ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
13

In those circumstances, the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is Article 4(1)(a) of [Framework Decision 2008/909] to be interpreted to the effect that the criteria set out therein are satisfied only when the sentenced person has, in the Member State of his nationality, such family, social, professional or other ties that it is possible to assume reasonably from those ties that enforcement in that State of the sentence may facilitate his social rehabilitation, and as therefore precluding national legislation such as Paragraph 4(1)(a) of Law No 549/2011 which, in such cases, enables a judgment to be recognised and enforced in the event of merely formally recorded habitual residence in the executing State, regardless of whether the sentenced person has concrete ties in that State which could enhance his social rehabilitation? (2) If that question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 4(2) of [Framework Decision 2008/909] to be interpreted to the effect that the competent authority of the issuing State is required also in the situation provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of that framework decision to satisfy itself, even before forwarding the judgment and certificate, that enforcement of the sentence by the executing State would serve the purpose of facilitating the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person and is, furthermore, required to provide the information gathered for that purpose in section (d), point 4, of the certificate specifically, where the sentenced person claims in the statement of his opinion provided for in Article 6(3) of that framework decision that he has concrete family, social or professional ties in the issuing State? (3) If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 9(1)(b) of [Framework Decision 2008/909] be interpreted to the effect that where, in the situation set out in Article 4(1)(a) of that framework decision, despite the consultation under Article 4(1)(3) of that framework decision and any provision of other necessary information, it is not proven that there are such family, social or professional ties from which it could reasonably be assumed that the enforcement in the executing State of the sentence may facilitate the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, there is still a ground for refusing to recognise and enforce the judgment?’
1.

Judicial proceedings — Revision of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility thereof — New fact — Definition (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 44; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 159(1), (3)(d) and (5)) (see paras 17-20, 23, 25, 29-31)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2019 — Azienda USL di Modena

(Case C‑26/19 ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — State aid — National health service — Exemption from property tax — Immovable property leased to a commercial company constituted with blended capital active in the health sector in competition with other healthcare establishments exclusively constituted with private capital)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 16-19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Modena (Provincial Tax Court, Modena, Italy), by decision of 25 October 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
3.

Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Plea alleging distortion of the facts — Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see para. 3)
Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged — Entry into force of the procedure for determining whether appeals should be allowed to proceed during the period within which an appeal must be lodged — Applicability to an appeal lodged after the entry into force

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a)

(see paras 8-10)
Appeal —Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 5, 6)
Appeal — System whereby the Court determines whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 10)
Appeal — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see para. 31)
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Burden of proof

(Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 9)
Appeal — System whereby the Court determines whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see para. 11)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2019 — Ville de Verviers

(Case C‑483/19) ( 1 )

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework Agreement, concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP regarding fixed-term work — Clause 2 — Scope of the Framework Agreement — Possibility for Member States to exclude initial vocational training relationships and apprenticeship schemes and employment contracts and relationships which have been concluded within the framework of a specific public or publicly supported training, integration and vocational retraining programme — Consequences)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Scope — Employment contract or relationship defined by the legislation or national practices — National legislation excluding a certain category of contracts from the scope of the directive — Whether permissible — Condition — Obligation to adopt national measures of such a nature as to guarantee workers coming within that category of contracts observance of the objectives sought by the framework agreement — None (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clause 2, paragraphs 1 and 2(b)) (see paras 21-26, 29, operative part)

Operative part

Clause 2(2)(b) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as not precluding that a national legislature which, in accordance with the power granted to it under that provision, excluded from the scope of the national legislation transposing Directive 1999/70 and the framework agreement a certain category of contracts, be exempted from adopting national measures so as to provide a guarantee to workers covered by that category of contract that the objectives pursued by the framework agreement will be respected.

( 1 ) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 March 2020 — SATA International

(Case C‑766/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation of 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’ — Generalised interruption of an airport’s refuelling system)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 14-23, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Azores District Court, Portugal), by decision of 8 July 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 June 2020 – CJ v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C‑634/19 P)

(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Action for failure to act – Article 265 TFEU – Law governing the institutions – Documents available to the public on the internet relating to closed General Court of the European Union and European Union Civil Service Tribunal cases – Request for anonymity ex post – Failure by the Court of Justice of the European Union to reply before the action was brought at first instance – Position adopted in the course of the proceedings – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate – Appeal manifestly unfounded)

1. Actions for failure to act – Failure remedied after commencement of proceedings – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 27, 28)

2. Appeal – Grounds – Ground regarding the classification of a letter sent by an institution in response to a request to act – Points of law (Art. 265 TFEU) (see para. 29)

3. Actions for failure to act – Position defined within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 265 TFEU before the action was brought – Concept (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see paras 31, 34)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.
Appeals – Grounds – Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded – Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see para. 22)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 January 2021 – UC and TD (Vices de forme de l’acte d’accusation)

(Case C‑769/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2012/13/EU – Right to information in criminal proceedings – Article 6 – Right of suspects or accused persons to be informed of their rights – Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Dealing with a case in a reasonable time – National legislation providing for the discontinuance of judicial proceedings in the case of a finding of deficiencies in the bill of indictment by the court – Remission of the matter to the public prosecutor’s office for a new bill of indictment to be drawn up – Admissibility)

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Right to information in criminal proceedings – Directive 2012/13 – Right of a person to be informed of the charges against him or her – Right to be tried within a reasonable period of time – National legislation providing for the termination of court proceedings in the event of deficiencies in the bill of indictment – Obligation to remit the matter to the public prosecutor’s office for a new bill of indictment to be drawn up – Whether permissible

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.; European Parliament and Council Directive 2012/13, Arts 6(1), (3) and (4))

(see paras 43-53, 56, 59, operative part)

Operative part

Article 6(1), (3) and (4), of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as the principle of primacy of EU law and the right to respect for human dignity must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in the case of a deficient bill of indictment the content of which is unclear, incomplete or inconsistent, in no circumstances allows the public prosecutor to remedy the deficiencies by correcting them at the preliminary hearing during which they are established and instead obliges the court to discontinue the judicial proceedings and remit the matter to the public prosecutor’s office for a new bill of indictment to be drawn up.

( 1 ) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 – Crewprint

(Case C-611/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality – Right to VAT deduction – Refusal – Fraud – Proof – Chain of subcontractors)

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Refusal on the ground that the supplies of goods had not actually been carried out, as a result of fraud and irregularities – Chain of subcontractors – 99857 National practice refusing the right to a deduction on the ground that the conduct of the taxable person and of the issuer of the invoices were considered to be fraudulent – Failure to have comply with the principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality – Unlawful – Limits – Verification a matter for the national court

(Council Directive 2006/112)

(see paras 30-38, 41-45, operative part)

Operative part

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding a national practice by which the tax authorities refuse a taxable person the right to deduct input value added tax on the ground that the conduct of that taxable person and of the issuer of the invoices amounts to fraud because, first, their contracts were not necessary for the performance of the economic transactions in question and could be legally classified other than how the parties did so, secondly, that issuer has had recourse, without it being necessary or economically rational, to a chain of subcontractors, some of which did not have the necessary personnel and material resources and, thirdly, that taxable person had personal or organisational links with that issuer as well as with one of those subcontractors. In order to provide a basis for such a refusal, it must be established, other than by assumptions based on pre-established criteria, that that same taxable person actively participated in fraud or that that taxable person knew or should have known that those transactions were connected with fraud committed by the issuer of the invoices, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

( 1 ) OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
7

Article 253 of the Romanian Civil Code, entitled ‘Remedies’ states that: ‘(1) A natural person whose non-material rights have been infringed or threatened can at any time bring proceedings applying for: (a) a prohibition on performing the unlawful acts, where such acts are imminent; (b) cessation of the infringement and its prohibition in the future, if it continues; (c) a finding that the facts that have occurred are unlawful, if the problems they have caused persist. (2) By derogation from the provisions of paragraph 1, where non-material rights are infringed as a result of exercise of freedom of expression, the court may adopt only the measures under paragraph 1(b) and (c). (3) Furthermore, a person in respect of whom such rights have been infringed may apply to the court to order the infringer to comply with any measure that the court considers necessary in order to restore the right that has been infringed, such as: (a) an obligation on the infringer, at its own expense, to publish the judgment against it; (b) any other measure necessary to end the unlawful act or to remedy the damage caused. (4) Similarly, the person whose rights have been infringed may apply for damages or, where applicable, a financial remedy for the damage caused to him or her, including non-pecuniary damage, if that damage is attributable to the person who committed the harmful act. In those situations, the right of appeal is subject to extinctive limitation.’
1.

In the introductory part of the judgment of 10 January 2020, Minister for Justice and Equality ((Application for international protection in Ireland) (C‑616/19, EU:C:2020:1010)), the references regarding the observations submitted must be rectified as follows: – ‘M.S., by C. O’Dwyer, SC, J. Buckley, Barrister, and J. Brick, Solicitor, – M.W., by C. O’Dwyer, SC, J. Buckley, Barrister, and J. Watters, Solicitor, – G.S., by M. Conlon, SC, D. Leonard, Barrister, and C. Ó Briain, Solicitor, – the Minister for Justice and Equality and Ireland, by M. Browne, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, assisted by R. Barron, SC, and S. Kingston, Barrister, – the European Commission, by J. Tomkin, A. Azéma and M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agents,’
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 9 July 2020 – Dekoback v EUIPO

(Case C‑193/20 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170a(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Formal requirements relating to the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed – Failure to put in order – Inadmissibility)

Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Non-compliance – Failure to put in order – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a(2) and (3))

(see paras 5, 6, 9-12)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as inadmissible.
Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

(see paras 27, 28)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 September 2020 – Câmara Municipal de Gondomar

(Case C‑135/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 5 – Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector – Successive contracts – Prohibition on converting fixed-term contracts to open-ended contracts – Whether permissible)

Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term contracts – Contracts concluded with a public sector employer – National legislation prohibiting the conversion of a succession of fixed-term employment contracts into an open-ended contract – Whether permissible – Condition – Existence of an effective and dissuasive penalty mechanism – Verification by the national court

(Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clause 5)

(see paras 18-26, operative part)

Operative part

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that, in the public sector, prohibits absolutely the conversion of a succession of fixed-term employment contracts into a contract of indefinite duration, where that legislation does not include, as regards that sector, another effective measure to prevent and, where relevant, punish the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts.

( 1 ) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded – Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see para. 7)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 May 2021 – Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca and Others

(Case C‑571/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Reference for a preliminary ruling on the validity of a provision of the FEU Treaty – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court – Freedom of movement for workers – Equal treatment – Article 45 TFEU – Difference in status and salary between university teachers and teachers working in the art and music higher education national system – Purely internal situation – Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Reference to the Court – Jurisdiction of the national courts – Determination and formulation of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 11, 12)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Assessment of validity – Jurisdiction of the Court – Primary law – Not included (Arts 45(4) and 267, first para., (b), TFEU) (see para. 14)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context – Scope of the obligation in the context of the fundamental freedoms – Question raised concerning a dispute confined within a single Member State – No indication as to how the requested interpretation is necessary to resolve the dispute – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see paras 23, 24)

Operative part

1. The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the first and second questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Potenza (District Court, Potenza, Italy).

2. The third question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Potenza (District Court, Potenza, Italy) is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 28, 25.1.21
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National legislation not constituting a measure implementing EU law and not having any other connection with EU law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 28-31, 34, operative part)