ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought on 25 August 2019 by CJ against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2019 in Case T-1/19, CJ v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-634/19 P)

(2020/C 255/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

By order of 16 June 2020 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and that CJ shall bear his own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 12 November 2019 — SC Panavitrans SRL v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-828/19)

(2020/C 201/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Panavitrans SRL

Defendants: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Must Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purposes of refunding a tax found to be contrary to Community law, lays down a shorter limitation period than the general limitation period laid down in national law as regards tax claims?
Action brought on 10 January 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-11/20)

(2020/C 68/41)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouhagiar and Th. Ramopoulos, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to implement the Commission’s decision of 7 December 2011 in the case SA.28864 SA.28864 concerning compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission sufficiently — in accordance with Article 4 of that decision — of the measures it has taken, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— order Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the terms of the Commission decision of 7 December 2011 in case SA.28864, the Hellenic Republic was required to recover within four months the incompatible aid paid by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Agency (ELGA) during 2008 and 2009 and to provide sufficient information to the Commission regarding the necessary measures adopted to that end.

However, the Hellenic Republic has not recovered that aid as it was required to do. Moreover, the Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures necessary to implement the decision. In any event, the Hellenic Republic has not sufficiently informed the European Commission of the measures relevant to the implementation of the decision.
If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:

Is Article 3(1) and (2) of that regulation to be interpreted as meaning that there will be an impermissible limitation of the end-user’s choice of terminal equipment where tethering is neither contractually prohibited nor technically restricted, but is, on the basis of an agreement on data volumes used via tethering and unlike data volumes used without tethering, not covered by a zero-cost tariff but offset against a basic volume and calculated separately in the event that that basic volume is exceeded?’
Action brought on 29 January 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-51/20)

(2020/C 87/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 9 November 2017 in Case C-481/16 Commission v Greece EU:C:2017:845, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that judgment and under Article 260(1) TFEU,

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 26 697,89 for each day’s delay in complying with the judgment of the Court of 9 November 2017 in Case C-481/16, for the period from the day on which judgment in the present case is delivered until the day on which the judgment of 9 November 2017 has been complied with in full,

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the Commission a lump sum, the amount of which results from the multiplication of a daily amount of EUR 3 709,23 by the number of days elapsed from delivery of the judgment of 9 November 2017 until the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case,

— order Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with the European Commission’s decision of 27 March 2014 in Case SA.34572, the Hellenic Republic should have recovered the incompatible aid granted to Larco within four months and informed the Commission to the requisite legal standard that it had taken the necessary measures to that end. The aid consisted of State guarantees to Larco for 2008, 2010 and 2011 and public participation in the company’s capital increase in 2009.

On 2 September 2016, the Commission brought an action before the Court for infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU (Case C-481/16). The Court ruled, on 9 November 2017, that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to implement the Commission’s decision and by failing to inform the Commission of the measures adopted pursuant to that decision, the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 to 5 of that decision and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

By failing to take measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 9 November 2017, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision and Article 260(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
1.

Is Rule 3(а) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 (1) of 6 October 2015 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the classification of products such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are made up of different materials, the heading covering the material that outweighs the other materials by quantity (bulk) is the ‘heading which provides the most specific description’ or is that interpretation only possible if the heading itself provides for quantity (bulk) as a criterion that provides the most specific, precise and complete description?
2.

If the first question is answered in the negative: Does Article 167 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of valued added tax preclude a provision of national law according to which the right of input tax deduction cannot be asserted for the tax period in which the remuneration has been paid if the tax claim against the supplier or service provider arises only when the remuneration is received, the service has already been provided in an earlier tax period and, under national law, due to the matter being time-barred, it is no longer possible to assert the input tax claim for that earlier tax period?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa lodged on 5 February 2020 — VAS ‘Latvijas dzelzceļš’ v Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija

(Case C-60/20)

(2020/C 161/41)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VAS ‘Latvijas dzelzceļš’

Defendant: Valsts dzelzceļa administrācija

Questions referred

1. Can Article 13(2) and (6) of Directive 2012/34 (1) (Article 15(5) and (6) of Regulation 2017/2177) (2) apply in such a manner that the regulatory body can impose on the owner of an infrastructure, who is not the owner of the service facility, the obligation to ensure access to the services?

2. Must Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 (Article 15(5) and (6) of Regulation 2017/2177) be interpreted as meaning that it permits the owner of a building to end a lease agreement and reconvert a service facility?

3. Must Article 13(6) of Directive 2012/34 (Article 15(5) and (6) of Regulation 2017/2177) be interpreted as requiring the regulatory body to ascertain only whether the operator of the service facility (in the present case, the owner of the service facility) has in fact decided to reconvert that facility?

(1) Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 of 22 November 2017 on access to service facilities and rail-related services (OJ 2017 L 307, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 February 2020 — Rottendorf Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-92/20)

(2020/C 201/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rottendorf Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Question referred

Is the second indent of Article 239(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which the non-Community goods imported by the person concerned were re-exported from the Community customs area and the circumstances that gave rise to the customs debt may not be attributed to obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned, the duty may be repaid?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 January 2020 — Biofa AG v Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG

(Case C-29/20)

(2020/C 191/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Biofa AG

Defendant: Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG

Question referred

Where an active substance is approved in an implementing regulation adopted pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, (1) can it be taken as given in court proceedings in a Member State that the substance on which the approval is based is intended within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 to act by any means other than mere physical or mechanical action, or is it for the adjudicating national court to establish in fact whether the preconditions for the application of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 are fulfilled even after an implementing regulation has been adopted?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).
1.

Should EU law, in particular Clause 5 of the framework agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which in all cases prohibits the conversion of fixed-term employment contracts concluded by public law entities into contracts of an indefinite duration?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 February 2020 — YL v Altenrhein Luftfahrt GmbH

(Case C-70/20)

(2020/C 201/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: YL

Defendant: Altenrhein Luftfahrt GmbH

Question referred

Does a hard landing, albeit still made within the normal operating range of an aircraft, which results in injury to a flight passenger constitute an accident within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air concluded on 28 May 1999 in Montreal, signed on 9 December 1999 by the European Community and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001? (1)

(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).
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: What legal criterion is to be applied for the purpose of assessing individual character in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 when determining the overall impression of a component part which — as in the case of a part of a vehicle’s bodywork, for example — is to be incorporated into a complex product? In particular, can the criterion be whether the appearance of the component part, as viewed by an informed user, is not completely lost in the appearance of the complex product, but rather displays a certain autonomy and consistency of form such that it is possible to identify an aesthetic overall impression which is independent of the overall form?
Action brought on 23 April 2020 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-169/20)

(2020/C 209/26)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and C. Perrin, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, in not applying depreciation to the environmental component when calculating the value applicable to used vehicles imported into Portuguese territory, purchased in other Member States, in the calculation of registration tax, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Portuguese legislation at issue provides for discrimination between the taxation of imported vehicles and the taxation imposed on similar national vehicles. The detailed rules and method of calculation in force almost always result in imported vehicles being taxed more heavily.

That situation is all the more worrying, since it is contrary to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice: the Portuguese legislation on the calculation of the tax applicable to used vehicles purchased in other Member States has already been the subject of previous infringement proceedings and various judgments of the Court of Justice.

The Portuguese legislation does not ensure that the used vehicles imported from other Member States are taxed in an amount not exceeding the tax reflected in similar used national vehicles. This may be explained by the fact that, as a result of the amendment of the legislation in 2016, depreciation is not applied to the environmental component used to calculate the value of a used vehicle.

Accordingly, the depreciation table enacted by the national legislation does not result in a reasonable approximation of the actual value of the used imported vehicle. Consequently, the amount paid to register a used imported vehicle exceeds the amount for a similar used vehicle already registered in Portugal, which constitutes an infringement of Article 110 TFEU and the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 12 February 2020 by Refan Bulgaria OOD against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2019 in Case T-747/18, Refan Bulgaria v EUIPO (Shape of a flower)

(Case C-72/20 P)

(2020/C 247/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Refan Bulgaria OOD (represented by: A. Ivanova, адвокат)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 4 June 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.
3.

Does a provision of national law limiting review by the Constitutional Court of the Resolution of the Národná rada Slovenskej republiky (National Council of the Slovak Republic), which revoked an amnesty or individual pardons and was adopted under Article 86(i) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, merely to an assessment of the resolution’s constitutionality, without taking into account binding acts adopted by the European Union, in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty on European Union, comply with the principle of sincere cooperation within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the right to a fair trial, guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 8 June 2020 — HRVATSKE Šume d.o.o., Zagreb, as the legal successor to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj, p.o. Zagreb v BP EUROPA SE, as the legal successor to DEUTSCHE BP AG, as the legal successor to THE BURMAH OIL (Deutschland), GmbH

(Case C-242/20)

(2020/C 262/26)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HRVATSKE Šume d.o.o., Zagreb, as the legal successor to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj, p.o. Zagreb

Defendant: BP EUROPA SE, as the legal successor to DEUTSCHE BP AG, as the legal successor to THE BURMAH OIL (Deutschland), GmbH

Questions referred

1. Do actions for recovery of sums unduly paid by way of unjust enrichment fall within the basic jurisdiction established in Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1)… in respect of ‘quasi-delicts’ since Article 5(3) thereof provides inter alia:: ‘A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued … in matters relating to … quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’?

2. Since there is a time limit on seeking recovery of sums unduly paid in the same judicial enforcement proceedings, do civil proceedings which have been initiated fall within exclusive jurisdiction under Article 22(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 … which provides that in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced is to have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
8.

In the case of a consumer credit agreement, is the creditor precluded from invoking the plea of abuse of rights in respect of the exercise of the right of withdrawal of the consumer in accordance with the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC (a) if some of the mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been neither properly included in the credit agreement nor subsequently duly provided and the period of withdrawal pursuant to Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC has therefore not begun? (b) (if Question (a) above is answered in the negative): if the abuse of rights is decisively based on the lapse of time since conclusion of the agreement and/or on the complete fulfilment of the agreement by both parties and/or on the creditor’s disposal of the recovered loan amount or the return of the loan security and/or (in the case of a purchase agreement linked with the credit agreement) on the use or sale of the financed object by the consumer, but the consumer had no knowledge of the continued existence of his right of withdrawal in the relevant period and when the relevant circumstances arose and is also not responsible for that lack of knowledge, and the creditor could also not assume that the consumer has such knowledge?
1.

Is Paragraph 4, point 14(b), of the Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on Turnover Tax) (UStG) compatible with Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’), (1) in so far as hospitals which are not bodies governed by public law qualify for exemption from tax on condition that they are approved within the meaning of Paragraph 108 of the Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) V (Social Security Code, Book V)?
5.

If the PNR Directive does not infringe higher-ranking law (see order of the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Administrative Court, Wiesbaden) of 13 May 2020, reference 6 K 805/19.WI) and is therefore applicable: (a) Are Article 7(4) and (5) of the PNR Directive to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude domestic legislation of a Member State (in this case, Paragraph 6(4) of the FlugDaG) that allows the authorities of that Member State, inasmuch as they perform prosecution-related tasks, to process the PNR data transferred for purposes other than the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime where findings, including in the light of further information, give cause to suspect another specific offence (so-called by-catch)? (b) Is the practice of a Member State of including in the list of competent authorities under Article 7(1) of the PNR Directive an authority (in this case, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution)) which, under national law (in this case, Paragraph 5(1), read in conjunction with Paragraph 3(1), of the Gesetz über die Zusammenarbeit des Bundes und der Länder in Angelegenheiten des Verfassungsschutzes und das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Law on Cooperation between the Federal Government and the Federal Länder in Matters of the Protection of the Constitution and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution)), does not have police powers due to the separation of powers required under domestic law, compatible with Article 7(2) of the PNR Directive?
2.

For the purposes of the principle of equality set out in Articles 20 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must the normal duration of periods of night work laid down in national law for workers in the private sector (7 hours) also apply to public-sector workers, including police officers and firefighters?
the grant of guaranteed access to the electricity grid for the electricity produced by those two companies, such as to ensure that they can operate continuously,

constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, that is to say, is it a measure funded by the State or through State resources, is it selective in nature and may it affect trade between Member States? If so, is such State aid subject to notification as provided for by Article 108(3) TFEU?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2020 — GC, WG v Société Air France SA

(Case C-286/20)

(2020/C 287/47)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: GC, WG

Defendant: Société Air France SA

This case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 15 July 2020.