ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Must Article 2 and Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (‘the TEU’), as well as Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the CFR’), be interpreted as meaning that: (a) where a court includes in its composition a person appointed to a judicial post in that court as a result of a procedure which does not provide for the participation of judicial self-government bodies, which bodies are appointed largely independently of the executive and the legislature, in a situation where, in the light of the constitutional acquis of the Member State, the participation of a judicial self-government body meeting those requirements in the judicial appointment procedure is necessary, that court is not a tribunal established by law within the meaning of EU law, having regard to the institutional and structural context and given that: — there was a requirement for the college of that court — a body that was composed in such a way that most of its members were appointed by a representative of the executive (the Minister Sprawiedliwości (Minister for Justice), who is also the Prokurator Generalny (Public Prosecutor General)) — to give an opinion on candidates’ suitability for the judicial post; — the current Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which was elected contrary to Polish constitutional and statutory provisions, is not an independent body and no representatives of the judiciary were elected to it independently of the executive and the legislature, and therefore no motion for appointment to the post of judge was effectively lodged as required under national law; — the participants in the competition for appointment to the post had no right of appeal to a court within the meaning of Article 2 and Article 19(1) TEU, as well as Article 6(1) to (3) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the CFR? (b) where a court includes in its composition a person appointed to a judicial post in that court as a result of a procedure which is subject to arbitrary interference by the executive and omits the participation of judicial self-government bodies, which bodies are appointed largely independently of the executive and the legislature, or of another body ensuring an objective assessment of the candidate, in view of the fact that the participation of judicial self-government bodies or of another body independent of the executive and the legislature which ensures an objective assessment of the candidate in the judicial appointment procedure is, in the context of the European legal tradition which is rooted in the aforementioned provisions of the TEU and the CFR and which underpins a union of law such as the European Union, necessary to ensure that the national court guarantees the required level of effective judicial protection in cases governed by EU law, and consequently that the principles of separation and balance of powers and of the rule of law are safeguarded, that court does not satisfy the requirements of an independent tribunal established by law?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — TUIfly GmbH v FI, RE

(Case C-253/21)

(2021/C 289/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TUIfly GmbH

Respondents: FI, RE

Question referred

Must Article 5(1)(c)(iii), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a flight lands at an airport of arrival other than that for which the booking was made, which is not located in the same city, town or region as the airport of arrival for which the booking was made, and the passengers are subsequently transferred from that airport by coach to the airport of arrival for which the original booking was made, which the passengers reach with a delay in arrival of less than three hours, there is a cancellation of the flight?

(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 Corte d’appello di Venezia (Italy) lodged on 21 May 2021 — Agecontrol SpA v ZR, Lidl Italia Srl

(Case C-319/21)

(2021/C 310/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Venezia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agecontrol SpA

Respondents: ZR, Lidl Italia Srl

Question referred

Must Article 5(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, (1) read in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 8 of that regulation and with Articles 113 and 113a of Council Regulation (EU) No 1234/2007 (2) of 22 October 2007, be interpreted as meaning that an accompanying document must be issued indicating the name and the country of origin of fresh fruit and vegetables shipped pre-packed or in the original packaging provided by the producer, during transport from a seller company’s distribution platform to a point of sale of the same company, irrespective of the fact that one side of the packaging features the information particulars required by Chapter I [of Title II] of Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (including the name and country of origin of the goods) indelibly printed directly onto the package or on a label which is an integral part of the package or affixed to it, and irrespective of the fact that this information is also shown on the invoices issued by the supplier from which the goods were purchased by the seller company kept in that company’s accounting offices and on a notice placed in an obvious position inside the means of transport in which the goods are being conveyed?

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 May 2021 — VT v Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane

(Case C-304/21)

(2021/C 297/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VT

Respondents: Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane

Question referred

Must Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000, Article 3 TEU, Article 10 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the national legislation contained in Legislative Decree No 334/2000, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and in the secondary sources adopted by the Ministry of the Interior, which lays down an age limit of 30 years for participation in a selection procedure for posts of commissioner in the career bracket of State Police officers?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the concept of ‘communication to the public’ in Article 1(2)(a) and (c) of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission and in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the satellite package provider, which intervenes as another operator during a communication to the public by satellite, bundles several encrypted high-definition signals of free-to-air and pay-TV programmes of various broadcasting organisations into a package of its own composition and offers the independent audiovisual product created in this way to its customers in return for payment, requires separate authorisation from the right holders concerned even in respect of the protected content in the free-to-air TV programmes contained in the package of programmes, although in this respect it is merely providing its customers with access to works which are already freely accessible — albeit in poorer standard-definition quality — to everyone in the broadcasting area?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 31 March 2021 — TU and SU v BRD Groupe Société Générale S.A. and Next Capital Solutions Limited

(Case C-200/21)

(2021/C 320/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: TU and SU

Respondents: BRD Groupe Société Générale S.A. and Next Capital Solutions Limited

Question referred

Does Directive 93/13/EEC (1) preclude a rule of national law, such as that resulting from Article 712 et seq. of Chapter VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down a period of 15 days within which a debtor may, by way of an objection to enforcement, rely on the unfairness of a contractual term of the enforceable instrument, given that an action seeking to establish the existence of unfair terms in an enforceable instrument is not subject to any time limit and, in this connection, a debtor may seek suspension of enforcement of the instrument under Article 638(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
2.

Does the ‘information relating to the payee’ referred to in that provision include information from which the natural or legal person that received the payment can be identified?
1.

Does a decision requiring payment of a financial penalty issued by the Netherlands central administrative authority determined pursuant to Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, (1) against which an appeal may be lodged with the public prosecutor’s office, which is subject in organisational terms to the Ministry of Justice, satisfy the criterion of ‘decision against which an appeal may be lodged with a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters’ for the purposes of Article 1(a)(ii) of the Framework Decision?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 June 2021 — R.J. R. v Valstybės įmonė Registrų centras

(Case C-354/21)

(2021/C 349/24)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: R.J. R.

Respondent: Valstybės įmonė Registrų centras

Question referred

Must point (l) of Article 1(2) and Article 69(5) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession be interpreted as not precluding legal rules of the Member State in which the immovable property is situated under which the rights of ownership can be recorded in the Real Property Register on the basis of a European Certificate of Succession only in the case where all of the details necessary for registration are set out in that European Certificate of Succession?

(1) OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 23 April 2021 — Uniqa Asigurări SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-267/21)

(2021/C 349/19)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Uniqa Asigurări SA

Respondents: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Question referred

In interpreting Article 59 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) can claims settlement services supplied by correspondent companies for an insurance company, in the name and on behalf of the latter, be classified in the category of services supplied by consultants, engineers, consultancy firms, lawyers, accountants and other similar services, as well as data processing and the provision of information?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 7 July 2021 — VP Capital NV v Belgische Staat; other parties: PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs NV, Ernst & Young Tax Consultants BV, Ernst & Young Bedrijfsrevisoren BV

(Case C-414/21)

(2021/C 368/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VP Capital NV

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Other parties: PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs NV, Ernst & Young Tax Consultants BV, Ernst & Young Bedrijfsrevisoren BV

Question referred

Does freedom of establishment, as guaranteed by Article 49 TFEU, preclude national legislation, such as that at issue here, where it results in a Luxembourg company which records write-downs on shares in Luxembourg and which, although deducting those write-downs in principle from its taxable income, cannot actually deduct them from its taxable income because of the existence of a tax loss position, being taxed on the write-back of those write-downs in Belgium following the transfer of its registered office to Belgium, unless the increases in value masked by that write-back are allocated to a liability account not available for distribution, whereas a Belgian company which has recorded write-downs on shares in Belgium is not taxed on the write-back of those write-downs, provided that the write-downs had not been previously deducted from its Belgian taxable income, without needing to allocate the increases in value masked by that write-back to a liability account not available for distribution?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 12(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted as meaning that the requirement for a contracting authority, in this case a public service housing company, to be represented on the decision-making bodies of the controlled legal person, in this case an inter-municipal cooperative society, is satisfied solely on the basis that a person who sits on the board of directors of that inter-municipal cooperative society in his or her capacity as a municipal councillor of another participating contracting authority, in this case a municipality, is, due to purely factual circumstances and without any legal guarantee of representation, also a director of the public service housing company, while the municipality is a (non-exclusive) shareholder in both the controlled entity (inter-municipal cooperative society) and the public service housing company?
3.

Third, in violation of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, the General Court erred in law by concluding that the Commission did not experience serious difficulties when it concluded that Post Danmark’s over-allocation of common costs to the USO account did not constitute State aid. The Appellants argue that the General Court’s erroneous conclusion is based on two errors in law, corresponding to two subpleas: a. The General Court erred in law by holding that section 4(4)(c) of the 2006 accounting regulation and section 4(3)(c) of the 2011 accounting regulation are only a specific application of the principles laid down in section 4(4)(a) and 4(4)(b) of the 2006 and 2011 accounting regulations. b. The General Court erred in law by holding that the appropriateness of Post Danmark’s allocation of common cost is evidenced by the fact that Post Danmark’s accounts have been subject to regular audits.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v AirHelp Germany GmbH

(Case C-95/21)

(2021/C 382/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Applicant and respondent: AirHelp Germany GmbH

This case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v ED

(Case C-140/21)

(2021/C 391/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: ED

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)?

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2021.

(1) Regulation 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).
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, are the principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination enshrined in Article 160(1) of Regulation 2018/1046 and Article 102(1) of Regulation No 966/2012 to be interpreted as precluding a total restriction of competition in the award of a public contract by way of a negotiated procedure without prior publication where the subject matter of the public contract does not have special characteristics which objectively require it to be performed only by the economic operator invited to negotiate? In particular, are Article 160(1) and (2) of Regulation 2018/1046, read in conjunction with Article 164(1)(d) thereof, and Article 102(1) and (2) of Regulation No 966/2012, read in conjunction with Article 104(1)(d) thereof, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, following the discontinuation of a public procurement procedure on the ground that the sole tender submitted is unsuitable, the contracting authority may invite only one economic operator to participate in a negotiated procedure without prior publication where the subject matter of the public contract does not have special characteristics which objectively require it to be performed only by the economic operator invited to negotiate?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2021 — easyJet Airline Company Ltd. v HG

(Case C-435/21)

(2021/C 422/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: easyJet Airline Company Ltd.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: HG

The case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 10 August 2021.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2021 — X GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Bremen

(Case C-431/21)

(2021/C 401/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Bremen

Question referred

Must Article 43 of the EC Treaty and Article 49 TFEU, which guarantee the freedom of establishment (or, respectively, Article 49 of the EC Treaty and Article 56 TFEU, which guarantee the freedom to provide services), be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in situations involving transactions with a foreign element, the taxpayer must keep records on the nature and content of his or her business relations with related parties, including the economic and legal bases for an arm’s length agreement on prices and other terms and conditions with the related parties, and under which, where the taxpayer fails to submit those records when requested to do so by the tax authority, or where the records submitted are fundamentally unusable, not only is there a rebuttable presumption that his or her income subject to tax domestically, which such records serve to determine, is higher than the income that he or she has declared, and, if in such cases the tax authority is required to make an estimate and such income can be determined only within a certain range, in particular only on the basis of price bands, the upper value of that range may be taken as the basis to the detriment of the taxpayer, but, in addition, a surcharge is to be imposed which is at least 5 per cent and at most 10 per cent of the excess income determined, but not less than EUR 5 000, and which, in the event that usable records are submitted late, is up to EUR 1 000 000, but not less than EUR 100 for each full day of delay, whereby the imposition of a surcharge is to be waived only if the non-compliance with the record-keeping obligations appears to be excusable or if any fault involved is only minor?
1.

Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) be interpreted as meaning that a natural person, who is a mechanical engineer specialising in hydraulic and pneumatic machinery (who does not engage in trade as an occupation and in particular in the purchase of goods and services for resale and/or in intermediation activities) and who concludes with a commercial company (a seller or supplier) a pre-formulated standard contract under which that natural person is entitled to participate in a shopping community set up by that company in the form of the Lyoness system (a system which promises economic returns in the form of refunds on purchases, commission and other promotional benefits), to purchase goods and services from traders who have a contractual relationship with that company (called ‘Lyoness business partners’), and to act as an intermediary with other persons within the Lyoness system (known as ‘potential loyalty customers’), be regarded as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision, notwithstanding the contractual term which provides that Swiss law alone is to apply to the contractual relationship between Lyoness and the customer, irrespective of the customer’s place of domicile, in order to ensure effective consumer protection?