ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 14 April 2020 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-161/20)

(2020/C 209/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, E. Georgieva, S. L. Kalėda, W. Mölls, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Council decision (1), contained in the act of Coreper of 5 February 2020, endorsing the submission to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) concerning the introduction of life cycle guidelines to estimate well-to-tank greenhouse gas emissions of sustainable alternative fuels, with a view to its transmission by the Presidency of the Council to the IMO on behalf of the Member States and the Commission;

— maintain the effects of the decision;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action for annulment brought by the Commission concerns a Council decision, contained in the act of Coreper of 5 February 2020, endorsing the submission to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) concerning the introduction of life cycle guidelines to estimate well-to-tank greenhouse gas emissions of sustainable alternative fuels (the GHG submission), with a view to its transmission by the Presidency of the Council to the IMO on behalf of the Member States and the Commission.

The Commission relies, in support of its action, on two grounds.

The Commission considers first that the decision of the Council breaches the exclusive competence of the Union under Article 3(2) TFEU. Indeed, the Union has exclusive competence in the area addressed by the GHG submission within the meaning of Article 3(2) TFEU, because that area is covered to a large extent by the common rules applicable to intra-EU situations within the meaning of the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice.

The Commission considers secondly that the decision of the Council breaches the institutional prerogatives of the Commission under Article 17(1) TEU, because only the Commission is entitled to act on behalf of the Union and to ensure the Union’s external representation.

(1) Council document ST 6287/20 of 24 February 2020.
Appeal brought on 14 January 2020 by Neoperl AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 November 2019 in Case T-669/18, Neoperl AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-14/20 P)

(2020/C 201/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Neoperl AG (represented by: H. Börjes-Pestalozza and G. Schultz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 23 April 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) refused the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
1.

Must the rule laid down in Article 5(1) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA (1) on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties be interpreted as meaning that, where the issuing Member State indicates one of the types of conduct listed in that provision, the authority of the executing Member State has no additional discretion to refuse execution and must execute the [decision imposing the penalty]?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 February 2020 — VI v KRONE — Verlag Gesellschaft mbH & Co KG

(Case C-65/20)

(2020/C 209/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VI

Defendant: KRONE — Verlag Gesellschaft mbH & Co KG

Question referred

Is Article 2 together with Article 1 and Article 6 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a physical copy of a daily newspaper containing a technically inaccurate health tip which, when followed, causes damage to health can also be regarded as a (defective) product?

(1) OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 16 April 2020 — AZ v Finanzamt Hollabrunn Korneuburg Tulln

(Case C-163/20)

(2020/C 247/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AZ

Defendant: Finanzamt Hollabrunn Korneuburg Tulln

Question referred

Are Articles 18 and 45(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, Article 4, Article 5(b), Article 7 and Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems and the second sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems to be interpreted as precluding the application of national legislation which provides that family benefits for a child who is not actually permanently resident in the Member State that pays those family benefits, but is actually resident in another Member State of the European Union, in another contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area or in Switzerland, must be adjusted on the basis of the comparative price levels, published by the Statistical Office of the European Union, for the State concerned in relation to the Member State that pays the family benefits?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).
1.

Is there a cancellation of a flight within the meaning of Article 2(l) and Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) where the operating air carrier brings forward a flight, which has been booked as part of a package tour, from the scheduled departure time of 10.20 (LT) to 8.40 (LT) on the same day?
1.

Is Commission Implementing Regulation 1357/2013/EU (1), to the extent that it purports to determine the country of origin of solar modules manufactured from materials coming from several jurisdictions by ascribing origin to the country where the solar cells were manufactured, contrary to the requirement in Article 24 of Council Regulation 2913/92/EEC (2) (the Community Customs Code), namely that goods whose production involves more than one country shall be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last substantial economically justified processing or working in an undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture, and hence invalid?
2.

Must the prohibition of the processing of special categories of personal data established in Article 9(1) of the Regulation, regard being had to the conditions established in Article 9(2) of the Regulation, including the condition established in point (g) thereof that processing must be necessary for reasons of substantial public interest, on the basis of EU or Member-State law which must be proportionate to the aim pursued, must respect the essence of the right to data protection and must provide for suitable and specific measures to safeguard the fundamental rights and the interests of the data subject, be interpreted, also with regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, as meaning that national law may not require the disclosure of data relating to declarations of private interests which may disclose personal data, including data which make it possible to determine a person’s political views, trade-union membership, sexual orientation and other personal information, and their publication on the website of the controller, the Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija, providing access to those data to all individuals who have access to the Internet?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 April 2020 — ‘Grossmania’ Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

(Case C-177/20)

(2020/C 279/33)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Grossmania’ Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

Question referred

Must Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, where the Court of Justice of the European Union, in a decision given in preliminary ruling proceedings, has declared a legislative provision of a Member State to be incompatible with EU law, that legislative provision cannot be applied in subsequent national administrative or judicial proceedings either, notwithstanding that the facts of the subsequent proceedings are not entirely identical to those of the previous preliminary ruling proceedings?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 16 March 2020 — DF v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-149/20)

(2020/C 279/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DF

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Questions referred

Is Directive (EU) 2016/681 (1) compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) in relation to the following points:

(1) Are the PNR data to be transferred under the directive sufficiently specified, having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter?

(2) In view of its scope and having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for sufficient objective differentiation when PNR data are collected and transferred, in relation to the type of flights and the threat level in a particular country and in relation to the comparison against databases and patterns?

(3) Is the blanket, indiscriminating retention period for all PNR data compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter?

(4) Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for adequate procedural protection of passengers in respect of the use of retained PNR data?

(5) Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive adequately safeguard the level of protection of European fundamental rights when PNR data are transferred to third country authorities by third countries?

(1) Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 132).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 30 June 2020 — EL and CP v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

(Case C-287/20)

(2020/C 279/53)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EL, CP

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Questions referred

Does the trade-union-organised strike by the staff of an operating air carrier constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

Is it relevant in this regard whether negotiations were held with the employees’ representative(s) in advance of the strike?

(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).
1.

Are the provisions of Article 2(23) and of Article 19 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, imposes administrative penalties on the farmer for over-declaration on the ground that he does not meet the eligibility criteria for the area considered over-declared, inasmuch as he cultivates an area of land with aquaculture facilities, held under a concession agreement, without providing evidence of the grantor’s consent that the land be used for agricultural purposes?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 30 June 2020 — KS v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-292/20)

(2020/C 287/49)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Koln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KS

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).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 22 July 2020 by Volotea, SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-607/17, Volotea v Commission

(Case C-331/20 P)

(2020/C 297/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Volotea, SA (represented by: M. Carpagnano, avvocato, M. Nordmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

— annul in part Article 1 (2), (3) (4) and the recovery of the decision by the Commission (1) of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA.33983 implemented by Italy for compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations insofar as it concerns the appellant.

In the alternative:

— set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

— refer the case back to the General Court.

Furthermore, the appellant claims that the Court should order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in the application of the notion of State aid under 107(1) TFEU. More specifically, the Court misapplied the notion of economic advantage, exceeded its jurisdiction by replacing the European Commission’s reasoning, and misjudged the criteria of selectivity, State resources and distortion of competition.

The General Court erred in justification of State aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and Community Guidelines on Financing of Airports and Start-Up Aid to Airlines Departing From Regional Airports.

The General Court failed to take into account the principle of legitimate expectations in its recovery order; erred in acknowledging a violation of Article 296 (2) TFEU due to lack of adequate reasoning of the European Commission and violated the appellant`s right to effective remedy.

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017, L 268, p. 1).
1.

Is Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a contract of donation mortis causa entered into between two German nationals habitually resident in Germany in respect of real estate located in Austria, granting the donee a right having the character of an obligation against the estate to registration of his title after the donor’s death pursuant to that contract and the donor’s death certificate, that is without the intervention of the probate court, is an agreement as to succession within the meaning of that provision?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2020 — BUND Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. v Landkreis Rosenheim

(Case C-300/20)

(2020/C 304/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BUND Naturschutz in Bayern e.V.

Defendant: Landkreis Rosenheim

Other party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern, representing the interests of the Federal Government before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Questions referred

1. Is Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive 2011/92/EU (2) (‘the EIA Directive’) is set where a regulation on nature conservation and landscape management provides for general prohibitions (with possible exemptions) and compulsory permits which do not specifically relate to projects listed in the annexes to the EIA Directive?

2. Is Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42 to be interpreted as meaning that plans and programmes were prepared for agriculture, forestry, land use, etc. if their objective was to establish a reference framework for one or more of those areas? Or does it suffice if, for the purpose of nature conservation and landscape management, general prohibitions and permit requirements are regulated which have to be assessed in the permit procedure for a variety of projects and uses and which may indirectly impact (‘by default’) one or more of those areas?

3. Is Article 3(4) of Directive 2001/42 to be interpreted as meaning that a framework for future development consent of projects is set if a regulation adopted for the purpose of nature conservation and landscape management lays down prohibitions and permit requirements for a variety of projects and measures in the protected area which are described in abstract terms, where there are no actual foreseeable or envisaged projects when it is adopted and therefore it does not specifically relate to actual projects?

(1) OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.

(2) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 8 July 2020 — Ultimo Portfolio Investment (Luxembourg) S.A. v KM

(Case C-303/20)

(2020/C 329/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ultimo Portfolio Investment (Luxembourg) S.A.

Defendant: KM

Question referred

Does the penalty of liability for a petty offence that is imposed in Article 138c(1) of the Polish Kodeks wykroczeń (Code of Petty Offences) for a failure to comply with the obligation to assess a consumer’s creditworthiness laid down in Article 8(1) of 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 (1) constitute proper and sufficient implementation of the requirement, imposed on the Member State in Article 23 of that directive, to lay down in national law effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for a breach by the creditor of the obligation to assess the creditworthiness of a consumer?

(1) OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
2.

Can a situation where a taxable person does not provide the tax authority with the necessary information on which it bases its right when it has been permitted and formally required to do so, and that taxable person fails to provide that information without reasonable justification and the information is instead submitted voluntarily at a later date to a review body or a court, be regarded as an abuse of rights?
5.

In the case of a dominant position held by a number of undertakings belonging to the same corporate group, is membership of that group sufficient to assume that even those undertakings that have not implemented the abusive conduct have contributed to the infringement, so that the supervisory authority would merely need to demonstrate a conscious, albeit non-collusive, parallel approach by the undertakings operating within the collectively dominant group? Or (as is the case for the prohibition on cartels) is there in any case a need to provide evidence, even indirectly, of a specific situation of coordination and instrumentality among the various undertakings within the dominant group, in particular in order to demonstrate the involvement of the parent company?
6.

In particular, the Commission submits that, for the purposes of granting or refusing the exemption, the Italian tax authorities do not carry out a case-by-case assessment of the manner in which is the craft is actually used. Indeed, the Italian authorities maintain that the assessment is carried out taking into account aspects of the sectoral legislation intended only to facilitate such an assessment, such as the fact that the navigation takes place through a typical charter agreement or a lease agreement or occasional charter. However, the Italian authorities maintain that in the case of a charter the exemption must in any event be granted to economic operators who provide maritime navigation services, whereas those involved in leasing or occasional chartering must be excluded from that exemption. In reasserting that the exemption must be granted or refused on the basis of the type of contract entered into and therefore on an abstract basis, the Italian authorities confirm that they do not specifically ascertain that the exemption is granted to those entitled and refused to those not entitled.