ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rēzeknes tiesa — Latvia) — LSEZ SIA ‘Elme Messer Metalurgs’ v Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra

(Case C-743/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Structural Funds - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Article 2(7) - Concept of ‘irregularity’ - Infringement of a provision of EU law resulting from an act or omission on the part of an economic operator - Prejudice caused to the general budget of the European Union - Insolvency of the beneficiary’s sole business partner)

(2020/C 399/11)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Rēzeknes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LSEZ SIA ‘Elme Messer Metalurgs’

Defendant: Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 539/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which the beneficiary of European Regional Development Fund funding fails to achieve, during the relevant period, the level of turnover expected as part of the project eligible for financing because the activities of its sole business partner have been suspended or because that partner has become insolvent may be regarded as an ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
2.

Article 9(2) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus (Denmark) on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Decision 2005/370/EC must be interpreted as precluding the admissibility of the judicial proceedings to which it refers, brought by non-governmental organisations which are part of the ‘public concerned’ referred to in Article 2(5) of that convention, from being made subject to the participation of those organisations in the procedure preparatory to the contested decision, even though that condition does not apply where such organisations cannot reasonably be criticised for not having participated in that procedure. However, Article 9(3) of that convention does not preclude the admissibility of judicial proceedings to which it refers from being made subject to the participation of the applicant in the procedure preparatory to the contested decision, unless the applicant cannot reasonably be criticised, in the light of the circumstances of the case, for not having intervened in that procedure.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 December 2020 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd v Distillerie Bonollo SpA and Others

(Case C-461/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of tartaric acid originating in China - Appeal brought by an intervener at first instance - Second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Partial interim review - Loss of market economy treatment during the review procedure - Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty - Determination of the normal value - Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Cross-appeal - Action for annulment brought by competing producers established in the European Union - Admissibility - Direct concern - Allocation of powers to comply with a judgment)

(2021/C 35/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, dikigoros, and P. Billiet, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA, Caviro Distillerie Srl (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, avocat), Comercial Química Sarasa SL, Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by N. Tuominen, avocată), European Commission (represented by: M. França, J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal;

2. Sets aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 May 2018, Distillerie Bonollo and Others v Council (T-431/12, EU:T:2018:251), in so far as the General Court of the European Union thereby required the Council of the European Union to take the measures necessary to comply with that judgment;

3. Dismisses the cross-appeal as to the remainder;

4. Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA and Caviro Distillerie Srl as well as by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission in relation to the main appeal;

5. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA and Caviro Distillerie Srl in relation to the cross-appeal;

6. Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs relating to the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — FN, GM, Adler Real Estate AG, HL, Petrus Advisers LLP v Übernahmekommission

(Case C-546/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Takeover bids - Directive 2004/25/EC - Article 5 - Mandatory bid - Article 4 - Supervisory authority - Definitive decision establishing an infringement of the obligation to submit a takeover bid - Binding effect of that decision in the context of subsequent administrative-penalty proceedings conducted by the same authority - Principle of the effectiveness of EU law - General principles of EU law - Rights of the defence - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 47 and 48 - Right to silence - Presumption of innocence - Access to an independent and impartial tribunal)

(2021/C 462/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: FN, GM, Adler Real Estate AG, HL, Petrus Advisers LLP

Defendant: Übernahmekommission

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4 and 17 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, as amended by Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014, read in the light of the rights of the defence guaranteed by EU law, in particular of the right to a hearing, and of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a practice of a Member State whereby a decision by means of which a breach of that directive was established and which has become definitive has a binding effect in subsequent proceedings for the imposition of a penalty for an administrative offence owing to an infringement of the provisions of Directive 2004/25/EC, in so far as the parties concerned by those proceedings were not able, during the earlier proceedings in which that breach was established, fully to exercise the rights of the defence, in particular the right to a hearing, or to assert the right to silence or to benefit from a presumption of innocence in respect of the facts that will subsequently be used in support of the accusation, or are not able to benefit from the right to an effective remedy against such a decision before a court having jurisdiction to resolve questions of fact and of law.

(1) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
3.

Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 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, read in the light of recital 27 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court must take into consideration a recommendation of the European Banking Authority adopted on the basis of that provision, with a view to resolving the dispute before it, in particular in the context of an action seeking to establish the liability of a Member State for damage caused to an individual as a result of the non-application or incorrect or insufficient application of Union law giving rise to the investigation procedure which led to the adoption of that recommendation. Individuals harmed by the breach of Union law established by such a recommendation, even if they are not the addressees of the recommendation, must be able to rely on it as a basis for establishing, before the competent national courts, the liability of the Member State concerned for the breach of Union law in question; Recommendation EBA/REC/2014/02 of the European Banking Authority of 17 October 2014 addressed to the Balgarska Narodna Banka (Bulgarian National Bank) and the Fund za garantirane na vlogovete v bankite (Bank Deposit Guarantee Fund) on the measures necessary to comply with Directive 94/19/EC is invalid, in so far as it equated the decision of the Balgarska Narodna Banka (Bulgarian National Bank) to place Korporativna targovska banka AD under special supervision and to suspend its obligations to a finding of unavailability of deposits, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(i) of Directive 94/19, as amended by Directive 2009/14;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — BU v État belge

(Case C-35/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of workers - Equal treatment - Income tax - National legislation - Tax exemption for disability allowances - Allowances received in another Member State - Not included - Difference in treatment)

(2019/C 432/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BU

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, without providing justification in that regard, a matter which is however for the referring court to verify, provides that the tax exemption applicable to disability allowances is subject to the condition that those allowances are paid by a body of the Member State concerned and, therefore, excludes from that exemption allowances of the same nature paid by another Member State, even where the recipient of those allowances is a resident of the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-34/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Telecommunication services - Implementation of provision of an open telecommunications network - Directive 97/13/EC - Fees and charges for individual licences - Transitional arrangements establishing a charge beyond those authorised by Directive 97/13/EC - Force of res judicata attaching to a higher court judgment considered contrary to EU law)

(2020/C 161/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 22(3) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services must be interpreted as precluding national legislation extending the obligation, in respect of 1998, imposed on a telecommunications undertaking holding an existing authorisation on the date of entry into force of that directive to pay a charge calculated on the basis of turnover and not merely the administrative costs incurred in the issue, management, control and enforcement of the applicable general authorisation scheme and individual licences;

2. EU law must be interpreted as not requiring a national court to disapply domestic rules of procedure conferring finality on a judgment, even if to do so would make it possible to remedy an infringement of a provision of EU law, without prejudice to the possibility for the parties concerned of rendering the State liable in order to obtain legal protection of their rights under EU law.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel, Rechtbank Amsterdam — Luxembourg, Netherlands) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against JR (C-566/19 PPU) and YC (C-626/19 PPU)

(Joined Cases C-566/19 PPU and C-626/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - Criteria - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purpose of criminal proceedings)

(2020/C 54/14)

Languages of the case: French and Dutch

Referring courts

Cour d’appel, Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

JR (C-566/19 PPU), YC (C-626/19 PPU)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) 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 the public prosecutors of a Member State, who are responsible for conducting public prosecutions and are placed under the management and supervision of their hierarchical superiors, fall within the concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that their status affords them a guarantee of independence, in particular in relation to the executive, in the context of the issuing of a European arrest warrant.

Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection from which a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant is issued for the purpose of criminal proceedings must benefit are fulfilled if, according to the law of the issuing Member State, the conditions for issuing such a warrant, and in particular its proportionality, are subject to judicial review in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
1.

Article 3(1) to (3) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, read in the light of Articles 36 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the costs associated with the natural gas storage obligations imposed on natural gas undertakings in order to ensure the security and regularity of natural gas supply in that Member State are to be borne entirely by those undertakings’ customers, who may be private individuals, provided that that legislation pursues an objective of general economic interest, that it complies with the requirements of the principle of proportionality and that the public service obligations which it lays down are clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory, verifiable and guarantee equality of access for EU gas undertakings to national consumers;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovni sud — Croatia) — Criminal proceedings against I.N.

(Case C-897/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - EEA Agreement - Non-discrimination - Article 36 - Freedom to provide services - Scope - Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters’ association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis - Agreement on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway - Extradition to a third State of an Icelandic national - Protection of a Member State’s nationals against extradition - No equivalent protection for nationals of another State - Icelandic national who was granted asylum under national law before acquiring Icelandic citizenship - Restriction of freedom of movement - Justification based on the prevention of impunity - Proportionality - Verification of the guarantees provided for in Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2020/C 222/18)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Vrhovni sud

Party in the main proceedings

I.N.

Intervener: Ruska Federacija

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 and Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, when a Member State, to which a national of a Member State of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) — which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area and with which the European Union has concluded a surrender agreement — has moved, receives an extradition request from a third State pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition, signed at Paris on 13 December 1957, and when that national was granted asylum by that EFTA State — before he or she acquired the nationality of that State — precisely on account of the criminal proceedings brought against him or her in the State which issued the request for extradition, it is for the competent authority of the requested Member State to verify that the extradition would not infringe the rights covered by Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the grant of asylum being a particularly substantial piece of evidence in the context of that verification. Before considering executing the request for extradition, the requested Member State is obliged, in any event, to inform that same EFTA State and, should that State so request, surrender that national to it, in accordance with the provisions of the surrender agreement, provided that that EFTA State has jurisdiction, pursuant to its national law, to prosecute that national for offences committed outside its national territory.

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — SC C.F. SRL v A.J.F.P.M. and D.G.R.F.P.C

(Case C-430/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - Observance of the rights of the defence - Tax procedure - Exercise of the right to deduct with regard to value added tax (VAT) - Refusal of the right to deduct on account of the allegedly improper conduct of the taxable person’s suppliers - Administrative act issued by the national tax authorities without giving the taxpayer access to the information and the documents on which the act was based - Suspicion of tax evasion - National practice pursuant to which exercise of the right to deduct is subject to the possession of supporting documents other than the tax invoice - Whether permissible)

(2020/C 262/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC C.F. SRL

Defendants: A.J.F.P.M. and D.G.R.F.P.C

Operative part of the judgment

1. The general EU law principle of observance of the rights of the defence must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the context of national administrative procedures for inspection and for determining the taxable amount for value added tax purposes, a taxable person has not been allowed access to the information in the administrative file that was taken into consideration when an administrative decision imposing additional tax liabilities on that taxable person was adopted, and where the court hearing the case finds that, in the absence of that irregularity, the outcome of the procedure might have been different, that principle requires that that decision be annulled.

2. The principles governing the application by the Member States of the common system of value added tax (VAT), in particular the principles of fiscal neutrality and legal certainty, must be interpreted as precluding, in the event that a national tax authority merely has uncorroborated doubts about whether the economic operations giving rise to the issue of a tax invoice were actually carried out, the taxable person to which that invoice is addressed from being refused the right to deduct VAT where he is unable to produce, in addition to the invoice, other evidence that the economic operations were actually carried out.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 May 2020 — BTB Holding Investments SA, Duferco Participations Holding SA v European Commission, Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH)

(Case C-148/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Regional aid to the steel industry - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Private operator test - Manifest error - Burden of proof - Limits of judicial review)

(2020/C 240/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: BTB Holding Investments SA, Duferco Participations Holding SA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, M. Favert and Q. Declève, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and G. Luengo, acting as Agents), Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders BTB Holding Investments SA and Duferco Participations Holding SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
1.

Article 6(2) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, and the second paragraph of Article 6 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures must be interpreted as meaning that the claim of the requesting Member State is not to be treated as being a claim of the requested Member State and does not acquire the status of a claim of the requested Member State.