ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft. v Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter

(Case C-575/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Atmospheric pollution - System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Directive 2003/87/EC - Installations for the combustion of fuels - Annex I - Total rated thermal input - Rules for calculation - Aggregation rule)

(2022/C 84/23)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft.

Defendant: Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter

Operative part of the judgment

Paragraph 3 of Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/410 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2018, must be interpreted as meaning that the total rated thermal input of an installation must be calculated by adding together the maximum rated thermal input of the technical units which are part of that installation, except where the restrictions placed by the operator on that maximum rated thermal input are permanent, and the existence of those restrictions and their permanent nature are in fact verifiable by the national authority competent for the allocation of allowances.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — OE v VY

(Case C-522/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Validity - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for divorce - Article 18 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Fifth and sixth indents of Article 3(1)(a) - Difference between the length of the residence period required for the purposes of determining which court has jurisdiction - Distinction between a resident who is a national of the Member State of the court before which the application is brought and a resident who is not a national of that Member State - No discrimination on grounds of nationality)

(2022/C 148/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OE

Defendant: VY

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, enshrined in Article 18 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding a situation in which the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in the territory of which the habitual residence of the applicant is located, as provided for in the sixth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, is subject to the applicant being resident for a minimum period immediately before making his or her application which is six months shorter than that provided for in the fifth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation on the ground that the person concerned is a national of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
1.

Article 13(1) of Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is invalid in so far as it imposes on producers the obligation to finance the costs relating to the management of waste from photovoltaic panels placed on the market between 13 August 2005 and 13 August 2012. Article 13(1) of Directive 2012/19 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which imposes on users of photovoltaic panels, and not on producers of those panels, the obligation to finance the costs relating to the management of waste from such panels placed on the market from 13 August 2012, the date on which that directive entered into force.
1.

Article 30(2)(e) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, must be interpreted as not governing the right of a railway undertaking, which uses or intends to use the railway infrastructure, to participate in any procedure conducted by the regulatory body for the purpose of adopting a decision approving or rejecting a draft unit rate for the basic charge for minimum access to infrastructure submitted by an infrastructure manager;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v UK and Others

(Case C-590/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors - Directives 75/363/EEC and 82/76/EEC - Specialist medical training - Appropriate remuneration - Application of Directive 82/76/EEC to training begun before its entry into force and continuing after the date of expiry of the period prescribed for its transposition)

(2022/C 165/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others

Respondents and cross-appellants: UK and Others

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) and Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982, as well as the annex thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that any full-time or part-time specialist medical training begun before the entry into force, on 29 January 1982, of Directive 82/76 and continued after the expiry, on 1 January 1983, of the period prescribed for the transposition of that directive must, in respect of the period of that training running from 1 January 1983 until the end of that training, be subject to appropriate remuneration within the meaning of that annex, provided that that training concerns a medical specialty which is common to all the Member States or to two or more of them and is mentioned in Article 5 or Article 7 of Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services.

(1) Date lodged: 10.11.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen eV (GVN) v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Land Niedersachsen (Germany)

(Case C-666/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Concept of ‘aid’ - Public passenger transport - Compensating the costs related to the performance of public service obligations - Transfer of financial resources between public authorities - Obligation for the municipal transport authorities to determine reduced tariffs for students and apprentices - No advantage granted by the State to an undertaking - Concept of ‘undertaking’)

(2022/C 198/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen eV (GVN) (represented by: C. Antweiler, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and K. Blanck, agents), Federal Republic of Germany, Land Niedersachsen (Germany) (represented by: S. Barth and H. Gading, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen eV (GVN) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Land Niedersachsen (Germany) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
3.

The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) (UNRWA) has ceased, within the meaning of that provision, so that a person who has applied for international protection has been forced to leave that body’s area of operations, it is not necessary to establish that UNRWA or the State in whose territory it operates intended to inflict harm on that person or to deprive him or her of assistance, by act or omission. For the purposes of that provision, it is sufficient to establish that UNRWA’s assistance or protection has in fact ceased for any reason, so that that body is no longer in a position, for objective reasons or reasons relating to the person’s individual situation, to guarantee him or her living conditions commensurate with its mission.
2.

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the value of the claim, which constitutes the basis for calculating the costs recoverable by the consumer who has been successful in an action relating to an unfair contractual term, must be determined in the application or, otherwise, is set by that legislation, without it being possible to alter that information subsequently, on condition that the court responsible ultimately for the taxation of costs remains free to determine the actual value of the claim for the consumer, ensuring that he or she is entitled to reimbursement of a reasonable amount that is proportionate to the costs that he or she objectively had to incur in order to bring such an action.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH v Strato AG

(Case C-433/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 2 - Reproduction - Article 5(2)(b) - Private copying exception - Concept of ‘any medium’ - Servers owned by third parties made available to natural persons for private use - Fair compensation - National legislation that does not make the providers of cloud computing services subject to the private copying levy)

(2022/C 198/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Strato AG

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘reproductions on any medium’, referred to in that provision, covers the saving, for private purposes, of copies of works protected by copyright on a server in which storage space is made available to a user by the provider of a cloud computing service.

2. Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that has transposed the exception referred to in that provision and that does not make the providers of storage services in the context of cloud computing subject to the payment of fair compensation in respect of the unauthorised saving of copies of copyright-protected works by natural persons, who are users of those services, for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial, in so far as that legislation provides for the payment of fair compensation to the rightholders.

(1) OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.
1.

Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the condition which it lays down, according to which Articles 3 and 4 of that directive are not to apply to the transfer of an undertaking where the transferor is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings ‘instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor’, is satisfied where the transfer of all or part of an undertaking is prepared, prior to the institution of insolvency proceedings with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor and in the course of which that transfer is carried out, in the context of a pre-pack procedure which has as its primary aim to enable, in the insolvency proceedings, a liquidation of the undertaking as a going concern which satisfies to the greatest extent possible the claims of all the creditors and preserves employment as far as possible, provided that that pre-pack procedure is governed by statutory or regulatory provisions;
1.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding legislative measures which, as a preventive measure for the purposes of combating serious crime and preventing serious threats to public security, provide for the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data. However, that Article 15(1), read in the light of Articles 7, 8, 11 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, does not preclude legislative measures that provide, for the purposes of safeguarding national security, combating serious crime and preventing serious threats to public security, for the targeted retention of traffic and location data which is limited, on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory factors, according to the categories of persons concerned or using a geographical criterion, for a period that is limited in time to what is strictly necessary, but which may be extended; the general and indiscriminate retention of IP addresses assigned to the source of an internet connection for a period that is limited in time to what is strictly necessary; the general and indiscriminate retention of data relating to the civil identity of users of electronic communications systems; and recourse to an instruction requiring providers of electronic communications services, by means of a decision of the competent authority that is subject to effective judicial review, to undertake, for a specified period of time, the expedited retention of traffic and location data in the possession of those service providers; provided that those measures ensure, by means of clear and precise rules, that the retention of data at issue is subject to compliance with the applicable substantive and procedural conditions and that the persons concerned have effective safeguards against the risks of abuse;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Comune di Lerici v Provincia di La Spezia

(Case C-719/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Waste management - In-house award - Directive 2014/24/EU - Articles 12 and 72 - Loss of ‘similar control’ conditions as a result of a business combination - Possibility for the successor operator to continue providing the service)

(2022/C 257/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Lerici

Defendant: Provincia di La Spezia

Interveners: IREN SpA, ACAM Ambiente SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which the performance of a public contract, initially awarded without any tendering procedure to an in-house entity over which the contracting authority exercised, jointly, a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments, is automatically continued by the economic operator which acquired that entity, following a tendering procedure, where that contracting authority does not have such control over that operator and does not hold any shares in its capital.

(1) OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — FN v Universiteit Antwerpen and Others

(Case C-265/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Part-time work - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Clause 4.1 - Principle of non-discrimination - Part-time academic staff - Automatic permanent appointments reserved for academic staff members holding a full-time teaching post - Calculation of the percentage of a full-time workload to which a part-time workload corresponds - No requirements)

(2022/C 244/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FN

Defendant: Universiteit Antwerpen, Vlaamse Autonome Hogeschool Hogere Zeevaartschool, PB, ZK, NG, ZN, UM

Operative part of the judgment

1. Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation and practice under which an academic staff member holding a full-time teaching post is to be automatically appointed on a permanent basis, without any objective reason other than the fact that that position is held on a full-time basis, whereas an academic staff member holding a part-time teaching post is to be either appointed on a permanent basis or employed on a temporary basis;

2. The Framework Agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81, as amended by Directive 98/23, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not lay down any requirements for an employer hiring a part-time worker as to the method of calculating the full-time workload to which a part-time workload corresponds.

(1) OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — CC v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

(Case C-576/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 44(2) - Scope - Old-age pension - Calculation - Taking into account of child-raising periods completed in other Member States - Article 21 TFEU - Free movement of citizens)

(2022/C 318/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CC

Defendant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 44(2) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, where, for the purpose of granting an old-age pension, the person concerned does not fulfil the condition of pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person imposed by that provision in order to have taken into account, by the Member State responsible for payment of that pension, child-raising periods completed by that person in other Member States, that Member State is required to take account of those periods pursuant to Article 21 TFEU, provided that that person worked and paid contributions exclusively in that Member State, both before and after transferring that person’s place of residence to another Member State where the person carried out those child-raising periods.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — ACC Silicones Ltd v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Case C-572/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Dividends from ‘free-float’ shares - Reimbursement of tax on income from capital paid by a non-resident company - Conditions - Free movement of capital - Principle of proportionality)

(2022/C 294/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ACC Silicones Ltd

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State’s tax legislation which makes the reimbursement of tax on income from capital paid on dividends from shareholdings below the thresholds laid down by Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003, received by a company established in another Member State subject to proof that that tax cannot be set off or its set-off carried forward in favour of that company, or in favour of its direct or indirect shareholders, nor deducted by that company as work-related outgoings or an operating cost, whereas such a condition is not provided for as regards reimbursement of tax on income from capital paid by a resident company receiving the same type of income.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
2.

Article 16(1)(b) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to find that there is a real family relationship, within the meaning of that provision, in the case of family reunification of a parent with a minor child who has been granted refugee status, where that child attained his or her majority before the decision on the application for entry and residence for the purpose of family reunification, submitted by that parent, was adopted, a first-degree relationship in the direct ascending line is not sufficient on its own. However, it is not necessary for the child sponsor and the parent concerned to cohabit in a single household or to live under the same roof in order for that parent to qualify for family reunification. Occasional visits, in so far as they are possible, and regular contact of any kind may be sufficient to consider that those persons are reconstructing personal and emotional relationships and to establish the existence of a real family relationship. Furthermore, nor can the child sponsor and the parent concerned be required to support each other financially.