ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 11 August 2020 — B v Udlændingenævnet

(Case C-379/20)

(2020/C 348/16)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B

Defendant: Udlændingenævnet

Question referred

Does Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 (1) on the development of the Association, which is linked to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC (2) of 23 December 1963, preclude the introduction and application of a new national measure under which family reunification between an economically active Turkish national who is lawfully resident in the Member State in question and that person’s child who is 15 years of age is subject to the condition that very specific grounds, including the consideration of family unity and the consideration of the best interests of the child, support such reunification?

(1) Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families (OJ 1983 C 110, p. 60).

(2) 64/732/EEC: Council Decision of 23 December 1963 on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (OJ 1964 217, p. 3685).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 24 July 2020 — Bank Sepah v Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited

(Case C-340/20)

(2020/C 339/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bank Sepah

Defendants: Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited

Other party: Procureur général près la Cour de cassation

Questions referred

1. Are Article 1(h) and (j) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, (1) Article 1(i) and (h) and Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (2) and Article 1(k) and (j) and Article 23(1) of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (3) to be interpreted as precluding a measure with no earmarking effect, such as a judicial lien or preventive attachment, provided for in the French Code of Civil Enforcement Proceedings, from being implemented, without prior authorisation from the competent national authority, in respect of frozen assets?

2. Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that the grounds for the claim to be recovered from the person or entity whose assets are frozen are unrelated to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic programme and pre-date United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 (2006) of 23 December 2006?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 11 September 2020 by Solar Ileias Bompaina AE against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2020 in Case T-143/19, Solar Ileias Bompaina v Commission

(Case C-429/20 P)

(2020/C 359/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Solar Ileias Bompaina AE (represented by: A. Metaxas, dikigoros, A. Bartosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order under appeal;

— declare the application to be admissible and refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on two grounds.

First, the General Court carried out an erroneous legal analysis of the facts underlying the application, which results from the Court ignoring the contents of the complaint lodged by the appellant despite the fact that it had understood these contents perfectly well.

Second, the General Court applied a likewise erroneous standard of proof.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 September 2020 — Criminal proceedings against MM

(Case C-414/20)

(2020/C 390/31)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

MM

Questions referred

Is a national law which provides that the European arrest warrant and the national decision on the basis of which that warrant has been issued are to be adopted only by the public prosecutor, and does not permit the court to participate in or to exercise prior or subsequent review, consistent with Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584?

Is a European arrest warrant which has been issued on the basis of the order for the requested person to be put under investigation, and that order does not involve his detention, consistent with Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584?

If the answer is in the negative: if, where a court has not participated in the issue of the European arrest warrant, or in the review of its legality and that warrant has been issued on the basis of a national decision which does not provide for the detention of the requested person, that European arrest warrant is in fact executed and the requested person is surrendered, should the requested person be granted an effective remedy in the same criminal proceedings as those during which that European arrest warrant was issued? Should the effective remedy involve placing the requested person in the situation in which he would have been if the infringement had not taken place?
1.

Must Articles 63(1) and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the levying of inheritance tax which provides that, for the calculation of the tax, the allowance to be set against the taxable value in the case of an acquisition of land situated in that Member State is lower where the deceased and the heir had their place of residence or habitual residence in another Member State at the time of the death of the deceased than the allowance that would have been applicable if at least one of them had had his or her place of residence or habitual residence in the first Member State at that time?
1.

Must, or may, Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that, under the said provision, in view of its use of the expression ‘are used’, the right to deduct VAT cannot be refused in respect of a transaction that falls within the scope of the VAT Directive on the grounds that, in the opinion of the tax authorities, the service provided by the person issuing the invoice in the course of a transaction between independent parties is not ‘beneficial’ to the taxable activities of the recipient of the invoice, in that: — the value of the service (advertising) provided by the person issuing the invoice is disproportionate to the benefit (sales revenue/increase in sales revenue) which the service generates for the recipient; or — the said service (advertising) has not generated any sales revenue for the recipient?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 September 2020 — Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Kiel

(Case C-427/20)

(2020/C 414/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Kiel

Question referred

Is there an infringement of EU law, which is a condition for entitlement to interest under EU law as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, where a Member State authority imposes a duty in breach of legally valid provisions of EU law and a Member State court makes a finding of that infringement of EU law?
In the event that the second question is answered in the negative:

Does the ‘point of view of the average consumer’, which, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is an essential element of the principle of fiscal neutrality, constitute a ‘conceptual perspective’ not amenable to the gathering of evidence based on expert opinion?
1.

Does the requirement under EU law for Member States to repay, with interest, duties levied in breach of EU law also apply where the reason for the repayment is not a finding by the Court of Justice of the European Union that a provision of EU law has been breached, but that the Court of Justice has interpreted a (sub)heading of the Combined Nomenclature?
(1)

the General Court erred in law in applying the provisions of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and infringed the principle of retroactive application of the less severe penalty by holding that the appellant had committed a breach in respect of its Pillar 3 disclosures and its COREP statement for the second quarter of 2016;
Action brought on 12 October 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-510/20)

(2020/C 433/48)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and Ivan Zalogin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) and Article 17(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/56/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy;

— order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria, in breach of the abovementioned provisions of Directive 2008/56/EC, has failed to send to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the mandatory updates of (i) the initial assessment of the status of the marine environment, (ii) the determination of good environmental status and (iii) the environmental targets.

(1) OJ 2008 L 164, p. 19.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 13 October 2020 — P v Swiss International Air Lines AG

(Case C-512/20)

(2020/C 443/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P

Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

Question referred

Does Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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, having regard to Article 15 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 21 June 1999 (2) and Decisions No 1/2006 (3) and No 1/2017 (4) of the Committee, in the case of directly connecting flights, where, between the departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and the arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State there is a planned stopover in Switzerland and a change of aircraft, also apply to the directly connecting flight departing from Switzerland and bound for a third country?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2002 L 114, p. 73.

(3) 2006/727/EC: Decision No 1/2006 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of 18 October 2006 amending the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (OJ 2006 L 298, p. 23).

(4) Decision No 1/2017 of the Joint European Union/Switzerland Air Transport Committee set up under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 29 November 2017 replacing the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (OJ 2017 L 348, p. 46).
—

Must Articles 4(1.1), 7(4) and 8 of Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure equipment (OJ 1997 L 181), read in combination with Annex I to that Directive, be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national regulations, such as the contested paragraphs 1.2.4, P9.5.6.9 and P9.5.8.2 of the Greek Technical Regulation for Gas Installations with an operating pressure of up to 0.5 bar, which impose conditions and restrictions as to the installation method used for pressure equipment (gas pipes), such as compulsory ventilation and a ban on underfloor pipe lines, in order to protect persons, primarily from earthquakes, especially where those conditions and restrictions also apply indiscriminately to pipes which, as in this case, have the CE marking and which the manufacturer guarantees can be safely installed and used without complying with the abovementioned conditions and restrictions?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 7 April 2020 by Jean Whitehead and David Evans against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2020 in Case T-541/19, Shindler and Others v Council

(Case C-158/20 P)

(2021/C 9/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Jean Whitehead, David Evans (represented by: J. Fouchet, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Harry Shindler, Douglas Edward Watson, David Maxwell Anstead, Ross Adrian Bailey

By order of 1 October 2020 the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 23 April 2020 — SC Novart Engineering SRL v Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială Municipiul Tulcea

(Case C-170/20)

(2021/C 9/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Novart Engineering SRL

Defendant: Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială Municipiul Tulcea

By order of 12 November 2020, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared the request for a preliminary ruling manifestly inadmissible.
Action brought on 23 October 2020 — Republic of Malta v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-552/20)

(2021/C 19/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar, Agent, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, J. Sedano Lorenzo, abogados)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation 1071/2009 (1) and Article 8(2a) of Regulation 1072/2009 (2), as amended by Articles 1 and 2, respectively, of Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector.

— Order the European Parliament and the Council to pay the Applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the Republic of Malta seeks the annulment of the contested measures on the following grounds.

First plea in law, requesting that the Court declares the annulment of Article 1(3) of Regulation 2020/1055 (the ‘Return-Home of Vehicles’ rule), inasmuch it

— Infringes Article 91(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 11 TFEU and Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, given its enactment with disregard of environmental impact considerations and its serious effects on transport operations.

— Infringes Article 5(4) TEU and the principle of proportionality, as it is not the least restrictive measure and causes a disproportionate harm in terms of a costs versus benefits from an environmental and transport operations perspective.

Second plea in law, requesting that the Court declares the annulment of Article 2(4)(a) of Regulation 2020/1055 (‘Cabotage Cooling-Off Period’ rule), inasmuch it

— Infringes Article 91(2) TFEU due to the defendants’ neglect of the measure’s serious impact on transport operations.

— Infringes Article 5(4) TEU and the principle of proportionality, as it severely restricts the ability of haulers to arrange their logistics and ensure a smooth running of their fleets.

— Infringes Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the principle of equal-treatment, for not taking into account the singularities of an insular Member State and of its market of transport of goods without any objective justification.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (OJ 2009, L 300, p. 51).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (OJ 2009, L 300, p. 72).

(3) OJ 2020, L 249, p. 17.
4.

If Question 3 is answered in the negative: Must Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC be interpreted as meaning that accommodation in a ‘specialised detention facility’ for detainees awaiting removal exists if a prison facility sets up a specific division as a detention facility, if that division operates for detainees awaiting removal a specific area with three buildings within the perimeter fence and one of those three buildings temporarily solely houses prisoners serving custodial sentences for default of payment of a fine or short custodial sentences, where the prison facility takes care to ensure detainees awaiting removal are separated from prisoners and where, in particular, every house has its own facilities (its own clothing store, medical facilities, gym) and, while the yard/outside space is visible from all houses, each house has its own area for use by the detainees which is fenced off with a wire-mesh fence that prevents direct access between houses?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — AP v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-529/20)

(2021/C 28/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AP

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

(1) 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
1.

Do Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter preclude an interpretation of a rule of national law such as Paragraph 7(3) of the German Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal Law on leave; ‘the BUrIG’) according to which the as yet unexercised entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker who suffers, on health grounds, a full reduction of earning capacity in the course of the leave year, but who could still have taken — at least some of — the leave in the leave year before the onset of his reduction of earning capacity, lapses 15 months after the end of the leave year in the event of a continuing uninterrupted reduction of earning capacity even if the employer has not actually enabled the worker to exercise his leave entitlement by informing him of the leave concerned and inviting him to take it?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 30 April 2020 by Tiziano Vizzone against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2020 in Case T-658/19 Vizzone v Commission

(Case C-191/20 P)

(2021/C 28/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Tiziano Vizzone (represented by: M. Bettani, S. Brovelli)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 25 November 2020, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered Mr Tiziano Vizzone to bear his own costs.
—

First, in paragraphs 125, 183 to 187, 228, 242, 243 and 249 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court misinterprets the Decision by concluding that the primary finding of advantage relied solely on the lack of employees and physical presence in the head offices of ASI and AOE and did not attempt to show that the Irish branches of ASI and AOE in fact performed functions justifying the allocation of the Apple IP licences to those branches. Recitals 281 to 305 of the Decision analyse the actual functions performed both by the head offices and by the Irish branches to justify the allocation of the Apple IP licences to the Irish branches. The General Court’s failure to properly consider the structure and content of the Decision and the explanations in the Commission’s written submissions on the functions performed by the head offices and the Irish branches is a breach of procedure. The General Court’s subsequent acknowledgement, in paragraphs 268 to 283, 286 and 287 of the Judgment, that the Decision examines the functions performed by the Irish branches in justifying the attribution of the Apple IP licences to them constitutes contradictory reasoning, which amounts to a failure to state reasons.
1.

Is the requirement of the clarity and the foreseeability of the circumstances in which concealments in returns relating to VAT payable may be the subject of a duplication of proceedings and penalties of a criminal nature satisfied by national rules such as those described [in the request for a preliminary ruling]?
1.

Must Article 29(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 143(1)(b), (e) or (f) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the buyer and the seller are deemed to be related persons in cases where, as in the present case, in the absence of documents (official data) proving business partnership or control, the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of transactions are, however, on the basis of objective evidence, characteristic, not of the performance of economic activities under normal conditions, but rather of cases in which (1) there are particularly close business relations based on a high level of mutual trust between the parties to the transaction, or (2) one party to the transaction controls the other or both parties to the transaction are controlled by a third party?