ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
6.

Does Article 72(1)(e) of Directive 2014/24, in conjunction with Article 72(4)(a) and (b) thereof, permit a national rule, or practice of interpreting and applying that rule, according to which unlawful modification of a public contract may take place in a case such as that in the main proceedings, where the time frame for performance of the contract within certain limits constitutes a condition of participation in the award procedure (and the participant is excluded if those limits are not complied with); the contract was not performed within the time frame on account of ordinary weather conditions and a statutory prohibition of activities, which was announced prior to the award of the contract, whereby those circumstances are covered by the subject matter and time frame of the contract and do not constitute unforeseeable circumstances; performance of the contract was accepted without any objections regarding the time frame, and no contractual penalty for delay was asserted, with the result that a material condition in the contract documents which determined the competitive environment was modified and the economic balance of the contract was shifted in favour of the contractor?
1.

For the purposes of a review of transparency in the context of a collective action, is an abstract assessment of terms used by more than one hundred financial institutions in millions of banking contracts, without taking into account the level of pre-contractual information offered on the legal and financial burden of the term or the other circumstances occurring in each case at the time when the contract was concluded, covered by Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) where it refers to the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract, and by Article 7(3) of that directive, where it refers to similar terms?
1.

Is Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) to be interpreted as authorising the extension of inter-trade agreements which establish more stringent standards than those laid down in Union rules not only in the case of ‘production rules’, mentioned in point (b) of Article 164(4), but also in all of the cases mentioned in points (a) and (c) to (n) thereof, in relation to which Article 164 provides that the extension of an inter-trade agreement may be requested and, in particular, as authorising, where EU rules lay down marketing and packaging rules for a given class of fruit or vegetables, the adoption of more stringent rules in an inter-trade agreement and their extension to all operators?
Action brought on 29 September 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-622/22)

(2022/C 424/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Sasinowska, G. Wilms, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by not taking the measures necessary to ensure that the ATS provider designated by it complies with Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 (1), Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009; and

— order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

The Republic of Malta has been in non-compliance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 of 16 January 2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky for more than 3 years.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 of 16 January 2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky; OJ 2009, L 13, p. 3.
2.

Is the practice of a national court hearing a dispute involving a claim for compensation for damage caused to a tenderer who was unlawfully excluded from a public procurement procedure, pursuant to which a claim for lost profits caused by the loss of opportunity to participate in a public contract is not part of the claim for compensation, compatible with Article 2(1)(c), read in conjunction with Article 2(6) and (7), of [Council] Directive [89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive] 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 …?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Burgas (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 August 2022 — JD v OB

(Case C-562/22)

(2022/C 424/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Burgas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JD

Defendant: OB

Question referred

On the basis of Article 19(3)(b) TEU and point (b) of the first paragraph and the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU: Does the legislation of the Republic of Bulgaria, as a Member State, at issue in the main proceedings, under which the acquisition of ownership of agricultural land in Bulgaria is subject to the condition of five years’ residence in the territory of that Member State, constitute a restriction which infringes Articles 18, 49, 63 and 345 TFEU?

More specifically, does that condition for the acquisition of ownership constitute a disproportionate measure which fundamentally infringes the prohibition of discrimination under Article 18 TFEU and the principles of free movement of capital and freedom of establishment within the Union which are enshrined in Articles 49 and 63 TFEU and Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 3 February 2022 by CX against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-743/16 RENV II, CX v Commission

(Case C-71/22 P)

(2022/C 441/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 29 September 2022, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 29 August 2022 by Hochmann Marketing GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2022 in Case T-337/20, Hochmann Marketing GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-575/22 P)

(2022/C 441/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (represented by: J. Jennings, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 10 October 2022, the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of the European Union decided to dismiss the appeal as inadmissible and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
4.

Where a non-resident person has, within the territory of a Member State, human and technical resources within a resident legal person which are used to ensure the supply of services whereby goods are manufactured — goods which are to be supplied by the non-resident entity — are the provisions of Article 192a(b) of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax and of Article 11 and Article 53(2) of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [that directive] to be interpreted as meaning that those manufacturing services supplied by means of the technical and human resources of the non-resident legal person are: (i) services received by the non-resident legal person from the resident person by means of those human and technical resources, or, as the case may be, (ii) services provided by the non-resident legal person itself by means of those human and technical resources?
4.

Having regard to Article 47 of the Charter, must Article 20 TFEU 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 concerning him or her?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pistoia (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2022 — QX v Agos Ducato S.p.A.

(Case C-610/22)

(2022/C 482/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Pistoia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QX

Defendant: Agos Ducato S.p.A.

Question referred

Does ensuring ‘that the provisions which [Member States] adopt in implementation of [Directive 87/202] (1) are not circumvented as a result of the way in which agreements are formulated’, as is required by Article 14(2) of that directive, concern only failure to state the APR in an agreement, or does it concern also incorrect statement of the APR in an agreement?
1.

Is Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) to be interpreted as meaning that (a) a ‘contractual term which reflects statutory provisions’ must reproduce, in whole or in part, the corresponding legal rule set out in the relevant statutory provision; or that (b) a ‘contractual term which reflects statutory provisions’ must contain an express reference to the corresponding legal rule set out in the relevant statutory provision; or, on the contrary, that, (c) in order for the exclusion from the scope of the analysis of the unfairness of a contractual term provided for in Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13 to be deemed to apply, it is sufficient to apply the general civil-law rule that contracts are supplemented by the law, without any specific reference being made to the corresponding legal rule set out in the relevant statutory provision?
Appeal brought on 11 November 2022 by Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in Case T-603/19 Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy v European Commission

(Case C-697/22 P)

(2023/C 15/33)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Appellant: Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (represented by: O. Hyvönen and N. Rosenlund)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Finland, Nobina Oy and Nobina AB

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 September 2022 in Case T-603/19 (1) in its entirety;

— grant in full the form of order sought by the appellant before the General Court on the grounds set out in the appeal; and

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs incurred by Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy before the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union, together with statutory interest;

Pleas in law and main arguments

In Case T-603/19 the General Court of the European Union infringed EU law and erred in law by dismissing the action brought by Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy.

In the first plea, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements, the General Court erred, because the contested Commission decision was adopted in breach of the appellant’s procedural rights.

The General Court also incorrectly ruled on the fourth plea in so far as it relates to compliance with the principle of proportionality.

The judgment of the General Court is contrary to Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (2) and violates fundamental principles of EU law, namely the right to be heard in a case concerning it and the principle of proportionality.

In its appeal, the appellant argues that the right to be heard in administrative proceedings constitutes a fundamental right. Failure to give the party concerned the opportunity to be heard before a decision contrary to its interests is taken constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

The applicant also submits that excessive recovery constitutes a measure contrary to the principle of proportionality and to the purpose of the recovery. When the beneficiary of a transfer of business is subject to an order for recovery, it is always necessary to determine to what extent the latter may still possibly benefit from the prohibited State aid, in other words, it is necessary to determine the amount of benefit transferred.

(1) EU:T:2022:555.

(2) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
1.

Plea alleging that the legal basis for the adoption of the regulation was incorrect and, consequently, that Article 192(2)(c) TFEU, in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 194(2) thereof, was infringed in so far as the contested regulation was not adopted on the basis of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU, which requires the Council to act unanimously, despite the fact that that regulation significantly affects a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply. In respect of the contested regulation, Poland raises, first, the plea that its legal basis, namely Article 122(1) TFEU, is incorrect. Poland submits that the main objective of the contested regulation is to have a significant effect on the conditions for exploiting energy resources, the choice between different energy sources and the general structure of a Member State’s energy supply. Since that regulation significantly affects the freedom to shape the energy mix, it should have been adopted on the basis of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU, to which the second subparagraph of Article 194(2) TFEU refers, that is to say, in accordance with a special legislative procedure under which the Council acts unanimously.
3.

In the light of the mechanism for judicial cooperation in criminal matters established in Articles 62 to 65 of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and in Title VII of Part Three of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, does the doctrine established by the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cases C-182/15 (Petruhhin), Pisciotti (C-191/16) and C-897/19 PPU (I.N.) apply to an extradition request from a third country in respect of a British national who was a citizen of the European Union at the time of the acts which give rise to the extradition request and who has resided continuously in the territory of another Member State before and during the period of application of the Withdrawal Agreement?
Appeal brought on 25 August 2022 by Unite the Union against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2022 in Case T-739/20, Unite the Union v EUIPO — WWRD Ireland (WATERFORD)

(Case C-571/22 P)

(2023/C 24/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Unite the Union (represented by: B. O'Connor, avocat, M. Hommé, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), WWRD Ireland IPCO LLC

By order of 05 December 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Unite the Union should bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 2 November 2022 — LM v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

(Case C-682/22)

(2023/C 35/40)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Upravni sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LM

Defendant: Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

Question referred

Must Article 26(2)(c) of the Framework Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Albania and the Commission of the European Communities on the rules for cooperation concerning European Community financial assistance to the Republic of Albania in the framework of the implementation of the assistance under the instrument for pre-accession assistance, signed on 18 October 2007, be interpreted as excluding the power of a Member State, in this case the Republic of Croatia, to charge income tax on the remuneration which was paid in 2016 to one of its nationals, employed as a long-term expert, for tasks carried out in the territory of Albania concerning a project whose beneficiaries are State institutions of the Republic of Albania and which is financed by the European Union under the 2013 instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA)?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Y v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam

(Case C-641/22)

(2023/C 35/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Y

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard:

— whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results?

— what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is?

— to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate?

— that the employer has guaranteed for the period 2014 to 2020 up to an amount of €250 000 000 in order to achieve the targeted pension accrual?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
1.

Must the first sentence of Article 15(3) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), (1) read in conjunction with Article 12(5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the controller (in the present case: the insurer) is also obliged to provide the data subject (in the present case: the policyholder), free of charge, with a first copy of his or her personal data processed by the controller where the data subject does not request the copy in order to pursue the purposes referred to in the first sentence of recital 63 of the GDPR, namely to become aware of the processing of his or her personal data and to be able to verify the lawfulness of that processing, but pursues a different purpose — one which is not related to data protection but is legitimate (in the present case: to verify the effectiveness of increases in a private health insurance premium) — and, if so, is that the case even where the information requested has already been communicated to the policyholder by letter in the procedure for increasing premiums under Paragraph 203 of the Versicherungsvertragsgesetz (Law on insurance contracts; ‘the VVG’)?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 2 November 2022 — B2 Energy s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-676/22)

(2023/C 45/13)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B2 Energy s.r.o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Question referred

Must Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 December 2021 in Case C-154/20, Kemwater ProChemie, EU:C:2021:989, such that a claim for exemption from value added tax (VAT) upon the supply of goods to another EU Member State must be denied, without the tax authorities needing to prove that the supplier of the goods was involved in VAT fraud, if the supplier has failed to prove supply of goods to a specific recipient indicated in the tax documents and having the status of a taxable person in the other Member State, even though, with a view to the facts of the case and the information provided by the taxable person, there is data available to verify that the actual recipient in the other EU Member State did indeed have that status?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Finanzamt Oschatz v Zweckverband zur Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-Westelbien

(Case C-442/05) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 4(5) and 12(3)(a) - Annexes D and H - Concept of ‘supply of water’ or ‘water supplies’ - Reduced rate of VAT)

(2008/C 128/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Oschatz

Defendant: Zweckverband zur Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-Westelbien

Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of point 2 of Annex D and Category 2 of Annex H to Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Reduced rate for the supply of water — Payment for the installation of mains connections to end users

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment and point 2 of Annex D thereto must be interpreted as meaning that the laying of a mains connection which consists, as in the main proceedings, in the installation of piping permitting the connection of a building's water system to the fixed water supply network forms part of the supply of water, listed in that annex, so that a body governed by public law acting as a public authority is a taxable person in respect of that transaction.

2. Article 12(3)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 and Category 2 of Annex H thereto must be interpreted as meaning that the laying of a mains connection which consists, as in the main proceedings, in the installation of piping permitting the connection of a building's water system to the fixed water supply network forms part of water supplies. Furthermore, Member States may apply a reduced rate of value added tax to concrete and specific aspects of water supplies, such as the laying of mains connections at issue in the main proceedings, provided that they comply with the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of value added tax.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.