ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd v An Bord Pleanála

(Case C-254/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 6(3) - Scope - Concepts of ‘project’ and ‘agreement’ - Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site - Decision extending the duration of a development consent for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal - Original decision based on national legislation which did not properly transpose Directive 92/43)

(2020/C 378/12)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd

Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

Intervening party: Shannon Lng Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

1. A decision extending the 10-year period originally set for carrying out a project for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal must be regarded as an agreement of a project under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, where the original consent, having lapsed, ceased to have legal effect on expiry of the period originally set for those works and the latter have not been undertaken;

2. It is for the competent authority to assess whether a decision extending the period originally set for carrying out a project for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal, the original consent for which has lapsed, must be preceded by the appropriate assessment of its implications under the first sentence of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 and, if so, whether that assessment must relate to the entire project or part thereof, taking into account, inter alia, previous assessments that may have been carried out and changes in the relevant environmental and scientific data as well as changes to the project and the existence of other plans or projects;

The assessment of a project’s implications must be carried out where it cannot be ruled out, having regard to the best scientific knowledge in the field, that the plan or project might affect the conservation objectives of the site. A previous assessment of that project, carried out before the original consent for the project was granted, cannot rule out that risk unless it contains full, precise and definitive conclusions capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the works, and provided that there are no changes in the relevant environmental and scientific data, no changes to the project and no other plans or projects

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
2.

Articles 3, 4(2) and 5 of Directive 93/13 are to be interpreted as meaning that contractual terms falling within the concept of ‘main subject matter of the contract’ must be understood as being those that lay down the essential obligations of that contract and which, as such, characterise it. By contrast, terms ancillary to those which define the very essence of the contractual relationship cannot fall within that concept. The fact that an arrangement fee is included in the total cost of a mortgage loan does not mean that it is an essential obligation of that loan. In any event, a court of a Member State is required to review the clarity and intelligibility of a contractual term relating to the main subject matter of the contract whether or not Article 4(2) of that directive has been transposed into the legal order of that Member State;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia — Spain) — proceedings against Asociación Nacional de Empresas Estibadoras y Consignatarios de Buques (Anesco), Comisiones Obreras, Coordinadora Estatal de Trabajadores del Mar (CETM), Confederación Intersindical Gallega, Eusko Langileen Alkartasuna, Langile Abertzaleen Batzordeak, Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT)

(Case C-462/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Meaning of ‘court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU - Criteria - Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (National Commission on Markets and Competition, Spain) - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2020/C 390/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring body

Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia

Parties to the main proceedings

Asociación Nacional de Empresas Estibadoras y Consignatarios de Buques (Anesco), Comisiones Obreras, Coordinadora Estatal de Trabajadores del Mar (CETM), Confederación Intersindical Gallega, Eusko Langileen Alkartasuna, Langile Abertzaleen Batzordeak, Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT)

Interested party: Asociación Estatal de Empresas Operadoras Portuarias (Asoport)

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (National Commission on Markets and Competition, Spain), made by decision of 12 June 2019, is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Hamas v Council of the European Union, French Republic, European Commission

(Case C-122/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Fight against terrorism - Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Conditions - Competent authority equivalent to a judicial authority - Sentencing decision - Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 390/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and K. Pavlaki, acting as Agents), French Republic, European Commission (represented initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Bouquet, J. Roberti di Sarsina, C. Zadra and A. Tizzano, subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Bouquet and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Hamas shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
1.

Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the proportionate amount to be paid by the consumer to the trader where that consumer has expressly requested that the performance of the contract concluded begin during the withdrawal period and withdraws from that contract, it is appropriate, in principle, to take account of the price agreed in the contract for the full coverage of the contract and to calculate the amount owed pro rata temporis. It is only where the contract concluded expressly provides that one or more of the services are to be provided in full from the beginning of the performance of the contract and separately, for a price which must be paid separately, that the full price for such a service should be taken into account in the calculation of the amount owed to the trader under Article 14(3) of that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Entoma SAS v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

(Case C-526/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food safety - Novel foods and novel food ingredients - Regulation (EC) No 258/97 - Article 1(2)(e) - Concept of ‘food ingredients isolated from animals’ - Placing on the market - Whole insects intended for human consumption)

(2020/C 399/27)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Entoma SAS

Defendants: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that foods consisting of whole animals intended to be consumed as such, including whole insects, do not fall within the scope of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
1.

Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 March 2019, Espírito Santo Financial Group v ECB (T-730/16, not published, EU:T:2019:161), in so far as the General Court annulled the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 31 August 2016 partially refusing to disclose certain documents relating to the ECB decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA in that, by that decision, the ECB refused to disclose the amount of credit set out in the extracts of the minutes recording the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 28 July 2014;
—

that provision does not preclude that expert from being refused recognition as a body devoted to social wellbeing, even though, first, that expert provides his or her services concerning the preparation of expert reports on care and support needs, as a subcontractor, at the request of that medical service which is recognised as such a body, second, the costs of preparing such reports are borne indirectly, on a flat-rate basis, by the care and support insurance fund concerned, and, third, that expert has the possibility, under national law, to conclude a contract relating to the preparation of those reports directly with that fund in order to be entitled to such recognition, but has not made use of that possibility.
2.

Article 8(5) and (6)(d) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, read in the light of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a patient’s Member State of affiliation from refusing to grant that patient the authorisation provided for in Article 8(1) of that directive, where hospital care, the medical effectiveness of which is not contested, is available in that Member State, although the method of treatment used is contrary to that patient’s religious beliefs, unless that refusal is objectively justified by a legitimate aim relating to maintaining treatment capacity or medical competence, and is an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim, which it is for the referring court to determine.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 September 2020 — Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda v European Commission

(Case C-623/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Decision to recover a debt - Enforcement order - Principle of res judicata - Adoption of a decision which is enforceable within the meaning of Article 299 TFEU for the recovery of grants awarded under a contract - Grant agreement concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007-2013))

(2020/C 423/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio, D. Pirra Xarepe and M. Stock da Cunha, advogados)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2020 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Ryanair DAC v DelayFix, formerly Passenger Rights

(Case C-519/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Contract of transport by air - Jurisdiction clause agreed to by the passenger as a consumer - Claim made by the passenger against the airline - Assignment of that claim to a collection agency - Enforceability of the jurisdiction clause by the airline against the assignee company of that passenger’s claim - Directive 93/13/EEC)

(2021/C 28/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ryanair DAC

Defendant: DelayFix, formerly Passenger Rights

Operative part of the judgment

Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to contest the jurisdiction of a court to hear and determine an action brought for compensation under 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 and against an airline, a jurisdiction clause incorporated in a contract of carriage concluded between a passenger and that airline cannot be enforced by the airline against a collection agency to which the passenger has assigned the claim, unless, under the legislation of the Member State whose courts are designated in that clause, that collection agency is the successor to all the initial contracting party’s rights and obligations, which it is for the referring court to determine. Where appropriate, such a clause, incorporated, without having been subject to an individual negotiation, in a contract concluded between a consumer, that is to say, the air passenger, and a seller or supplier, that is to say, the airline, and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts which have jurisdiction over the territory in which that airline is based, must be considered as being unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Sonaecom SGPS SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-42/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 4 - Concept of ‘taxable person’ - Mixed holding company - Article 17 - Right to deduct input VAT - Input VAT paid by a mixed holding company in respect of consultancy services relating to a market study with a view to the possible acquisition of shareholdings in other companies - Abandonment of proposed acquisition - Input VAT paid on a bank commission for organising and putting together a bond loan, intended to provide subsidiaries with the necessary means to make investments - Investments not made)

(2021/C 19/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sonaecom SGPS SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 17(1), (2) and (5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that a mixed holding company whose involvement in the management of its subsidiaries is recurrent is entitled to deduct the input value added tax paid on the purchase of consultancy services relating to a market study carried out with a view to acquiring shares in another company, including where that acquisition did not ultimately take place.

2. Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 17(1),(2) and (5) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that a mixed holding company whose involvement in the management of its subsidiaries is recurrent is not entitled to deduct input value added tax paid on the commission paid to a credit institution for organising and putting together a bond loan, which was intended for making investments in a given sector, where those investments did not ultimately take place and the capital obtained by means of that loan was paid in full to the parent company of the group in the form of a loan.

(1) OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Banca B. SA v A.A.A.

(Case C-269/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consequences of a term being found to be unfair - Replacement of the unfair term - Method for calculating the variable interest rate - Whether permissible - Referral of the parties to negotiations)

(2021/C 35/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Banca B. SA

Respondent: A.A.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, after terms establishing the mechanism for determining the variable interest rate in a loan agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings have been found to be unfair, and when that contract cannot continue to exist following the removal of the unfair terms in question, annulment of the contract would have particularly unfavourable consequences for the consumer and there are no supplementary provisions under national law, the national court must, while taking into account all of its national law, take all the measures necessary to protect the consumer from the particularly unfavourable consequences which could result from annulment of the loan agreement in question. In circumstances such as those in question in the main proceedings, nothing precludes the national court from, inter alia, inviting the parties to negotiate with the aim of establishing the method for calculating the interest rate, provided that that court sets out the framework for those negotiations and that those negotiations seek to establish an effective balance between the rights and obligations of the parties taking into account in particular the objective of consumer protection underlying Directive 93/13.

(1) OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Wikingerhof GmbH & Co. KG v Booking.com BV

(Case C-59/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction - Article 7, points 1 and 2 - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Action seeking an injunction against commercial practices considered to be contrary to competition law - Allegation of abuse of a dominant position occurring in commercial practices covered by contractual provisions - Online accommodation booking platform booking.com)

(2021/C 35/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Wikingerhof GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Booking.com BV

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as applying to an action seeking an injunction against certain practices implemented in the context of the contractual relationship between the applicant and the defendant, based on an allegation of abuse of a dominant position by the latter in breach of competition law.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
2.

Articles 18 and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where the Member State of which the person requested for extradition is a national, that person being a Union citizen who is the subject of an extradition request sent, by a third State, to another Member State, has been informed by that other Member State of the existence of the request, neither of those Member States is obliged to ask the third State requesting extradition to send to them a copy of the criminal investigation file in order to enable the Member State of which that person is a national to assess the possibility that it might itself conduct a criminal prosecution of that person. Provided that it has duly informed the Member State of which that person is a national of the existence of the extradition request, of all the elements of fact and law communicated by the third State requesting extradition within the framework of that request, and of any changes in the situation of the requested person that might be relevant to the possibility of issuing a European arrest warrant with respect to him or her, the Member State from which extradition is requested may extradite that person without being obliged to wait for the Member State of which that person is a national to waive, by a formal decision, the issue of such an arrest warrant, concerning, at least, the same offences as those referred to in the extradition request, where the latter Member State fails to issue such an arrest warrant before the expiry of a reasonable time limit imposed on it for that purpose by the Member State from which extradition is requested, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — Inpost Paczkomaty sp. z o.o. (C-431/19 P), Inpost S.A. (C-432/19 P) v European Commission, Republic of Poland

(Joined Cases C-431/19 P and C-432/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 106(2) TFEU - Services of general economic interest (SGEIs) - European Union framework - Application to State aid in the form of public service compensation - Postal sector - Directive 97/67/EC - Article 7 - Compensation of the net costs resulting from universal service obligations - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market)

(2021/C 53/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellants: Inpost Paczkomaty sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Doktór, radca prawny (C-431/19 P)), Inpost S.A (represented by: W. Knopkiewicz, radca prawny (C-432/19 P))

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, K. Blanck and K Herrmann, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Inpost Paczkomaty sp. z o.o. and Inpost S.A. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.