reimburse the costs incurred by the successful party for assistance by a patent lawyer in proceedings brought under trade mark law, whether or not the patent lawyer’s assistance was necessary for the purpose of appropriate legal action?

(1) Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2020 — HU v Wallonische Region

(Case C-43/20)

(2021/C 19/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HU

Defendant: Wallonische Region

Questions referred

1. Does national legislation which, as applied by the authorities, makes the use without any re-registration requirement of a foreign vehicle provided occasionally and for short periods of time to a citizen resident in Belgium by a citizen established in a different Member State contingent upon the citizen resident in Belgium carrying in the vehicle the private attestation of permission to use the vehicle, that is, an attestation within the meaning of Article 3(2), point 6, of the Royal Decree of 20 July 2001 on the registration of vehicles, conflict with the relevant provisions of EU law, in particular Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on freedom of movement, Article 45 TFEU (freedom of movement for workers), Article 49 TFEU (freedom of establishment) and Article 56 TFEU (freedom to provide services)?

2. Is national legislation, as described above and applied by the Walloon Region, justified by requirements of public security or other protective measures and is compliance with the national legislation, interpreted as meaning that a document issued by the foreign owner of the vehicle granting permission to use the vehicle for a limited and specified period of time must be carried in the vehicle, necessary in order to attain the objective pursued or could the objective have been attained by other, less strict and formalistic means?

By order of 10 September 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) ruled as follows:

Article 63(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State according to which a person residing in that Member State may rely on a derogation from the requirement to register vehicles laid down in that Member State, in respect of a vehicle registered in another Member State and made available to that person free of charge, for short periods of time, by the owner of that vehicle who resides in that other Member State, only where the documents attesting that the person concerned fulfils the conditions for that derogation are carried in the vehicle at all times, with no possibility of providing those documents subsequently.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 19 November 2020 by International Management Group (IMG) against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2020 in Case T-645/19, IMG v Commission

(Case C-619/20 P)

(2021/C 28/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: International Management Group (IMG) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the General Court of 9 September 2020 in Case T-645/19;

— consequently, refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the application for annulment and the claim for damages;

— order the defendant to pay all of the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant submits that, in the order under appeal, the General Court committed an error of law by taking the view that the letter of 18 July 2019 is not a challengeable act.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 9 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-535/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-308/20 P)

(2021/C 35/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (represented by: P. Lange, A. Auler, M. Wenz and C. Möller, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg

By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 9 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-445/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-307/20 P)

(2021/C 35/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (represented by: P. Lange, A. Auler, M. Wenz and C. Möller, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg

By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
1.

Should Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1) be interpreted as permitting Member States, when authorising a programme or project, not to take into account their temporary, short-term impacts on surface water status which are without lasting consequences?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 12 August 2020 by eSky Group IP sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2020 in Case T-646/19, eSky Group IP v EUIPO — Gröpel (e)

(Case C-386/20 P)

(2021/C 44/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: eSky Group IP sp. z o.o. (represented by: P. Kurcman, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Gerhard Gröpel

By order of 21 October 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Cosilt — Consorzio per lo sviluppo economico locale di Tolmezzo v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

(Case C-611/20)

(2021/C 53/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cosilt — Consorzio per lo sviluppo economico locale di Tolmezzo

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Question referred

Does EU law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as that in Article 26(2) and (3) of Decree-Law No 91/2014, as converted by Law No 116/2014, which significantly reduces or delays the payment of incentives already granted by law and defined on the basis of corresponding agreements concluded by undertakings generating electrical energy by means of photovoltaic conversion with Gestore dei servizi energetici SpA, a public company responsible for that process?

In particular, is that provision of national law compatible with the general principles of EU law relating to legitimate expectation, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and effectiveness, with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and with the rules governing support schemes laid down in that directive, and with Article 216(2) TFEU, in particular in relation to the European Energy Charter Treaty?

(1) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Skatteverket v DSAB Destination Stockholm AB

(Case C-637/20)

(2021/C 53/32)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant and respondent: Skatteverket

Respondent and appellant: DSAB Destination Stockholm AB

Question referred

Must Article 30(a) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that a card, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which gives the cardholder the right to receive various services at a given place for a limited period of time and up to a certain value constitutes a voucher and, in such circumstances, constitutes a multi-purpose voucher?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the treatment of vouchers (OJ 2016 L 177, p. 9).
Appeal brought on 21 December 2020 by Intermarché Casino Achats against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-254/17, Intermarché Casino Achats v Commission

(Case C-693/20 P)

(2021/C 62/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Intermarché Casino Achats (represented by: Y. Utzschneider, J. Jourdan, C. Mussi, S. Eder, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Annul in part the judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 delivered in Case T 254/17, in so far as it dismissed in part the action brought by Intermarché Casino Achats seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 9 February 2017 taken on the basis of Article 20(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Tute 1) and in so far as it ordered the applicant to pay the costs;

— Annul Article 1(a) of the decision of the Commission of 9 February 2017 in the above case AT.40466;

— Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by rejecting the plea of illegality of Article 20(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1/2003, based on the absence of appropriate remedies against the conduct of the inspections, which is not in accordance with the requirements of an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

By its second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by determining that the documents submitted by the Commission to demonstrate the existence of solid evidence of infringement at the date of the inspection could be taken into account without complying with the formalities imposed by Regulation No 1/2003 and Regulation No 773/2004. This vitiated the General Court's conclusion that the Commission had solid evidence of the existence of the infringement referred to in Article 1(a) of the inspection decision. By refusing to annul Article 1(a) of the inspection decision, the General Court thus infringed the right to inviolability of the home enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

By its third plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by determining that the right to inviolability of the home enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights did not require the inspection decision to lay down a limit on the duration of inspections and by refusing to annul the decision on that ground.
2.

Is it in accordance with Directive 2012/34 that an infrastructure manager may at any time change prices for the use of railway infrastructure or service facilities to the detriment of freight forwarders?
1.

Is the Spanish rule on compatibility of benefits established in Article 163(1) of the [Ley General de la Seguridad Social] (General Law on Social Security), as interpreted by case-law, which prevents two permanent disability benefits awarded under the same Social Security scheme being deemed compatible, while benefits awarded under different schemes are deemed compatible, even if, in both cases, entitlement has been earned by virtue of separate contributions, contrary to the European rules established in Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, (1) and Article 5 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), (2) given that the Spanish legislation may give rise to indirect discrimination on grounds of sex or gender, having regard to gender distribution in the different Spanish Social Security schemes?
2.

Is Article 5(3) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of the Regulation, if it arrives at the passenger’s final destination after a delay of eight hours and nineteen minutes, because the aircraft was damaged by a lightning strike during the first of three preceding flights; the technician from the air carrier’s contracted maintenance company who was called in after landing found only minor damage that did not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft (‘some minor findings’); the second of three preceding flights went ahead; however, during the course of a pre-flight check before the third of three preceding flights, it emerged that the aircraft was not fit for further use for the time being; and the air carrier therefore used a replacement aircraft in place of the originally intended, damaged aircraft, which completed the third of the preceding flights with a departure delay of seven hours and forty minutes?
1.

The first ground of appeal relates to the incorrect interpretation of Articles 72 and 270 TFEU and of Article 23 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and to the finding of the General Court that the Staff Regulations constitute the sole source of law for ruling on disputes between agents and their institutions;
Appeal brought on 17 August 2020 by HZ, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of etc-gaming GmbH, and OX, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH, against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2020 in Case T-803/19, etc-gaming GmbH and Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-390/20 P)

(2021/C 88/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: HZ as liquidator in the insolvency of etc-gaming GmbH, OX as liquidator in the insolvency of Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 28 January 2021, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 31 July 2020 by AL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2020 in Case T-83/19 AL v Commission

(Case C-356/20 P)

(2021/C 128/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: AL (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By Order of 10 December 2020, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.
6.

If there was a breach of the freedom of establishment and/or of the right to free movement of capital: a) does EU law require that the domestic legislation be interpreted or disapplied in a manner which provides GL with an option to defer the payment of tax; b) if so does EU law require that the domestic legislation be interpreted or disapplied in a manner which provides GL with an option to defer the payment of tax until the assets are disposed of outside the sub-group of which the company resident in the other Member State is parent (i.e. ‘on a realization basis’) or is an option to pay tax in instalments (i.e. ‘on an instalment basis’) capable of providing a proportionate remedy; c) if, in principle, an option to pay tax by instalments is capable of being a proportionate remedy: i) is that only the case if domestic law contained the option at the time of the disposals of assets, or is it compatible with EU law for such an option to be provided by way of remedy after the event (namely for the national court to provide such an option after the event by applying a conforming construction or disapplying the legislation); ii) does EU law require national courts to provide a remedy which interferes with the relevant EU law freedom to the least possible extent, or is it sufficient for the national courts to provide a remedy which, whilst proportionate, departs from the existing national law to the minimum extent possible; iii) what period of instalments is necessary; and iv) is a remedy involving an instalment plan in which payments fall due prior to the date on which the issues between the parties are finally determined in breach of EU law, i.e. must the instalment due dates be prospective?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 26 November 2020 by CEDC International sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-796/16, CEDC International v EUIPO — Underberg

(Case C-639/20 P)

(2021/C 182/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Fijałkowski, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Underberg AG

By order of 23 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that CEDC International sp. z o.o. should bear its own costs.