ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought on 3 December 2019 by HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC France against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-105/17, HSBC Holdings plc and Others v Commission

(Case C-883/19 P)

(2020/C 45/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC France (represented by:

K. Bacon QC, D. Bailey, Barristers, M. Simpson, Solicitor, C. Angeli, avocate, M. Giner, advocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 September 2019 in Case T- 105/17, HSBC Holdings plc and Others v European Commission;

— annul Article 1(b) of Commission Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39914 – Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)) (1); alternatively, annul Article 1(b) in so far as it refers to HSBC’s participation in a single and continuous infringement after 19 March 2007; and

— order the Commission to pay HSBC’s costs arising from Case T-105/17 and the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: the General Court erred in law as regards the effects of the Commission’s infringement of essential procedural requirements, namely HSBC’s right to the principles of the presumption of innocence, good administration and the rights of defence.

Second plea: the General Court erred in law by misapplying Article 101(1) TFEU in its characterisation of the object of the manipulation of 19 March 2007 and/or by distorting the relevant evidence.

Third plea: the General Court erred in law by concluding that the two discussions were infringements of Article 101(1) TFEU by object. In particular, the General Court erred in stating that the pro-competitive nature of those discussions could only be taken into account under Article 101(1) TFEU in the context of either restrictions ancillary to a main operation or an assessment under Article 101(3) TFEU.

Fourth plea: the General Court’s conclusions as regards two discussions on 12 and 16 February 2007 manifestly distorted the evidence before the Court.

Fifth plea: the General Court’s conclusion that the single and continuous infringement that it identified in its judgment pursued a single aim is vitiated by two errors of law: (i) a manifest distortion of the facts and evidence as regards the discussion on 27 March 2007; and (ii) an error of law in the conclusion that two discussions on mids pursued the single aim identified by the General Court.

Sixth plea: alleging that the General Court erred in law by finding that HSBC participated in a single and continuous infringement that included conduct that was not identified as infringing conduct by HSBC in the Decision.

(1) OJ 2019, C 130, p. 4.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 20 November 2019 — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) v BT

(Case C-843/19)

(2020/C 54/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Respondent: BT

Question referred

Does EU law preclude a provision of national law such as Article 208(1)(c) of the 2015 Ley General de la Seguridad Social (General Law on Social Security), which stipulates that, in order for anyone enrolled in the General Scheme to be able to take voluntary early retirement, the pension payable, calculated in the standard way without any minimum pension supplement, must be at least as much as the minimum pension, inasmuch as it indirectly discriminates against women enrolled in the General Scheme, since it affects a far greater number of women than men?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Mr Andreas Hauzenberger against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-349/18, Andreas Hauzenberger v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-696/19 P)

(2020/C 61/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Andreas Hauzenberger (represented by: B. Bittner, Rechtsanwalt, U. Heinrich, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 19 December 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2019 in joined Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15, Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission

(Case C-898/19 P)

(2020/C 54/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ireland (represented by: M. Browne, A. Joyce, J. Quaney, P. Gallagher SC, Agents, S. Kingston, B. Doherty, BL)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 in Joined Cases, T-755/15 and T-759/15, Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission;

— annul the Commission’s decision (1) of 21 October 2015, and

— order the Commission to pay the cost of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground: the General Court erred in law and misapplied Article 107(1) TFEU in its approach to the so-called ‘arm’s-length principle’.

Second ground: the General Court erred in law and misapplied Article 107(1) TFEU in its analysis of selectivity.

Third ground: the General Court breached its duty to give reasons for its judgment.

Fourth ground: the General Court breached the principle of legal certainty by agreeing that the Commission could review decisions of national tax administrations by reference to a Commission version of the arm’s-length principle which was unpredictable and whose content is unknown.

Fifth ground: the General Court breached Articles 4 and 5 TEU and impermissibly used the State aid rules to harmonise Member States’ direct taxation rules.

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2326 of 21 October 2015 on State aid SA.38375 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) which Luxembourg granted to Fiat (notified under document C(2015) 7152) (OJ 2016, L 351, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-183/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot

(Case C-590/19 P)

(2020/C 77/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by T. de Haan and P. Péters, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Guinot

By order of 7 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 November 2019 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov

(Case C-852/19)

(2020/C 68/33)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Ivan Gavanozov

Questions referred

Is national legislation which does not provide for any legal remedy against the issuing of a European Investigation Order for the search of residential and business premises, the seizure of certain items and the hearing of a witness compatible with Article 14(1) to (4), Article 1(4) and recitals 18 and 22 of Directive 2014/41/EU (1) and with Articles 47 and 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Articles 13 and 8 of the ECHR?

Can a European Investigation Order be issued under those circumstances?

(1) Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (OJ 2014, L 130, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 20 December 2019 — X v Belgian State

(Case C-930/19)

(2020/C 77/41)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Belgian State

Question referred

Does Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (1) infringe Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it provides that divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of a registered partnership does not entail loss of the right of residence of a Union citizen’s family members who are not nationals of a Member State where, inter alia, this is warranted by particularly difficult circumstances, such as having been a victim of domestic violence while the marriage or registered partnership was subsisting, but only on the condition that the persons concerned show that they are workers or self-employed persons or that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State, or that they are members of the family, already constituted in the host Member State, of a person satisfying these requirements, whereas Article 15(3) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, (2) which makes the same provision for the right of residence to continue, does not make its continuation subject to that condition?

(1) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).

(2) OJ 2003, L 251, p. 12.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 7 June 2019 by All Star CV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 March 2019 in Case T-611/17 All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés

(Case C-461/19 P)

(2020/C 77/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: All Star CV (represented by: S. Malynicz, A. Newnes and A. Artinian, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 30 September 2019, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) found that the appeal was not allowed to proceed.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 4 June 2019 — OL and Others v Rapidsped Fuvarozási és Szállítmányozási Zrt.

(Case C-428/19)

(2020/C 95/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: OL, PM and RO

Defendant: Rapidsped Fuvarozási és Szállítmányozási Zrt.

Questions referred

(1) Must Article 1(1) of Directive 96/71/EC, (1) in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 thereof and Articles 285 and 299 of the [Hungarian] Labour Code, be interpreted as meaning that an infringement of that directive and of the French minimum wage legislation can be relied upon by Hungarian workers as against their Hungarian employers in proceedings instituted before the Hungarian courts?

(2) Must per diems intended to cover the costs incurred during the posting of a worker abroad be regarded as forming part of the worker’s wage?

(3) Is the practice whereby, in the event of a given economy based on the distance travelled and the fuel consumed, the employer uses a formula to pay the driver of a transport vehicle an allowance which does not form part of the wage provided for in his employment contract and on which no taxes or social security contributions are payable, contrary to Article 10 of Regulation No 561/2006/EC? (2) Notwithstanding that the fuel economy [allowance] encourages drivers of transport vehicles to drive in such a way as might endanger road safety (for example, by freewheeling for as long as possible when going downhill)?

(4) Is Directive 96/71/EC applicable to the international transport of goods, account being taken in particular of the fact that the European Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against France and Germany for applying minimum wage legislation to the road transport sector?

(5) If it has not been transposed into national law, can a directive in itself create obligations incumbent on an individual and, therefore, constitute by itself the basis for an action against an individual in a dispute brought before a national court?

(1) Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 28 November 2019 — L v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U.

(Case C-869/19)

(2020/C 87/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L

Defendant: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U.

Question referred

Does Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) preclude the application of the procedural principles of delimitation of the subject matter of an action by the parties, correlation between the claims put forward in the action and the rulings contained in the operative part and prohibition of reformatio in peius that prevent the court seised of the appeal lodged by the bank against a judgment that placed a temporal limit on repayment of the amounts overpaid by the consumer under a ‘floor clause’ subsequently declared void from ordering repayment in full of the said overpayments, thereby placing the appellant in a worse position, because the consumer has not appealed against the said limit?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
3.

Is it compatible with the provisions of Directive 2006/112 on [the deduction of VAT] and with the principles of fiscal neutrality and of effectiveness for a national legal interpretation and a national practice to operate (i) to the effect that a taxable person who uses goods for the purposes of his taxed transactions in the Member State in which he carries out those transactions and who is in possession of an invoice consistent with Directive 2006/112 is denied the right [to deduct VAT] on the ground that he is not aware of all the components [of the transaction] carried out by the members of the chain or on the basis of circumstances associated with the members of the chain upstream of the issuer of the invoice and over which the taxable person was unable to bring to bear any influence for reasons beyond his control, as well as (ii) to the effect that the right to [deduct VAT] is made subject to the condition that, so far as concerns the measures reasonably incumbent upon him, the taxable person must comply with a general obligation of scrutiny that must be discharged not only before the contract is concluded but also during and even after its performance? In that context, is the taxable person obliged to refrain from exercising the right [to deduct VAT] in the case where, in connection with any component of the economic transaction indicated on the invoice and at any point subsequent to the conclusion of the contract or during or after its performance, he notices an irregularity or becomes aware of a circumstance the consequence of which would be the refusal of the right [to deduct VAT] pursuant to the practice of the tax authority?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 10 September 2019 — Gardinia Home Decor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Ulm

(Case C-670/19)

(2020/C 161/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gardinia Home Decor GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Ulm

By order of 27 February 2020, the Court (Sixth Chamber) ruled as follows:

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, (2) is to be interpreted as meaning that base metal curtain rods fall within tariff subheading 8302 41 90, unless those rods consist of rods, tubes or bars which have been merely cut to the required length, which is for the referring court to ascertain in order to carry out its own tariff classification of the goods at issue in the main proceedings, having regard to the information provided by the Court in response to the first question referred.

(1) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2) Regulation amending Annex I of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 27 December 2019 — SIA ‘OC Finance’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

(Case C-945/19)

(2020/C 137/39)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance and appellant on a point of law: SIA ‘OC Finance’

Respondent in the appeal proceedings: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Questions referred

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling are identical to those in Case C-944/19.
Official Journal of the European Union

Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) and the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 November 2019 and 3 December 2019 — Marvik-Pastrogor EOOD and RODES-08 EOOD

(Cases C-818/19 and C-878/19)

(2020/C 255/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring courts

Varhoven kasatsionen sad, Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marvik-Pastrogor EOOD, RODES-08 EOOD

Defendants: Darzhavata, predstavlyavana ot Ministara na finansite, Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria

By order of 30 April 2020, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 10 December 2019 by European Food SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2019 in Case T-536/18, Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS)

(Case C-908/19 P)

(2020/C 201/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Food SA (represented by: R. Dincă, I. Speciac, V. Stănese, I.-F. Cofaru, avocați)

Other parties to the proceedings: Société des produits Nestlé, European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 18 March 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
1.

Do Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter preclude an interpretation of a rule of national law such as Paragraph 7(3) of the German Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal Law on leave; “the BUrIG”) according to which the as yet unexercised entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker who suffers, on health grounds, a full reduction of earning capacity in the course of the leave year, but who could still have taken — at least some of — the leave in the leave year before the onset of his reduction of earning capacity, lapses 15 months after the end of the leave year in the event of a continuing uninterrupted reduction of earning capacity even if the employer has not actually enabled the worker to exercise his leave entitlement by informing him of the leave concerned and inviting him to take it?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 January 2020 — Syyttäjä v A

(Case C-35/20)

(2020/C 103/21)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syyttäjä

Defendant: A

Questions referred

1. Does EU law, in particular Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) and Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (2) (Schengen Borders Code), or [Or. 14] the right of EU citizens to move freely within the territory of the European Union, preclude the application of a national provision requiring a person (whether or not an EU citizen), under threat of criminal penalties, to carry a valid passport or other valid travel document when travelling from one Member State to another by pleasure boat via international waters without entering the territory of a third country?

2. Does EU law, in particular Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC and Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (Schengen Borders Code), or the right of EU citizens to move freely within the territory of the European Union, preclude the application of a national provision requiring a person (whether or not an EU citizen), under threat of criminal penalties, to carry a valid passport or other valid travel document upon entering the Member State concerned from another Member State by pleasure boat via international waters without having entered the territory of a third country?

3. In so far as no obstacle within the meaning of Questions 1 and 2 arises under EU law: Is the penalty normally imposed in Finland in the form of daily fines for crossing the Finnish border without carrying a valid travel document compatible with the principle of proportionality that follows from Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC?

(1) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1).
—

declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 in conjunction with Articles 10 and 15 of Directive 91/271/EEC by not ensuring that, before it is discharged, urban waste water from the agglomerations Borås, Skoghall, Habo and Töreboda is subject to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4 of the directive in accordance with the requirements of the same directive, and