ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — PN, QO, RP, SQ, TR v Centre public d’action sociale d’Anderlecht (CPAS)

(Case C-394/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Citizenship of the European Union - Right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of a Member State - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 3 - Beneficiaries - Incorrect transposition - Liability of a Member State in the event of infringement of EU law - Grant of social assistance as compensation for the damage suffered - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2021/C 44/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PN, QO, RP, SQ, TR

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale d’Anderlecht (CPAS)

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Labour Court (French-speaking), Belgium) by decision of 14 May 2019 is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — DA v Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa) and Others and FC and Others v Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa) and Others

(Case C-333/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Articles 107 and 108 TFEU - Bilateral Investment Treaty - Arbitration clause - Romania - Arbitral award granting payment of damages - European Commission decision declaring that payment to be State aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Enforcement of an arbitral award before a court of a Member State other than the Member State to which the decision is addressed - Infringement of EU law - Article 19 TEU - Articles 267 and 344 TFEU - Autonomy of EU law)

(2023/C 24/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: DA and FC, European Food SA, Starmill SRL, Multipack SRL

Defendants: Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa), Romania, European Commission, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol), FC, European Food SA, Starmill SRL, Multipack SRL and Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (Romatsa), Romania, DA, European Commission, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol)

Operative part of the order

EU law, in particular Articles 267 and 344 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State ruling on the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State Aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania — Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013, is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not in any case proceed with its enforcement in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain the payment of damages which it awarded them.

(1) OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.
2.

Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of transparency incumbent on a seller or supplier under those provisions implies that, when concluding a novation agreement between a seller or supplier and a consumer, the terms of which have not been individually negotiated, which is intended to amend a potentially unfair term of an earlier contract concluded between those same parties, that seller or supplier must provide the consumer with the relevant information enabling him or her to understand the legal consequences for him or her and, in particular, the fact that the original term could possibly have been unfair, which it is for the referring court to verify.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores — Portugal) — MV v SATA International — Serviços e Transportes Aéreos SA

(Case C-137/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Scope - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory framework of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 414/26)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MV

Defendant: SATA International — Serviços e Transportes Aéreos SA

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Azores District Court, Portugal), by decision of 10 January 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-10/20) (1)

(2020/C 320/53)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Archimandritis Sarantis Sarantos, Protopresvyteros Ioannis Fotopoulos, Protopresvyteros Antonios Bousdekis, Protopresvyteros Vasileios Kokolakis, Estia Paterikon Meleton, Christos Papasotiriou, Charalampos Andralis v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-84/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - EU citizenship - Strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement - Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 - Action for annulment - Legal standing - Lack of individual concern - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Obligation for a party to be represented by a lawyer - Applicant, also a lawyer, acting in his own name by signing the application himself, without engaging the services of a third-party lawyer to represent him - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

(2021/C 44/17)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: Archimandritis Sarantis Sarantos, Protopresvyteros Ioannis Fotopoulos, Protopresvyteros Antonios Bousdekis, Protopresvyteros Vasileios Kokolakis, Estia Paterikon Meleton, Christos Papasotiriou, Charalampos Andralis (represented by: C. Papasotiriou, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal brought by Mr Christos Papasotirou as inadmissible;

2. Dismisses the appeal brought by Mr Sarantis Sarantos, Mr Ioannis Fotopoulos, Mr Antonios Bousdekis, Mr Vasileios Kokolakis, Mr Estia Paterikon Meleton and Mr Charalampos Andralis as manifestly unfounded;

3. Orders Mr Sarantis Sarantos, Mr Ioannis Fotopoulos, Mr Antonios Bousdekis, Mr Vasileios Kokolakis, Mr Estia Paterikon Meleton, Mr Christos Papasotirou and Mr Charalampos Andralis to pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2020 — Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. v European Commission

(Case C-85/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers - Alleged decisions of the European Commission declaring the measure compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Deadline for lodging an appeal - Starting point - Awareness of the existence of the contested measure - Reasonable time in which to request the full text thereof - Definition of ‘actionable measure’ within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU - Inadmissibility of the application at first instance - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2021/C 44/18)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. (represented by: L. Szabó, ügyvéd)

Other party: European Commission

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded;

2. Orders Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — HR v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf

(Case C-108/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167 and 168 - Right to deduct input VAT - Refusal - Fraud - Supply chain - Refusal of the right to deduct where the taxable person knew or should have known that, by his or her purchase, he or she was participating in a transaction connected to VAT fraud)

(2021/C 289/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant HR

Defendant: Finanzamt Wilmersdorf

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a national practice whereby the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) paid is refused to a taxable person who has acquired goods having been the subject of input VAT fraud committed upstream in the supply chain and who knew or should have known of it, even though he or she did not actively participate in that fraud.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Order of the Court of 21 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles — Belgium) — UF v Partena, Assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants ASBL, Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)

(Case C-105/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Decision to refer - Insufficient information as to the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2021/C 138/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de travail de Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UF

Defendants: Partena, Assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants ASBL, Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Nivelles Labour Court, Belgium), by decision of 3 February 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie — Poland) — MN, DN, JN, ZN v X Bank S.A.

(Case C-198/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 2(b) - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Mortgage loan drawn up in a foreign currency - Articles 3 and 4 - Assessment of the unfairness of a contractual term)

(2021/C 357/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MN, DN, JN, ZN

Defendant: X Bank S.A.

Intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Re:

All consumers enjoy the protection laid down by Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, not only those who may be regarded as an ‘average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect’.

(1) OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 11 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores — Portugal) — NM, NR, BA, XN, FA v Sata Air Açores — Sociedade Açoriana de Transportes Aéreos, SA

(Case C-578/20) (1)

(2021/C 320/37)

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against VA

(Case C-206/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 8(1)(c) - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purposes of criminal prosecution on the basis of a measure involving deprivation of liberty issued by the same authority - No judicial review prior to surrender of the requested person - Consequences - Effective judicial protection - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47)

(2021/C 382/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VA

Defendant: Prosecutor of the regional prosecutor’s office in Ruse, Bulgaria

Operative part of the order

Article 8(1)(c) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the case-law of the Court of Justice, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in the effective judicial protection that must be afforded to a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of criminal prosecution are not satisfied where both the European arrest warrant and the judicial decision on which that warrant is based are issued by a public prosecutor — who may be classified as an ‘issuing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299 — but that European arrest warrant or judicial decision cannot be reviewed by a court in the issuing Member State prior to the surrender of the requested person by the executing Member State.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v BA

(Case C-628/20) (1)

(2021/C 368/23)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.
Order of the Court of 1 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa — Latvia) — Pilsētas zemes dienests AS

(Case C-598/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(l) and Article 135(2) - Leasing and letting of immovable property - Exclusion from exemption of a compulsory land lease to owners of buildings - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

(2022/C 95/02)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pilsētas zemes dienests AS

Other party: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Operative part of the order

Article 135(1)(l) and Article 135(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the leasing of land under a compulsory lease scheme is excluded from the exemption from value added tax.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — LU v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-314/20) (1)

(2022/C 2/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) Date lodged: 9.7.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — AZ v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Hollabrunn Korneuburg Tulln

(Case C-163/20) (1)

(2022/C 368/28)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — Single Resolution Board (SRB) v Portigon AG, European Commission

(Case C-664/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 182 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions - Authentication of a decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Obligation to state reasons - Confidential data)

(2022/C 222/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented: initially by P. A. Messina and J. Kerlin, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and P. Gey, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Louis, avocat, and subsequently by K. Jakub, acting as Agent, and by H.-G. Kamann and P. Gey, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Louis, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Portigon AG (represented by: D. Bliesener, F. Geber and V. Jungkind, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1. The judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 23 September 2020, Portigon v SRB (T-420/17, not published, EU:T:2020:438), is set aside.

2. The decision of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05) is annulled, in so far as it concerns Portigon AG.

3. The effects of the decision of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns Portigon AG, are maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period which cannot exceed six months from the date of service of this order, of a new decision of the Single Resolution Board fixing the 2017 ex ante contribution to the Single Resolution Fund of that institution.

4. The Single Resolution Board shall bear its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal, and shall pay the costs incurred by Portigon AG at first instance.

5. Portigon AG shall bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings.

6. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application submitted by the Kingdom of Spain for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Single Resolution Board.

(1) OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — NSV, NM v BT

(Case C-87/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Scope - Article 1(2) - Contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions - Credit agreements denominated in a foreign currency - Terms relating to the exchange rate risk which reproduce a supplementary provision of national law - Alleged failure to fulfil the obligation of information borne by the banking institution providing the loan - Requirement of good faith - Examination to be carried out by the national court as a matter of priority in the light of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13)

(2022/C 64/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: NSV, NM

Respondent: BT

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a term inserted into a credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency that has been concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which reflects a disposition of national law that is supplementary in nature, does not fall within the scope of that directive, even if:

— that disposition of national law has not been assessed by the national legislature with a view to create a balance between the interests of the consumer and of the seller or supplier, in the specific context of bank credit agreements concluded with consumers;

— the seller or supplier inserted that term into the agreement concerned without fulfilling its information and transparency obligations;

— there is evidence which supports the view that the seller or supplier concerned inserted the term in question into that agreement in bad faith, it not being possible for that seller or supplier to be unaware of the fact that the application of that same term was liable to cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to that agreement, to the detriment of the consumer.

(1) OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-37/21) (1)

(2021/C 382/32)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège — Belgium) — FU v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des Demandeurs d’Asile (Fedasil)

(Case C-505/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Asylum policy - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) - Article 27 - Remedies against a transfer decision - Article 27 - Remedies against a transfer decision - No link between the interpretation of EU law that is sought and the actual facts of the main action or its purpose - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 207/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FU

Defendant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the tribunal du travail de Liège, division d’Arlon (Labour Court, Liège, Arlon Division, Belgium), by decision of 17 August 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.