ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Portugal) lodged on 4 November 2020 — NM, NR, BA, XN, FA v Sata Air Açores — Sociedade Açoriana de Transportes Aéreos, SA

(Case C-578/20)

(2021/C 28/42)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: NM, NR, BA, XN, FA

Defendant: Sata Air Açores — Sociedade Açoriana de Transportes Aéreos, SA

Question referred

Must a strike by an airline’s aircraft maintenance staff be deemed to constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) when the airline has held meetings and negotiations in an unsuccessful attempt to avert the strike?

(1) 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 — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 November 2020 — Reprensus GmbH v S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD

(Case C-591/20)

(2021/C 35/44)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Reprensus GmbH

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD

Question referred

Are points 1(a) and 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (OJ 2012 L 351) to be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction for matters relating to tort or delict exists in respect of an action for damages if the applicant was induced to conclude a purchase contract and pay the purchase price by means of intentional deception?

(1) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
1.

Is Article 43, in conjunction with Article 48, of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Article 49, in conjunction with Article 54, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which prevents a resident company from deducting losses incurred by a permanent establishment in another Member State from its taxable profits where, first, the company has exhausted the possibilities to deduct those losses available under the law of the Member State in which the permanent establishment is situated and, second, it has ceased to receive any income from that establishment, so that there is no longer any possibility of account being taken of the losses in that Member State (‘final’ losses), if the legislation in question concerns an exemption for profits and losses under a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the two Member States?
4.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the general principle of the right to a fair trial before a court or tribunal previously established by law be interpreted as meaning that the court of last instance of a Member State must reject an application for the transfer of a case file where such an application has been lodged by a person appointed to a judicial post under national legislation and in circumstances that result in a court or tribunal being formed which does not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality and is not a court established by law, without first having to exhaust the procedure referred to in the question referred for a preliminary ruling in Case C-508/19 or in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2019, C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A.K. and Others?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Cosilt — Consorzio per lo sviluppo economico locale di Tolmezzo v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

(Case C-610/20)

(2021/C 53/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cosilt — Consorzio per lo sviluppo economico locale di Tolmezzo

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Question referred

Does EU law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as that in Article 26(2) and (3) of Decree-Law No 91/2014, as converted by Law No 116/2014, which significantly reduces or delays the payment of incentives already granted by law and defined on the basis of corresponding agreements concluded by undertakings generating electrical energy by means of photovoltaic conversion with Gestore dei servizi energetici SpA, a public company responsible for that process?

In particular, is that provision of national law compatible with the general principles of EU law relating to legitimate expectation, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and effectiveness, with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and with the rules governing support schemes laid down in that directive, and with Article 216(2) TFEU, in particular in relation to the European Energy Charter Treaty?

(1) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can the applicant be recognised as being an ‘organisation having similar objects’, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, on the basis of the provisions of national law on authorisation of the activities identified by code CAEN 8559 — ‘Other forms of education (n.c.e.)’ by the Oficiul Național al Registrului Comerțului (National Trade Register Office) and with reference to the public-interest nature of the educational activities of the ‘school after school’ type, which are aimed at prevention of school leaving and early school leaving, improvement of school results, remedial education, accelerated learning, personal development and social inclusion?
1.

Are the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty on European Union and Directive 2005/36/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of the host Member State must assess an applicant’s right to pursue a regulated profession in accordance with Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and the relevant case-law (in particular, judgment of 7 May 1991, C-340/89 (2), Vlassopoulou, and judgment of 6 October 2015, C-298/14 (3), Brouillard) even though the conditions for the pursuit of a regulated profession are supposed to be standardised in Article 13(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC, and, under those conditions, the host Member State must permit the pursuit of a profession by an applicant who holds evidence of formal qualifications from a Member State in which the profession is not regulated, but who does not satisfy the requirement for the pursuit of the profession laid down in that provision of the directive?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2020 — EZ v Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, Sociedad Unipersonal

(Case C-606/20)

(2021/C 62/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EZ

Defendant: Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, Sociedad Unipersonal

Question referred

Is the first sentence of Article 20 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999, approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (1) and entering into force on 28 June 2004, to be interpreted as meaning that the carrier is wholly or partly exonerated from its liability for loss of baggage pursuant to Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention if a passenger transports new or as-new electronic items such as a compact camera, tablet (iPad) and wireless headphones in his checked baggage instead of his hand baggage without informing the carrier of this, even though it would have been possible and reasonable for the passenger to carry those electronic items with him in his hand baggage?

(1) 2001/539/EC: Council Decision of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).
1.

Does the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties allow national legislation which provides for both administrative and criminal liability for the same act, namely driving a motor vehicle while subject to a coercive administrative measure in the form of a driving licence suspension, in the absence of any criteria allowing for an objective distinction to be made between the two types of liability?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2020 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v PR, TV

(Case C-631/20)

(2021/C 72/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: PR, TV

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

(1) 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 December 2020 — Avis Autovermietung Gesellschaft mbH v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

(Case C-701/20)

(2021/C 98/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Avis Autovermietung Gesellschaft mbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Question referred

Do the rules in Chapter VIII, in particular in Article 80(1) and (2) and Article 84(1), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (1) (‘the GDPR’), preclude national rules which — alongside the powers of intervention of the supervisory authorities responsible for monitoring and enforcing the regulation and the options for legal redress for data subjects — empower, on the one hand, competitors and, on the other, associations, entities and chambers entitled under national law, to bring proceedings for breaches of the GDPR, independently of the infringement of specific rights of individual data subjects and without being mandated to do so by a data subject, against the infringer before the civil courts on the basis of the prohibition of unfair commercial practices or breach of a consumer protection law or the prohibition of the use of invalid general terms and conditions?

(1) OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1.
3.

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 also applicable by analogy in so far as, under the second sentence thereof, it is not necessary to initiate a procedure for taking charge of a child born subsequently, despite the fact that there is then a risk that the host Member State has no knowledge of the possible need to take charge of the minor child or that, in accordance with its administrative practice, it refuses to apply Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 by analogy and, consequently, there is a risk that the minor child will become a ‘refugee in orbit’ (see BVerwG judgment of 23 June 2020-1 C 37.19; ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:230620U1C37.19.0)?
1.

Must Article 11(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a worker who resides in a Member State, and works in the territory of another Member State on the basis of a temporary agency contract, under which the employment relationship ends as soon as the temporary assignment ends and is then resumed again, remains subject to the legislation of the latter Member State during the intervening periods, so long as he has not temporarily ceased that work?
—

where it has been established that the taxable person’s actions did not involve any tax fraud, but that they were the result of an incorrect designation of supplies in chain transactions and that that taxable person’s Polish VAT identification number was provided for the purposes of a domestic rather than an intra-Community supply?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 21 December 2020 — Municipality of Wieliszew v Administrator in the insolvency of Spółdzielczy Bank Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa in Wołomin, in liquidation

(Case C-698/20)

(2021/C 182/36)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Municipality of Wieliszew

Respondent: Administrator in the insolvency of Spółdzielczy Bank Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa in Wołomin, in liquidation

Question referred

Must 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, (1) in particular Article 2(5), Articles 3 and 4, Article 57(1), and Articles 70 and 80 thereof, and, currently, Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, (2) in particular Article 2(15), Article 37(1), Article 66, Article 67(1), Article 74(1) and Article 89(1) thereof, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prevents an entity that has received resources from the budget of the European Union from effectively seeking in court proceedings that those resources be excluded from the insolvency estate where they have been paid into a bank account held at a bank which was subsequently declared insolvent, or national legislation which does not exclude those resources from the insolvency estate of the insolvent bank?

(1) OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25.

(2) OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 September 2020 — Ts.M.Ts., T.M.M.

(Case C-455/20)

(2021/C 138/21)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ts.M.Ts., T.M.M.

By order of 27 January 2021, the Court (Sixth Chamber) removed the case from the register.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 28 December 2020 by Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2020 in Case T-249/19, Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission

(Case C-717/20 P)

(2021/C 329/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova (represented by: S. Pappas, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 6 July 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) decided that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 22 October 2020 by Hochmann Marketing GmbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2020 in Case T-807/19, Hochmann Marketing GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-539/20 P)

(2021/C 252/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 6 May 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
1.

Does Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 of 28 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) as regards eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds, and in particular the provisions of point 2.1 of Rule No 1 of the Annex thereto (‘proof of expenditure’), require that proof of payment by final beneficiaries must necessarily be furnished by means of receipted invoices, even if the funding was granted to the beneficiary to construct a building using its own materials, tools and labour, or may there be a derogation, other than the one specifically provided for where this is not possible, which requires the presentation of ‘accounting documents of equivalent probative value’?
6.

If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, or if the letter of 27 November 2019 may no longer be contested as part of the present dispute, must the provisional measure taken on the basis of Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 be regarded as contrary to that regulation from the outset or only as from the notification of that letter to the Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé, or even as from a reasonable period of time after that notification, intended to allow it to be repealed, in the light, also, of the uncertainty as to the significance of that letter and of the fact that the Commission did not reply to the Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé, which indicated that it would ‘maintain, as a precautionary measure, its decision of 13 March 2019, pending the decision of the Commission taken in accordance with the provisions of Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009’?
2.

Mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC (a) Is Article 10(2)(p) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the amount of interest payable per day, which must be specified in the credit agreement, must be calculated from the contractual borrowing rate specified in the agreement? (b) Is Article 10(2)(l) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments as applicable at the time of the conclusion of the credit agreement must be specified as an absolute number or, at the very least, that the current reference interest rate (in this case, the base rate in accordance with Paragraph 247 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code, ‘the BGB’)), from which the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments is obtained by adding a premium (in this case, a premium of five percentage points in accordance with Paragraph 288(1), second sentence, of the BGB), must be specified as an absolute number, and must the consumer be informed of the reference interest rate (base rate) and the variability of that rate? (c) Is Article 10(2)(t) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the essential formal requirements for a complaint and/or redress in the out-of-court complaint and/or redress procedure must be specified in the text of the credit agreement? If at least one of the above Questions 2(a) to (c) is answered in the affirmative: (d) Is Article 14(1), second sentence, point (b), of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the period of withdrawal does not begin until the information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been provided fully and correctly? If not: (e) What are the relevant criteria for determining whether the period of withdrawal is to begin in spite of the fact that that information is incomplete or incorrect? If the above Question 1(a) and/or at least one of Questions 2(a) to (c) is answered in the affirmative:
Action brought on 1 February 2021 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-60/21)

(2021/C 98/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels, V. Uher, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by maintaining provisions that:

by refusing the deduction of maintenance annuities or capital sums in lieu of such annuities and supplementary annuities from taxable income to debenture holders who are not resident in Belgium and who receive less than 75 % of their professional income there and who cannot benefit from the same deduction in their Member State of residence on the basis of the small amount of their taxable income in that State,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), and

— Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the Commission relies on a single plea in law alleging that the legislation at issue is liable to deter non-resident taxpayers from exercising the freedoms of movement ensured by the Treaties and, more particularly, the freedom of movement of workers laid down in Article 45 TFEU and Article 28 of the EEA Agreement.

A non-resident taxpayer who does not derive at least 75 % of his or her taxable professional income from Belgium and who cannot effectively benefit from the deduction of maintenance annuities in his or her State of residence in the absence of sufficient taxable income in that State is deprived by Belgian legislation of the benefit of any deduction of those annuities. However, it follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice and in particular its judgment of 10 May 2012 in Case C-39/10, European Commission v Estonia that, in such a case, it is for the State of employment to take into account the personal and family circumstances of the non-resident taxpayer.