ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

Is Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 to be interpreted as meaning that the specification, in an individual employment contract, of the provisions of the Romanian Labour Code does not equate to a choice of Romanian law, in so far as, in Romania, it is well-known that there is a legal obligation to include such a choice-of-law clause in individual employment contracts? In other words, is Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 to be interpreted as precluding national rules and practices pursuant to which a clause specifying the choice of Romanian law must necessarily be included in individual employment contracts?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2020 — P v ‘K’ EOOD

(Case C-229/20)

(2020/C 271/35)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P

Defendant:‘K’ EOOD

Questions referred

1. Is Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the fees for ancillary services agreed in connection with a consumer credit agreement, such as fees for the possibility of deferring and reducing instalments, constitute part of the annual percentage rate of charge for the credit?

2. Is Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that an incorrect indication of the annual percentage rate of charge in a credit agreement between a trader and a consumer borrower must be regarded as a failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in the credit agreement and that the national court must apply the legal consequences provided for under national law for failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in a consumer credit agreement?

3. Is Article 22(4) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a penalty provided for under national law, in the form of nullity of the consumer credit agreement, whereby only the principal amount granted is to be repaid, is proportionate if the annual percentage rate of charge is not accurately indicated in the consumer credit agreement?

4. Is Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13/EEC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the fees for a package of ancillary services provided for in a separate supplementary agreement to a consumer credit agreement as the main agreement must be regarded as part of the main subject matter of the latter agreement and cannot therefore be the subject of the assessment of unfairness?

5. Irrespective of the answer to the third question, is Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC in conjunction with point 1(o) of the annex to that directive to be interpreted as meaning that a term in an agreement for ancillary services relating to consumer credit is unfair if it grants the consumer the abstract possibility of deferring and rescheduling his payments and he owes fees for that possibility even if he does not make use of it?

(1) Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

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

Must Article 15(2) of Directive 2015/2436/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade marks and Article 15(2) of Regulation 2017/1001/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the EU trade mark be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may oppose further commercialisation of a medicinal product which a parallel importer has repackaged in new external packaging to which the trade mark has been reaffixed, where (i) the importer is able to achieve packaging which may be marketed and gain effective access to the market of the Member State of importation by breaking the original external packaging in order to affix new labels to the inner packaging and/or replace the package leaflet and then reseal the original external packaging with a new device to verify whether the packaging has been tampered with, in accordance with Article 47a of Directive 2001/83/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on medicinal products (as amended by Directive 2011/62/EU (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council) and Article 16 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 (5) on safety features appearing on the packaging of medicinal products? (ii) the importer is not able to achieve packaging which may be marketed and gain effective access to the market of the Member State of importation by breaking the original external packaging in order to affix new labels to the inner packaging and/or replace the package leaflet and then reseal the original external packaging with a new device to verify whether the packaging has been tampered with, in accordance with Article 47a of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on medicinal products (as amended by Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council) and Article 16 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 on safety features appearing on the packaging of medicinal products?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 18 June 2020 — AG and Others v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-270/20)

(2020/C 279/51)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: AG, MG and HG, all minors and all represented for legal purposes

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Question referred

Is Article 7(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the air carrier may reduce the entitlement to compensation under Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation also in the case where, as a result of the cancellation of the flight booked, the passengers are offered an alternative flight the scheduled time of departure and the scheduled time of arrival of which are each 11:55 hours earlier than the flight times of the cancelled flight?

(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).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 June 2020 — IB v FA

(Case C-289/20)

(2020/C 297/45)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: IB

Respondent: FA

Question referred

Where, as in the present case, it is apparent from the factual circumstances that one of the spouses divides his time between two Member States, is it permissible to conclude, in accordance with and for the purposes of the application of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, (1) that he or she is habitually resident in two Member States, such that, if the conditions listed in that article are met in two Member States, the courts of those two States have equal jurisdiction to rule on the divorce?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 30 June 2020 — XQ v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-291/20)

(2020/C 287/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XQ

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Is a strike by an air carrier’s own employees, which is called by a trade union, an extraordinary circumstance for the purpose 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 Court of 30 July 2020.

(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).
1.

Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 4 of Directive 93/13 and its following recitals: — whereas the consumer must receive equal protection under contracts concluded by word of mouth and written contracts regardless, in the latter case, of whether the terms of the contract are contained in one or more documents; — whereas the assessment, according to the general criteria chosen, of the unfair character of terms, in particular in sale or supply activities of a public nature providing collective services which take account of solidarity among users, must be supplemented by a means of making an overall evaluation of the different interests involved; whereas this constitutes the requirement of good faith; whereas, in making an assessment of good faith, particular regard shall be had to the strength of the bargaining positions of the parties, whether the consumer had an inducement to agree to the term and whether the goods or services were sold or supplied to the special order of the consumer; whereas the requirement of good faith may be satisfied by the seller or supplier where he deals fairly and equitably with the other party whose legitimate interests he has to take into account; — whereas contracts should be drafted in plain, intelligible language, the consumer should actually be given an opportunity to examine all the terms and, if in doubt, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer should prevail; in the light of paragraphs 16 and 21 of the Court’s judgment of 3 September 2015, Costea (C-110/14, EU:C:2015:538) and points 20 and 26-33 of the Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón delivered on 23 April 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:271), be interpreted as meaning that every consumer is entitled to the consumer protection conferred by Directive 93/13? Or, as suggested by paragraph 74 of the Court’s judgment of 30 April 2014, Kásler and Káslerné Rábai (C-26/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:282), is consumer protection only available to an average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect? In other words, can the national court find the terms of a contract concluded by any consumer to be unlawful or can it only find the terms of a contract concluded by a consumer who can be considered an average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to be unlawful?
1.

Is Article 55(3) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘processing operations of courts acting in their judicial capacity’ can be understood to mean the provision by a judicial authority of access to procedural documents containing personal data, where such access is granted by making copies of those procedural documents available to a journalist, as described in the present order for reference? a. In answering that question, is it relevant whether the national supervisory authority’s supervision of that form of data processing affects independent judicial decisions in specific cases? b. In answering that question, is it relevant that, according to the judicial authority, the nature and purpose of the data processing is to inform a journalist in order to enable the journalist to better report on a public hearing in court proceedings, thereby serving the interests of openness and transparency in the administration of justice? c. In answering that question, is it relevant whether there is any express legal basis for such data processing under national law?
(1)

Error in law — Incorrect application of the principle of good faith in performance of the contract at issue and breach of the requirement of legal certainty which requires the EU institutions to exercise their powers within a reasonable time. — Under the first part of the abovementioned ground, the appellant complains that the General Court misinterpreted the content of the principle that action is to be taken within a reasonable time, failing to take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case. — By the second part of the first ground of appeal, the appellant asserts that both the duration of the procedure and the positions adopted by the Commission during the procedure gave it the legitimate expectation that financial corrections would not be imposed upon it.
1.

Is Article 70(3) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 (‘the EU Succession Regulation’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a copy of the certificate issued for an indefinite duration without indicating an expiry date, contrary to that provision, a. is valid and effective indefinitely, or b. is valid only for a period of six months from the date of issue of the certified copy, or c. is valid only for a period of six months from another date, or d. is invalid and unsuitable for use within the meaning of Article 63 of the EU Succession Regulation?
2.

Must Regulation No 550/2004, inasmuch as it states that ‘the provision of air traffic services, as envisaged by this Regulation, is connected with the exercise of the powers of a public authority, which are not of an economic nature justifying the application of the Treaty rules on competition’, be interpreted as excluding not only the rules on competition per se, but also any other rules applicable to public undertakings active on a market for goods and services which have an indirect effect on competition, such as those prohibiting hindrances to the freedom to conduct business and to provide services?
Appeal brought on 8 April 2020 by WV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 29 January 2020 in Case T-43/19, WV v EEAS

(Case C-171/20 P)

(2020/C 320/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the order of 29 January 2020 of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-43/19, in so far as it dismissed the action as inadmissible and ordered the present appellant to pay the costs;

— Order the original defendant to pay all of the costs, including the costs incurred before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

— Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union in order for it to rule on the action.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that, in issuing the order under appeal, the General Court failed to have regard to the principle of unfettered evaluation of evidence and the concept of a body of consistent evidence and, therefore, failed to have regard to the rules relating to the burden of proof, in particular as regards the arguments and evidence submitted concerning the legal nature of the claim for damages lodged by the appellant with the EEAS pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

The single ground of appeal raised by the appellant also alleges discrimination, distortion of the facts by the order under appeal and manifest errors of assessment made by the General Court resulting in imprecise legal reasoning.
2.

If cross-border activity at the time when the contract was concluded is not necessary: Does Article 15(1)(c) of the Lugano Convention, read in conjunction with Article 16(2) thereof, generally preclude determination of the court having jurisdiction in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Lugano Convention in the case where the consumer relocated to another State bound by the Convention between the time when the contract was concluded and the time when the proceedings were brought, or is it also necessary for the professional or commercial activities of the other party to be pursued in or directed to the new State of domicile and for the contract to come within the scope of such activities?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 10 August 2020 — Liberty Seguros SA v DR

(Case C-375/20)

(2020/C 348/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Liberty Seguros SA

Defendant: DR

Interveners: Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, VS, FN, JT, Seguradoras Unidas, SA

Question referred

Does [EU] law, and in particular Directive 2009/103/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, preclude national legislation which allows the nullity of a contract of insurance taken out against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles to be relied on as against injured third parties and the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel (Portuguese motor vehicle insurance guarantee fund) where that nullity results from the fact that the policyholder has used the insured vehicle for the clandestine and illegal transport of persons and goods for remuneration and has concealed its use for that purpose from the insurer? Would the answer be the same even if the passengers had known that the transport was clandestine and unlawful?

(1) Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).
2.

With regard to the circumstances of the main proceedings, are the principle of legal certainty, the principle of legitimate expectations, the principle of proportionality and [the principle] of sincere cooperation, as set out in Directive 2006/112/EC, compatible with national legislation or with a practice of the tax authority according to which, although the Member State normally allows a legal person, on request, to re-register for VAT purposes following automatic revocation of the VAT code, in certain specific circumstances a taxpayer may not request re-registration for VAT purposes, for purely formal reasons, whilst being obliged to collect and pay VAT to the State, for an indeterminate period, without, however, at the same time being granted the right to deduct VAT?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 31 July 2020 — IE v Magistrat der Stadt Wien

(Case C-357/20)

(2020/C 359/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IE

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Questions referred

1. How is the term ‘breeding site’ within the meaning of Article [12(1)(d)] of the Habitats Directive (1) to be understood, and how is a ‘breeding site’ to be differentiated spatially from other locations?

2. Which factors determine whether, and, if so, for how long, the existence of a breeding site is limited in time?

3. Which factors determine whether deterioration or destruction of a breeding site has been caused by a particular act or omission?

4. Which factors determine whether a ‘resting place’ within the meaning of Article [12(1)(d)] of the Habitats Directive has been caused to deteriorate or to be destroyed?

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) as last amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of environment, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193).
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski sud u Puli (Croatia) lodged on 20 February 2020 — criminal proceedings against GR, HS, IT, and INTER CONSULTING d.o.o., in liquidation

(Case C-89/20)

(2020/C 390/23)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Županijski sud u Puli

Parties to the main proceedings

GR, HS, IT, and INTER CONSULTING d.o.o, in liquidation

By order of 1 October 2020, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Županijski sud u Puli (Pula County Court, Croatia) is manifestly inadmissible.
2.

Must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as the special law at issue in the main proceedings — ZID ZPK 2015 — Zakon o konverziji (Law on Conversion), which, on the one hand, obliges the supplier of services under a mandatory provision to offer the consumer the conclusion of an annex to the loan agreement in the manner set out in that law, which annex replaces individual terms and conditions of the agreement which have been declared null and void by a court ruling already at the time of entry into force of that law (terms and conditions concerning unilateral changes to the interest rate) or subsequently (terms and conditions concerning a currency clause linked to the Swiss franc (CHF)) with valid contractual terms and conditions in such a manner as if the terms and conditions stipulated in the annex had been in force between the parties from the outset, thereby ensuring the validity of the agreement, and, on the other hand, providing that payments made pursuant to unfair terms and conditions by a consumer who has voluntarily agreed to conclude the annex are to be counted towards his obligations arising from the terms and conditions of the valid annex, by way of disposing of any overpayment or reimbursing the consumer if the overpayment exceeds the sum of equal instalments under the new loan repayment schedule, which disposal or reimbursement is to be effected in the manner provided for by that law?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 September 2020 — Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet v Dustin Sverige AB

(Case C-461/20)

(2020/C 414/34)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Advania Sverige AB and Kammarkollegiet

Defendant: Dustin Sverige AB

Question referred

Does the circumstance that a new contractor has taken over the initial contractor’s rights and obligations under a framework agreement, after the initial contractor has been declared insolvent and the insolvency estate has transferred the agreement, mean that the new contractor will be deemed to have succeeded into the position of the initial contractor under conditions such as those referred to in Article 72(1)(d)(ii) of the Public Procurement Directive (1)?

(1) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
—

set aside, in part, the contested judgment and declare the appellant’s requests in Case T-518/18 admissible and well-founded, confirming the payment of the costs by the defendant; and consequently