ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought on 17 August 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 June 2022 in Case T-481/17 Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v SRB

(Case C-551/22 P)

(2022/C 389/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis, P. Němečková and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno, Stiftung für Forschung und Lehre (SFL), Single Resolution Board (SRB), Kingdom of Spain, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Banco Santander, S.A.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL — Stiftung für Forschung und Lehre (SFL) v Single Resolution Board (T-481/17, EU: T:2022:311), in so far as the General Court found the action for annulment at first instance to be admissible;

— declare the action for annulment brought in case T-481/17 at first instance inadmissible, and, consequently, dismiss it in its entirety; and

— order Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL, Stiftung für Forschung und Lehre (SFL) (applicants at first instance) to pay the costs incurred by the Commission both in the proceedings before the General Court and in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises three grounds of appeal and submits that the General Court made the following errors of law:

— error in the interpretation of Article 263, paragraph 4, TFEU and article 18, paragraph 7, of the Regulation on the Single Resolution Mechanism, (1) in so far as it treats the resolution scheme as a challengeable act (first ground of appeal),

— error in the interpretation of article 263, paragraph 4, TFEU and infringement of the rights of the defence of the Commission, as regards the omission to address the action for annulment against the author of the legally binding final act (second ground of appeal), and,

— contradictory reasoning in the judgment under appeal, resulting from the decision, by the General Court, to find the action for annulment against the contested resolution scheme to be admissible, while the General Court concludes that said resolution scheme only enters into force and produces binding legal effects through the Commission’s decision (third ground of appeal).

(1) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).
3.

Does the liability waiver set out in Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC apply to the provider of an information gathering service, and selection from it by means of a search engine, in terms of liability for the manner of its provision, if that manner encourages the service recipient to store the information on it without the consent of the copyright holders, but without the active participation of the service provider in the copyright infringement?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2022 — VT, UR v Conny GmbH

(Case C-400/22)

(2022/C 408/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: VT, UR

Respondent: Conny GmbH

Question referred

Is it compatible with the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) if a national provision (in the present case, Paragraph 312j(3), second sentence, and (4) of the BGB in the version in force from 13 June 2014 to 27 May 2022) is to be interpreted as meaning that its scope, like that of the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU, also covers a case in which the consumer is not unconditionally obliged to pay the trader at the time of the conclusion of the contract by electronic means, but only under certain further conditions — for example, exclusively in the event that a legal action which the trader has been instructed to bring is subsequently successful, or in the event that formal notice is subsequently given to a third party?

(1) 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 (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).
2.

Are Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 49 and 119 TFEU, and Article 3 of Directive 2009/54/EC on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (1) to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national legislation, such as those at issue in the main proceedings and mentioned above, which introduce an unjustified restriction on the freedom to conduct a business, including the freedom of establishment?
Appeal brought on 27 September 2022 by RT France against the judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber) delivered on 27 July 2022 in Case T-125/22, RT France v Council

(Case C-620/22 P)

(2022/C 432/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: RT France (represented by: E. Piwnica, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Estonia, Republic of France, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Republic of Poland, European Commission, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 July 2022 in Case T-125/22 RT France v Council;

— order the Council of the European Union to bear all the costs;

with all the legal consequences which that entails.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court infringed the provisions of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in holding that — in order to conclude that there was no infringement of RT France’s right to be heard — the EU authorities were not required to hear the appellant prior to the initial inclusion of its name on the lists in question on account of the highly exceptional context in which the measures at issue were adopted and of the objective pursued by the Council.

The appellant claims that the General Court failed to comply with the provisions of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and distorted the evidence before it by holding that the appellant had not been able to show that the outcome of the procedure might have been different if it had been heard prior to the adoption of the measures at issue or if the grounds for the application of those measures had been disclosed to it beforehand.

Furthermore, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and submits that the General Court distorted the evidence before it in finding that, in order to acknowledge the restriction of the appellant’s freedom of expression, the restrictive measure at issue is necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objectives it pursued.

According to the appellant, the General Court also infringed the provisions of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in relying on the provisional nature of the restrictions imposed on the appellant and the lack of evidence of its financial viability in order to hold that the restrictive measure at issue was not disproportionate.

Finally, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and submits that the General Court distorted the evidence before it in finding that the applicant had not been subject to any discrimination.
2.

Are Articles 3(1), 6(1) and 7(1) and (2), and 8 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality, and the right to be heard by a court, to be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation under which the entry of an unfair term in the register of unlawful terms renders that term unfair in any proceedings involving a consumer, including: — in respect of a seller or supplier other than that against which proceedings for entry of an unfair term in the register of unlawful terms were under way, — in respect of a term which is not linguistically identical but which has the same meaning and produces the same effect vis-à-vis the consumer?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by FZ and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-618/20, FZ and Others v Commission

(Case C-172/22 P)

(2022/C 441/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: FZ and Others (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 5 October 2022, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol (Austria) lodged on 19 September 2022 — Umweltverband WWF Österreich and Others v Tiroler Landesregierung

(Case C-601/22)

(2022/C 441/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Umweltverband WWF Österreich, ÖKOBÜRO — Allianz der Umweltbewegung, Naturschutzbund Österreich, Umweltdachverband, Wiener Tierschutzverein

Defendant: Tiroler Landesregierung

Questions referred

1. Does Article 12 in conjunction with Annex IV to Directive 92/43/EEC, (1) as most recently amended by Directive 2013/17/EU, (2) according to which wolves are covered by the system of strict protection, exempting populations in several Member States, while no such exemption has been provided for Austria, infringe the ‘principle of equal treatment of Member States’ enshrined in Article 4(2) TEU?

2. Is Article 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, as most recently amended by Directive 2013/17/EU, according to which a derogation from the system of strict protection of wolves is only permitted if, inter alia, the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned with a ‘favourable conservation status’ in their ‘natural range’, to be interpreted as meaning that the favourable conservation status must be maintained or restored not in relation to the territory of a Member State, but to the natural range of a population, which may encompass a significantly larger, cross-border biogeographical region?

3. Is Article 16(1)(b) of Directive 92/43/EEC, as most recently amended by Directive 2013/17/EU, to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to direct damage caused by a particular wolf, ‘serious damage’ also encompasses indirect (future) ‘economic’ damage that cannot be attributed to a particular wolf?

4. Is Article 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, as most recently amended by Directive 2013/17/EU, to be interpreted as meaning that ‘satisfactory alternatives’ are to be examined purely on the basis of actual feasibility or also on the basis of economic criteria, given the prevailing topographical, alpine farming and business conditions in the Province of Tyrol?

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

(2) Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of environment, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193).
2.

Must Article 68(4) of the Association Agreement, having regard to its wording and to its purpose and nature, be interpreted as having direct effect, so that persons to whom that provision applies are entitled to rely on it directly before the Member States’ courts to have rules of national law which are contrary to it disapplied? If so,
3.

Having regard to Article 47 of the Charter, must Article 10(1) of Directive 2003/109 be interpreted as meaning that, where a court of a Member State rules on the legality of the opinion of the specialised authority which is based on grounds relating to confidential or classified information and on the legality of the substantive immigration decision adopted on the basis of that opinion, it must have jurisdiction to examine the legality of the confidentiality (its necessity and proportionality) and, if it considers that the confidentiality is unlawful, to order, of its own motion, that the person concerned and his or her legal representative may know and use all the information on which the opinion and the decision issued by the administrative authorities are based, or alternatively, if it considers that the confidentiality claim is lawful, that the person concerned may know and use at least the essence of the confidential information in the immigration proceedings in which he or she is concerned?
1.

What constitutes an exceptional case within the meaning of point 2.2.2.2(c) of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 200/2010 (1) of 10 March 2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a Union target for the reduction of the prevalence of Salmonella serotypes in adult breeding flocks of Gallus gallus, where the competent authority has reason to question the correctness of a positive test result for salmonella obtained from a routine sampling at the initiative of the food business operator, so that the competent authority may decide to repeat the testing?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 October 2022 — RK v Ministerstvo zdravotnictví

(Case C-659/22)

(2023/C 15/31)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RK

Defendant: Ministerstvo zdravotnictví

Question referred

Does the verification, using the national ‘čTečka’ application, of the validity of interoperable Covid-19 vaccination, test, or recovery certificates, issued pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are used by the Czech Republic for national purposes, amount to automated processing of personal data pursuant to Article 4, point (2), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27. April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), and hence, is the material scope of the General Data Protection Regulation thus established, pursuant to Article 2(1) of that regulation?

(1) OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1.
2.

If the first question is answered in the negative: In a case such as this (definitively fixed levies applied in breach of EU law, the reimbursement of which was requested only one year after Regulation No 1360/2013 retroactively established a lower coefficient), is the competent authority entitled to refuse to reimburse production levies unduly paid on the basis of national provisions on the force of res judicata, of the time limit for levy assessments under national law and of the principle of legal certainty under EU law?
2.

In a situation such as that in the present case, can Article 4(10) of Regulation No 1303/2013, (2) read in conjunction with Article 39(1)(a) and (b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the requirement for the public procurement procedure to be conducted as provided for in [Romania’s National Rural Development Programme] 2014-2020 (fifth version)?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 20 October 2022 — Ente Cambiano Società cooperativa per azioni v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-660/22)

(2023/C 24/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ente Cambiano Società cooperativa per azioni

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Do Articles 63 et seq., 101, 102, 120 and 173 TFEU preclude national legislation which, like Article 2(3-ter) and (3-quater) of Decree-Law No 18 of 14 February 2016, converted, with amendments, by Law No 49 of 8 April 2016, in the version applicable ratione temporis, makes the payment of a sum equal to 20 % net assets as at 31 December 2015 a condition for the possibility for cooperative credit banks having net assets of over EUR 200 million as at 31 December 2015, instead of joining a group, transferring their banking business to a public limited company, including a newly established one, authorised to perform banking activities, by amending their articles of association so as to exclude the performance of banking activities and at the same time maintaining the mutuality clauses set out in Article 2514 of the Italian Civil Code, and providing the shareholders with services which serve to maintain the relationship with the transferee public limited company relating to training and information on savings issues and the promotion of assistance programmes?
1.

Does a person who is, pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (MiFID II), excluded from the scope of that Directive, and who does not, pursuant to Article 3(3) of the Directive, enjoy the freedom to provide services as defined in Article 34 thereof, enjoy the right to freedom to provide services embodied in Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if it itself does not provide investment services on the basis of a single European passport to a client established in another Member State, but rather receives an investment service from a foreign entity using a single European passport or otherwise takes part in its provision to the end client (acts as an intermediary)?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 17 October 2022 — Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v BZ

(Case C-650/22)

(2023/C 35/34)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Defendant: BZ

Question referred

Are Articles 45 and 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding:

the principle that the player and the club wishing to employ him are jointly and severally liable in respect of the compensation due to the club whose contract with the player has been terminated without just cause, as stipulated in Article 17.2 of the FIFA RSTP (Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players), in conjunction with the sporting sanctions provided for in Article 17.4 of those regulations and the financial sanctions provided for in Article 17.1;

the ability of the association to which the player’s former club belongs not to deliver the international transfer certificate required if the player is to be employed by a new club, where there is a dispute between that former club and the player (Article 9.1 of the FIFA RSTP and Article 8.2.7 of Annex 3 to the FIFA RSTP)?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2022 — I GmbH v J R

(Case C-749/22)

(2023/C 45/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: I GmbH

Respondent of a point of law: J R

Question referred

Must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice under which paid annual leave, which was requested by a worker and approved by the employer and which overlaps in time after the leave was approved with a government-ordered quarantine at home where a possible infection is suspected, may not be granted retroactively where the worker is not incapacitated for work on account of illness during that quarantine?

(1) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 15 November 2022 — RegioJet a. s., STUDENT AGENCY k.s. v České dráhy, a.s., Správa železnic, státní organizace, Česká republika, Ministerstvo dopravy

(Case C-700/22)

(2023/C 45/15)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: RegioJet a. s., STUDENT AGENCY k.s.

Defendants: České dráhy, a.s., Správa železnic, státní organizace, Česká republika, Ministerstvo dopravy

Question referred

Must the last sentence of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that a national court must, in proceedings initiated on the application of a third party (competitor), order the recipient to return aid provided in breach of that provision even though (as at the date of the court’s decision) the limitation period for the Commission’s powers pursuant to Article 17(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has expired, due to which the aid provided is deemed, pursuant to Article 1(b)(iv) and Article 17(3) of the Regulation, to constitute existing aid?

(1) OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9.