ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
7.

In accordance with Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 2 in conjunction with Article 4(b) of Commission Regulation No 330/2010 (1) of 20 April 2010: — Does the exemption apply to a distribution system under which i) the distributor (trader) itself chooses the potential customer with which it is going to work; ii) the supplier has not previously determined, on the basis of clearly known and verifiable objective criteria, a specific group of customers to which each distributor will provide its services; iii) the supplier, at the request of the distributor (trader) reserves potential customers for that distributor; iv) the other distributors are not aware that the potential customer has been reserved or are not previously informed of that fact; under which v) the sole criterion on the basis of which a potential customer is reserved and on which the resulting exclusive distribution system favouring a specific distributor is established is not a decision by the supplier but a request by that distributor; or under which vi) the reservation remains in force for 6 months from registration of the potential transaction (after which the distribution ceases to be exclusive)? — Should it be found that passive sales are not restricted where the agreement between the supplier and the distributor includes a term providing that the buyer (final user) may object to the reservation in question but that buyer has not been informed of the term in question? Can the behaviour of the buyer (final user) influence (justify) the terms of the agreement between the supplier and the distributor?
Appeal brought on 7 August 2020 by Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2020 in Case T-574/18, Agrochem-Maks v Commission

(Case C-374/20 P)

(2020/C 329/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— refer the case back to the General Court;

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the appellant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the requirements of the procedure regarding requests for additional information in the context of the renewal of the approval of the active substance.

The General Court committed an error of law by holding that the complaint (relating to the seven non-finalised issues) that the existence of disagreements between EFSA’s assessments and that of the rapporteur Member State requires in-depth reasoning on that question must be rejected as unfounded in relation to the fourth issue and as ineffective with relation to the other issues.

The General Court committed an error of law by failing to take into account all the relevant elements in order to examine the appellant’s legitimate expectations.

The General Court erroneously qualified the facts and infringed Article 6(f) of Regulation No 1107/2009 (1), point 2.2 of Annex II to that regulation and the principle of proportionality.

The General Court committed an error of law by incorrectly interpreting and applying the precautionary principle.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009, L 309, p. 1).
1.

In terms of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, is the following ruling compliant with EU law in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant Community case-law: the ruling by the Supreme Court in judgments 44 to 49 of 23 January 2019, which establishes the unambiguous criterion that a term in a consumer mortgage loan agreement that has not been negotiated and that stipulates that all the costs of arranging the mortgage are to be borne by the borrower is unfair, and which apportions the various expenses that are involved in the unfair term found to be void between the bank that imposed the term and the borrower, in order to limit repayments of amounts wrongly paid under national legislation? And, in terms of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant Community case-law, is it compliant with EU law for the Supreme Court to adopt an inclusive interpretation of a term that is void for unfairness if the term can be severed and its effects abolished without affecting the continued existence of the mortgage loan agreement?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2020 — KX v PY GmbH

(Case C-317/20)

(2020/C 348/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KX

Defendant: PY GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to regulating international jurisdiction, the provision also lays down a rule to be observed by the adjudicating court as to the territorial jurisdiction of the national courts in matters pertaining to travel contracts where both the consumer, as the traveller, and his contractual partner, the tour operator, are domiciled in the same Member State, however the destination is not in that Member State but is located abroad (‘apparent domestic cases’), with the consequence that the consumer can bring contractual claims against the tour operator before the court for his place of residence as a supplement to national rules of jurisdiction?

(1) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
1.

Is Article 58 of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, (1) to be interpreted as establishing a liability regime for unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions made by payment service providers, precluding any action under the ordinary rules of civil liability in respect of the same acts for breach by that provider of the obligations imposed on him or her by national law, in particular where the payment service user fails to inform the payment service provider of the unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transaction within 13 months of the date of debit?
Appeal brought on 11 May 2020 by Gamma-A SIA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2020 in Case T-353/19, Gamma-A v EUIPO — Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss

(Case C-200/20 P)

(2020/C 359/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gamma-A SIA (represented by: M. Liguts, advokāts)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 3 September 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.
2.

Is the right to freedom of movement of EU citizens laid down in Article 21(1) TFEU and Article 45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) to be interpreted, especially in the light of the principle of the absence of checks on persons at internal borders established in Article 22 of Regulation 2016/399, as meaning that it includes the right not to be subject to checks on persons at internal borders, subject to the conditions and exceptions listed in the Treaties and, in particular, in the above regulation?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 5 June 2020 by Giorgio Armani SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 March 2020 in Case T-653/18, Armani v EUIPO

(Case C-239/20 P)

(2020/C 390/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Giorgio Armani SpA (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 30 September 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.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 September 2020 — European arrest warrant issued against P, Other party to the procedure: Openbaar Ministerie

(Case C-412/20)

(2020/C 378/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

European arrest warrant issued against: P

Other party to the procedure: Openbaar Ministerie

Question referred

Do Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union and/or the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union indeed preclude an executing judicial authority from executing an EAW issued by a court in the case where that court does not meet the requirements of effective judicial protection/actual judicial protection, and at the time of issuing the EAW already no longer met those requirements, because the legislation in the issuing Member State does not guarantee the independence of that court, and at the time of issuing the EAW already no longer guaranteed that independence?

(1) Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — AL v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-382/20)

(2020/C 423/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AL

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

(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).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 5 August 2020 — Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën v Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV

(Case C-362/20)

(2020/C 399/32)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Openbaar Ministerie, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën

Respondents: Profit Europe NV, Gosselin Forwarding Services NV

Question referred

Are threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron, from China, subject to anti-dumping duties under Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 of 14 November 2012 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand (OJ 2012 L 318, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 129, p. 1), given the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European [Union], in its judgment of 12 July 2018 in Joined Cases C-397/17 and C-398/17, that tube or pipe cast fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron are not tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron and that tube or pipe cast fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron fall under a different subheading than tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron?
1.

If the unfair contract term concerns the main subject matter of the contract (the information on the exchange rate was not compliant), with the result that the contract cannot continue in existence, and there is no agreement between the parties, does the fact that, in the absence of any default rule under national law, guidance on a declaration of the validity or effectiveness of the contract is provided by a position statement adopted by the highest court which is, however, not binding on lower courts, ensure the full effectiveness of Directive 93/13? (1)
5.

If it is established that the parents and children are not habitually resident in a Member State for the purpose of determining child maintenance, how is the forum necessitatis in Article 7 of Regulation No 4/2009 to be interpreted and, in particular, what are the requirements for considering that proceedings cannot reasonably be brought or enforced or prove impossible in a non-Member State with which the dispute is closely connected (in this case, Togo)? Must the party have initiated or attempted to initiate proceedings in that State with a negative result and does the nationality of one of the parties to the dispute constitute a sufficient connection with the Member State?
(1)

the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation No (EU) 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firm while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision;
3.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: 3(a) Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) (1) be interpreted as precluding a national provision according to which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, a fine must be imposed per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total amount of the fines imposed? 3(b) Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for the mandatory imposition of a minimum penalty of EUR 6 000 per gaming machine? 3(c) Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for a custodial sentence in the event of non-payment per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total number of custodial sentences imposed? 3(d) Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, in the event of a penalty being imposed for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, requires the payment of a contribution to the costs of criminal proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed?
3.

Must the legislation at issue in the main proceedings be considered to restrict advertising of medicinal products in order to encourage the rational use of such products, within the meaning of Article 87(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC?
(1)

the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-76 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firm while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision;
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2020 in Case T-108/19, Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO

(Case C-304/20 P)

(2021/C 9/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl shall bear its own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 8 September 2020 by Welmax + sp. z o. o. sp.k. against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-305/19 Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax)

(Case C-425/20 P)

(2020/C 443/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Welmax + sp. z o. o. sp.k. (represented by: M. Machyński, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 30 October 2020, the appeal was dismissed as inadmissible.
Action brought on 23 October 2020 — Republic of Cyprus v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-550/20)

(2021/C 19/37)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: Eirini Neofytou)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Directive (EU) 2020/1057 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector and amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012, and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on five grounds for annulment:

First ground for annulment: The applicant submits that the defendants infringed the principle of proportionality, as provided for in Article 5(4) TEU and in Article 1 of the Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, annexed to the EU Treaty and to FEU Treaty.

Second ground for annulment: The applicant submits that the defendants infringed the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition on discrimination, as set out in Article 18 TFEU and in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of the equality of the Member States before the Treaties, as set out in Article 4(2) TEU, and, to the extent that it has been held to be necessary by the Court of Justice, Article 95(1) TFEU.

Third ground for annulment: The applicant submits that the defendants infringed Article 91(1) TFEU.

Fourth ground for annulment: The applicant submits that the defendants infringed Article 91(2) TFEU and Article 90 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 3(3) TEU and Article 94 TFEU.

Fifth ground for annulment: The applicant submits that the defendants infringed Articles 34 and 35 TFEU, with no justification on the basis of Article 36 TFEU, and Article 58(1) TFEU read in conjunction with Article 91 TFEU or, in the alternative, Article 56 TFEU.

(1) OJ 2020 L 249, p. 49.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 13 October 2020 — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v Termas Sulfurosas de Alcafache, S.A.

(Case C-513/20)

(2021/C 19/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Defendant: Termas Sulfurosas de Alcafache, S.A.

Question referred

May payments made in return for the service of opening, for each user, an individual file setting out the clinical history entitling the user to purchase ‘traditional thermal cure’ treatments be included within the concept of ‘closely related activities’, provided for in Article 132(1)(b) of the VAT Directive (1), and may they, as such, be regarded as being exempt from VAT?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
2.

Does EU law, and in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, preclude a national system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the statutory interest granted on repayment of compulsory social insurance contributions which were levied in breach of EU law to the interest accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of those unduly paid/levied sums until their repayment?
1.

Does national legislation which, as applied by the authorities, makes the use without any re-registration requirement of a foreign vehicle provided occasionally and for short periods of time to a citizen resident in Belgium by a citizen established in a different Member State contingent upon the citizen resident in Belgium carrying in the vehicle the private attestation of permission to use the vehicle, that is, an attestation within the meaning of Article 3(2), point 6, of the Royal Decree of 20 July 2001 on the registration of vehicles, conflict with the relevant provisions of EU law, in particular Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on freedom of movement and the free movement of capital, on the one hand, and/or Articles 63 and 64 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the free movement of capital, on the other, as two of the four fundamental freedoms of the European Union?
3.

Is Italian Law No 508/99 also contrary to the rules of the European Union which prohibit measures having equivalent effect, provided for in Articles 28 and 29 of the EC Treaty and subsequently included in Articles 34 and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as a result of the reform brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon, such measures being prohibited by the EU Treaty since they tend to treat nationals of some Member States less favourably than nationals of other Member States as regards the free movement of persons, salary and social security matters as well as working conditions?
Appeal brought on 11 June 2020 by João Miguel Barata against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-81/18, Barata v Parliament

(Case C-259/20 P)

(2021/C 35/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: João Miguel Barata (represented by: G. Pandey, avocat, D. Rovetta, avocat, V. Villante, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 3 December 2020, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) decided that the appeal should be dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.