ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 1(1) and Article 8(1)(c) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a European arrest warrant may be issued on the basis of a judicial decision of the issuing Member State ordering the execution, in that Member State, of a sentence imposed by a court of a third State where, pursuant to a bilateral agreement between those States, the judgment in question has been recognised by a decision of a court of the issuing Member State. However, the issuing of the European arrest warrant is subject to the condition, first, that a custodial sentence of at least four months has been imposed on the requested person and, second, that the procedure leading to the adoption in the third State of the judgment recognised subsequently in the issuing Member State has complied with fundamental rights and, in particular, the obligations arising under Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Diskrimineringsombudsmannen v Braathens Regional Aviation AB

(Case C-30/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin - Directive 2000/43/EC - Article 7 - Protection of rights - Article 15 - Sanctions - Action for compensation based on an allegation of discrimination - Defendant acquiescing to claim for compensation without recognition on its part of the discrimination alleged - Connection between the compensation paid and the discrimination alleged - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to effective judicial protection - National procedural rules preventing the court seised from ruling on whether there was discrimination as alleged, despite the express request of the claimant)

(2021/C 217/03)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Diskrimineringsombudsmannen

Defendant: Braathens Regional Aviation AB

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 7 and 15 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national law which prevents a court that is seised of an action for compensation based on an allegation of discrimination prohibited by that directive from examining the claim seeking a declaration of the existence of that discrimination where the defendant agrees to pay the compensation claimed without however recognising the existence of that discrimination. It is for the national court hearing a dispute between private persons to ensure, within its jurisdiction, the judicial protection for litigants flowing from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by disapplying as necessary any contrary provision of national law.

(1) OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — NAMA Symvouloi Michanikoi kai Meletites AE — LDK Symvouloi Michanikoi AE, NAMA Symvouloi Michanikoi kai Meletites AE, LDK Symvouloi Michanikoi AE v Archi Exetasis Prodikastikon Prosfigon (AEPP), Attiko Metro AE

(Case C-771/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procurement contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Directive 92/13/EEC - Review procedures - Pre-contractual stage - Assessment of bids - Rejection of a technical bid and acceptance of the bid of a competitor - Suspension of the implementation of that measure - Legitimate interest of the unsuccessful tenderer in challenging the legality of the bid of the successful tenderer)

(2021/C 189/02)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: NAMA Symvouloi Michanikoi kai Meletites AE — LDK Symvouloi Michanikoi AE, NAMA Symvouloi Michanikoi kai Meletites AE, LDK Symvouloi Michanikoi AE

Defendants: Archi Exetasis Prodikastikon Prosfigon (AEPP), Attiko Metro AE

Intervening parties: SALFO kai Synergates Anonymi Etairia Meletitikon Ypiresion Technikon Ergon — Grafeio Doxiadi Symvouloi gia Anaptyxi kai Oikistiki AE — TPF Getinsa Euroestudios SL, SALFO kai Synergates Anonymi Etairia Meletitikon Ypiresion Technikon Ergon, Grafeio Doxiadi Symvouloi gia Anaptyxi kai Oikistiki AE, TPF Getinsa Euroestudios SL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and (3), Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and Article 2a(2) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that a tenderer who has been excluded from a procurement procedure for the award of a public contract at a stage prior to the final contract award stage and whose request for suspension of the decision to exclude it from the procedure has been refused, may advance, in its request for suspension of the decision to admit the bid of another tenderer, introduced simultaneously, any plea based on the infringement of EU law concerning public procurement or of national rules transposing that law, including pleas which have no connection with the shortcomings for which its own bid was excluded. That option is not affected by the fact that the application for an administrative review before an independent national authority, which must, under national law, first be brought by the tenderer against the decision to exclude it, has been rejected, provided that that rejection has not become definitive.

(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — J.K. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Katowicach

(Case C-703/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(2) - Option for Member States to apply one or two reduced VAT rates to certain supplies of goods and services - Classification of a commercial activity as ‘provision of services’ - Annex III, point 12a - Implementing regulation (EU) No 282/2011 - Article 6 - Concept of ‘restaurant and catering services’ - Meals ready for immediate consumption on the vendor’s premises or in a catering area - Meals ready for immediate consumption to be taken away)

(2021/C 228/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.K.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Katowicach

Intervening party: Rzecznik Małych i Średnich Przedsiębiorców

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009, read in conjunction with point 12a of Annex III to that directive and Article 6 of Council Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 implementing Directive 2006/112, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘restaurant and catering services’ includes the supply of food accompanied by sufficient support services intended to enable the immediate consumption of that food by the end customer, which is a matter for the national court to determine. Where the end customer chooses not to benefit from the material and human resources made available by the taxable person to accompany the consumption of the food supplied, it must be concluded that no support services accompany the supply of that food.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — M-GmbH v Finanzamt für Körperschaften

(Case C-868/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value-added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9 - Taxable persons - Article 11 - Option for the Member States to treat as a single taxable person persons who are independent from a legal point of view but are closely linked to one another financially, economically and organisationally (‘VAT group’) - Concept of ‘close financial links’ - National legislation according to which partnerships, whose partners, alongside the controlling company, are not solely financially integrated persons in the undertaking of the controlling company, are prevented from being a member of a VAT group - Legal certainty - Preventative measures against fraud and tax evasion - Proportionality - VAT neutrality)

(2021/C 217/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M-GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt für Körperschaften

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in light of the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national law which makes the option for a partnership to create, alongside the undertaking of the controlling company, a group of persons which may be considered to be a single taxable person for value added tax, on the condition that the partners in the partnership, alongside the controlling company, are solely persons who are financially integrated in that undertaking.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
2.

Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/71, as amended by Directive 2008/11, must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law which, in the context of an action for damages brought by a qualified investor on the grounds of the information given in the prospectus, allow, or even require, the court to take account of the fact that that investor was, or ought to have been, aware of the economic situation of the issuer of the offer of shares to the public, on the basis of its relations with that issuer and otherwise than through the prospectus, in so far as those provisions are no less favourable than those governing similar actions under national law and do not, in practice, make it impossible or excessively difficult to bring that action.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania v Assessorato della Salute della Regione Siciliana

(Case C-128/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Agriculture sector - Slaughtering of animals affected by infectious diseases - Compensation for farmers - Notification and standstill requirements - Article 108(3) TFEU - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Exemptions by categories of aid - Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 - De minimis aid - Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013)

(2021/C 278/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania

Defendant: Assessorato della Salute della Regione Siciliana

Intervener: AU

Operative part of the judgment

Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a measure introduced by a Member State to finance, for a period extending over several years and up to a maximum amount of EUR 20 million, both compensation to support farmers who have been obliged to slaughter animals affected by infectious diseases and payment of fees due to self-employed veterinary surgeons involved in remediation activities, must be subject to the preliminary-examination procedure laid down in that provision in the case where that measure is not covered by an authorisation decision of the European Commission to that effect, unless that measure fulfils the conditions laid down by Commission Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU], or the conditions laid down by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] to de minimis aid in the agriculture sector.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
4.

Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a supervisory authority of a Member State which is not the ‘lead supervisory authority’, within the meaning of Article 56(1) of that regulation, has brought a legal action, the object of which is an instance of cross-border processing of personal data, before 25 May 2018, that is, before the date when that regulation became applicable, that action may, from the perspective of EU law, be continued on the basis of the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, which remains applicable in relation to infringements of the rules laid down in that directive committed up to the date when that directive was repealed. That action may, in addition, be brought by that authority with respect to infringements committed after that date, on the basis of Article 58(5) of Regulation 2016/679, provided that that action is brought in one of the situations where, exceptionally, that regulation confers on a supervisory authority of a Member State which is not the ‘lead supervisory authority’ a competence to adopt a decision finding that the processing of data in question is in breach of the rules contained in that regulation with respect to the protection of the rights of natural persons as regards the processing of personal data, and that the cooperation and consistency procedures laid down by that regulation are respected, which it is for the referring court to determine.
1.

Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by the national court, which, first, allows, pending the completion of recruitment procedures initiated to fill definitively vacant posts of workers in the public sector, the renewal of fixed-term contracts, without specifying a precise time limit for the completion of those procedures, and, second, prohibits both the assimilation of those workers to ‘workers having non-permanent contracts of indefinite duration’ and the granting of compensation to those workers. It appears that that national legislation, subject to the checks which it is for the national court to carry out, does not include any measure to prevent and, where appropriate, to penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération bancaire française (FBF) v Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR)

(Case C-911/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 263 and 267 TFEU - EU act which is not legally binding - Judicial review - Guidelines issued by the European Banking Authority (EBA) - Product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products - Validity - Competence of the EBA)

(2021/C 382/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération bancaire française (FBF)

Defendant: Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 263 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that measures such as the guidelines of the European Banking Authority (EBA), of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18) may not be the object of an action for annulment under that article;

2. Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the Court has jurisdiction, under that article, to assess the validity of measures such as the guidelines of the European Banking Authority (EBA), of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18);

3. EU law does not require that the admissibility, before a national jurisdiction, of a plea of illegality directed against an EU measure be subject to the condition that that measure directly and individually concerns the person relying on that plea;

4. Consideration of the third question referred for a preliminary ruling has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the guidelines of the European Banking Authority, of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18).

(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-695/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(a) - Definition of ‘insurance’ transactions and of ‘related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents’ - Article 174(2) - Right to deduction - Proportional deduction - Extended warranties on household electrical appliances and other computer and telecommunications equipment - Definition of ‘financial transactions’)

(2021/C 338/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 174(2)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 135(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to transactions involving intermediation in the sale of warranty extensions that are performed by a taxable person in the course of its main activity consisting in the sale to consumers of household electrical appliances and other computer and telecommunications equipment, with the consequence that the amount of turnover relating to those transactions must not be excluded from the denominator of the fraction used to calculate the deductible proportion referred to in Article 174(1) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.
1.

The third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that when an asylum seeker, who has entered the territory of the host Member State where that asylum seeker’s minor unmarried child is present, is seeking to derive from the subsidiary protection status obtained by that child the right to asylum under that Member State’s legislation granting such a right to persons falling within the third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95, the relevant date for assessing whether the beneficiary of that protection is a ‘minor’, within the meaning of that provision, in order to determine the application for international protection brought by that asylum seeker, is the date on which the latter lodged, as the case may be informally, his or her application for asylum.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 — European Commission v Tempus Energy Ltd, Tempus Energy Technology Ltd, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-57/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid scheme - Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 4(3) and (4) - Concept of ‘doubts as to the compatibility of a notified measure with the common market’ - Decision not to raise objections - Formal investigation procedure not initiated - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid control procedures - ‘Pre-notification’ contacts - Procedural rights of interested parties - Electricity capacity market in the United Kingdom)

(2021/C 431/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents,)

Other parties to the proceedings: Tempus Energy Ltd, Tempus Energy Technology Ltd (represented by: J. Derenne and D. Vallindas, avocats, and by C. Ziegler, Rechtsanwalt), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially, F. Shibli, S. McCrory and Z. Lavery, and, subsequently, F. Shibli, S. McCrory, acting as Agents, and G. Facenna QC and D. Mackersie, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 November 2018, Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission (T-793/14, EU:T:2018:790);

2. Dismisses the action in Case T-793/14;

3. Orders Tempus Energy Ltd and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and before the Court of Justice;

4. Orders the Republic of Poland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
1.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the victim of an anticompetitive practice by an undertaking may bring an action for damages, without distinction, either against a parent company who has been punished by the Commission for that practice in a decision or against a subsidiary of that company which is not referred to in that decision, where those companies together constitute a single economic unit. The subsidiary company concerned must be able effectively to rely on its rights of the defence in order to show that it does not belong to that undertaking and, where no decision has been adopted by the Commission under Article 101 TFEU, it is also entitled to dispute the very existence of the conduct alleged to amount to an infringement;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Axa Mediterranean Holding SA v European Commission

(Case C-54/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification for the difference in treatment)

(2021/C 481/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Axa Mediterranean Holding SA (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Axa Mediterranean Holding SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.