ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
13

For the purposes of awarding that contract, the tender specifications established a ‘technical and functional suitability of the solution’ factor comprised of 86 ‘constituent subfactors’. With a view to assessing the ‘technical and functional suitability of the solution’, tenderers were invited to participate in a demonstration session. During that session, tenderers presented the software and equipment which were to be supplied in order to demonstrate, first, compliance with the terms and conditions laid down in the tender specifications, and secondly, the characteristics of their tender. If the contracting authority found, during that demonstration session, that the tenderer satisfied the requirements pertaining to one of those 86 subfactors, that tenderer would be awarded ten points in respect of that subfactor. If the tenderer failed to fulfil the requirements or was unable to present the software and equipment which were to be supplied, he would be awarded only one point in respect of that subfactor.
52

In that regard, if the elements of law and fact in the file before the national court ruling in the course of the order for payment proceedings give rise to serious doubts as to the unfair nature of certain clauses which were not invoked by the consumer but which are related to the subject matter of the dispute, without it being possible to make definitive assessments in that regard, and if that court considers that it is appropriate to assess whether such clauses are unfair, then it is for that court to take, if necessary of its own motion, investigative measures in order to complete that case file, by asking the parties, in observance of the principle of audi alteram partem, to provide it with the clarifications or documents necessary for that purpose. It follows from this that the national court is required to take ex officio investigative measures provided that the elements of law and fact already contained in that file raise serious doubts as to the unfair nature of certain terms (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 March 2020, Lintner, C‑511/17, EU:C:2020:188, paragraphs 37 and 38).
Appeal – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – New plea based on facts which came to light after delivery of the General Court’s judgment – Inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 127(1), 170(1) and 190(1))

(see paras 37-40)
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2021 –

Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

(Case C‑173/19 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Action for annulment – State aid – Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link – Individual aid – Act not open to challenge – Purely confirmatory measure – Preparatory measure)

Action for annulment – Action against a decision merely confirming a previous decision – Inadmissibility – Concept of confirmatory decision

(Art. 263 TFEU)

(see paras 54, 55)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

2. Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission.

3. The Kingdom of Denmark shall bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 –

SATA International

(Case C‑137/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5(3) – Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Scope – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory famework of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 11-21, operative part.)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Azores District Court, Portugal), by decision of 10 January 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 9)
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded – Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see para. 13)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 December 2020 – Siebenburgisches Nugat

(Case C‑99/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Customs union – Common customs tariff – Combined nomenclature – Tariff headings – Subheading 83024130 – Metal rail components for hanging curtains)

1. Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Classification of goods – Criteria – Characteristics and objective properties – Scope – Purpose of the product – Included (Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I) (see paras 25-27)

2. Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification of goods – Base metal curtain rods – Classification within tariff subheading 83024190 of the Combined Nomenclature – Rail components for hanging curtains in the form of finished tubes (painted, nickel-plated, chromed) – Included – Exception – Finished tubes consisting in rods, tubes or bars merely cut to the desired length – Verification by the national court (Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I) (see para. 37, operative part.)

Operative part

The combined nomenclature, as set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that rail components for hanging curtains, in the form of finished tubes (painted, nickel-plated, chromed), come under tariff subheading 83024190, unless those finished tubes consist in rods, tubes or bars merely cut to the desired length, which it is for the referring court to verify for the purposes of the tariff classification of the goods.

( 1 ) OJ C 279, 24.08.2020
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b)

(see para. 13)
Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 12)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 May 2021 – ENR Grenelle Habitat and Others

(Case C‑88/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Fundamental rights – Ne bis in idem principle – Joint imposition of administrative and criminal penalties for identical facts – Cold calling – Misleading commercial practice – Insufficient justification for a reference for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 28-37, 39, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the tribunal correctionnel de Bordeaux (Criminal Court, Bordeaux, France), by decision of 12 December 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 April 2021 – British Airways

(Case C‑592/20)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 2(b) and Article 7(1) – Compensation for long delays at the final destination of a connecting flight – Connecting flight with several flight segments – Single booking – Cancellation of a flight segment by a carrier other than the one with which the single booking was made – Operating air carrier – Distance to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation)

1. Transport – Air transport – Regulations No 261/2004 – Compensation and assistance to passengers – Operating air carrier – Concept – Air carrier which has not entered into a contract with the passenger concerned and which has cancelled the segment of the flight to be operated by it as part of the connecting flight covered by that contract – Included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art. 2(b) and 3(5), 2de phrase) (see paras 22, 24, 26-28)

2. Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Right to compensation in the event of delay – Connecting flight, consisting of two flights operated by different air carriers and for which a single booking was made – Long delay due to the cancellation of the second flight, operated by a carrier who did not enter into the contract of carriage – Possibility for the passenger who suffered from the delay to bring a claim for compensation against that carrier – Calculation of the amount of compensation – Distance to be taken into account – Taking into account the total distance of the flight from the place of departure of the first flight to the final destination (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Arts 2(b) and 7(1)) (see paras 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, operative part)

Operative part

Articles 2(b) and 7(1) of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a connecting flight, consisting of two flight segments and the subject of a single booking a passenger who suffered from a delay of three hours or more in arriving at the final destination caused by the cancellation of the second segment of the flight, which was to have been operated by a carrier other than the one with which that passenger concluded the contract of carriage, may bring an action for damages under Article 7(1) of that regulation against that carrier and claim, at the expense of the latter, the compensation provided for in that provision, determined on the basis of the total distance of that connecting flight from the point of departure of the first segment of the flight to the point of arrival of the second segment of the flight.
1.

Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the requirement of transparency of contractual terms in the context of a mortgage loan must be interpreted as allowing the seller or supplier not to include in such a contract the full definition of the reference index used to calculate a variable interest rate or not to provide to the consumer an information booklet setting out past fluctuations in that index prior to signature of that contract, on the basis that the information related to that index has been officially published, provided that, in the light of publicly available and accessible information, as well as the information provided, where appropriate, by the seller or supplier, an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect was able to understand the specific functioning of the method used for calculating the reference index and thus evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the potentially significant economic consequences of such a term on his or her financial obligations.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 January 2022 –

Ryanair (Strike by cabin crew and pilots)

(Case C‑287/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5(3) – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – Strike by cabin crew and pilots – Circumstances that are ‘internal’ and ‘external’ to the operating air carrier’s activity – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 12 and 28 – No infringement of the workers’ freedom of assembly and association and the air carrier’s right of negotiation)

Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 261/2004 – Compensation and assistance to passengers – Cancellation of a flight – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation – Condition – Extraordinary circumstances – Concept – Strike by the staff of the operating air carrier entered into upon a call by a trade union – Not included – Prior negotiations between the actors concerned – Irrelevant

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art. 5(3))

(see paras 22, 25-27, 30, 33, operative part)

Operative part

Article 5(3) of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that strike action which is entered into upon a call by a trade union of the cabin crew and pilots of an operating air carrier and which is intended to assert the demands of those workers does not come within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, any prior negotiations with the workers’ representatives being irrelevant in that regard.

( 1 ) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 July 2022 –

AM (Revocation of an amnesty)

(Case C‑710/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Field of application – Article 51 – Legislative procedure for the adoption of a resolution relating to the revocation of an amnesty – Judicial procedure for review of the compliance of that resolution with the national Constitution – Failure to implement EU law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Subject matter of the national dispute not having any connection with EU law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 4(3) TEU; Arts 82 and 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47, 50 and 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2)) (see paras 25-30, 33-36, operative part)

2. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Right to information in criminal proceedings – Directive 2012/13 – Scope – Legislative procedure relating to the revocation of an amnesty – Judicial procedure for review of the compliance of that revocation with the national constitution – Precluded (Art. 82 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2012/13) (see para. 31)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Okresný súd Bratislava I (District Court, Bratislava I, Slovakia) by decision of 12 December 2018.

( 1 ) OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
3

Article 26(3) of Regulation No 575/2013, as amended by Regulation 2019/876 (‘Regulation No 575/2013 as amended’), applicable from 27 June 2019, provides: ‘Competent authorities shall evaluate whether issuances of capital instruments meet the criteria set out in Article 28 or, where applicable, Article 29. Institutions shall classify issuances of capital instruments as Common Equity Tier 1 instruments only after permission is granted by the competent authorities. By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, institutions may classify as Common Equity Tier 1 instruments subsequent issuances of a form of Common Equity Tier 1 instruments for which they have already received that permission, provided that both of the following conditions are met: (a) the provisions governing those subsequent issuances are substantially the same as the provisions governing those issuances for which the institutions have already received permission; (b) institutions have notified those subsequent issuances to the competent authorities sufficiently in advance of their classification as Common Equity Tier 1 instruments. Competent authorities shall consult EBA before granting permission for new forms of capital instruments to be classified as Common Equity Tier 1 instruments. Competent authorities shall have due regard to EBA’s opinion and, where they decide to deviate from it, shall write to EBA within three months from the date of receipt of EBA’s opinion setting out the rationale for deviating from the relevant opinion. This subparagraph does not apply to the capital instruments referred to in Article 31. On the basis of information collected from competent authorities, EBA shall establish, maintain and publish a list of all forms of capital instruments in each Member State that qualify as Common Equity Tier 1 instruments. In accordance with Article 35 of Regulation No 1093/2010[/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 12)], EBA may collect any information in connection with Common Equity Tier 1 instruments that it considers necessary to establish compliance with the criteria set out in Article 28 or, where applicable, Article 29 of this Regulation and for the purpose of maintaining and updating the list referred to in this subparagraph. …’
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 24 June 2021 – ratiopharm and Others v Commission

(Case C‑220/21 P(I))

(Appeal – Intervention – Second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Interest in the result of the case – Public health – Medicinal products for human use – Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 – Directive 2001/83/EC – Decision granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Dexmedetomidine Accord – dexmedetomidine – Dismissal)

Judicial proceedings – Intervention – Admissibility criteria – Interest in the result of the case – Concept – Need for a direct and existing interest – Interest which must lead to a solution to the dispute such as to affect the legal position of the applicant

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, para. 2)

(see paras 17-24)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Requirement that the distortion be obvious from the documents in the file

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 23, 38, 39, 44, 46)
Appeals – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 12)
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 23 November 2021 – Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO

(Case C‑345/21 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Whether appeals may be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Court’s Rules of Procedure – Request failing to demonstrate a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Appeal not allowed to proceed)

1. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 12)

2. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paras 13-15)

3. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Incompatibility with the case-law of the Court or of the General Court – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see paras 16-18, 20)

4. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Precluded (Art. 256 (1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 58 (1) and 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 19)

5. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paras 20-23)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.