ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

The combined provisions of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Article 26 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 No 883/2004, relating to scheduled treatment, read in the light of Article 56 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that: — healthcare received in a Member State other than the Member State in which the insured person resides, on his or her own initiative, on the ground that, according to that person, that treatment or treatment with the same efficacy was unavailable within a time limit which is medically justifiable, comes within the definition of ‘scheduled treatment’ within the meaning of those provisions, so that the receipt of such treatment is, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Regulation No 883/2004, in principle subject to the granting of an authorisation by the competent institution of the Member State of residence; — an insured person who has received scheduled treatment in a Member State other than his or her Member State of residence, without having applied for authorisation from the competent institution, pursuant to Article 20(1) of that regulation, is entitled to reimbursement, under the conditions laid down in that regulation, of the cost of that treatment, if — first, between the date on which the appointment for the purposes of a medical examination and possible treatment in another Member State was made and the date on which that treatment was given to the insured person in that Member State, to which he or she had to travel, that person was, for reasons relating to his or her state of health or to the need to receive urgent treatment there, in a situation which prevented him or her from applying for such authorisation from the competent institution or was not able to wait for the decision of that institution on such application, and — second, the other conditions for the assumption of the costs of the benefits in kind, pursuant to the second sentence of Article 20(2) of that regulation are also met. It is for the referring court to carry out the necessary verifications in that respect.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 January 2021 — Federal Republic of Germany v Esso Raffinage, European Chemicals Agency, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-471/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) - Articles 5 and 6 - General obligation to register substances - Articles 41 and 42 - Evaluation of registration dossiers and compliance check of information submitted by registrants - Declaration of non-compliance - Actionable measure - Interest in bringing proceedings - Locus standi - Respective competences of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and national authorities - Obligation on ECHA to check the compliance of additional information submitted by registrants at its request - ECHA’s power to take an appropriate decision - Article 1 - Objective of protecting human health and the environment - Articles 13 and 25 - Use of animal testing - Promotion of alternative methods)

(2021/C 79/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze and D. Klebs, and subsequently by D. Klebs and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Esso Raffinage (represented initially by H. Estreicher, Rechtsanwalt, and N. Navin-Jones, Solicitor, subsequently by H. Estreicher, Rechtsanwalt, A. Kołtunowska, adwokat, K. Merten-Lentz, avocate, and N. Navin-Jones, Solicitor, and finally by H. Estreicher, Rechtsanwalt, A. Kołtunowska, adwokat, and K. Merten-Lentz, avocate), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, C. Jacquet and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented initially by D. Colas, J. Traband and A.-L. Desjonquères, and subsequently by E. Leclerc, J. Traband, W. Zemamta and A.-L. Desjonquères, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: K. Bulterman and L. Noort, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of Esso Raffinage: European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (represented by: T. David, Solicitor), Higher Olefins and Poly Alpha Olefins REACH Consortium, Higher Olefins & Poly Alpha Olefins vzw (represented initially by E. Vermulst, advocaat, and subsequently by P. Kugel, advocaat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Esso Raffinage and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

3. Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, Higher Olefins and Poly Alpha Olefins REACH Consortium and Higher Olefins & Poly Alpha Olefins vzw to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
1.

Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not having direct effect, so that, if the legislation of a Member State which transposes that provision exempts from value added tax only a limited number of provisions of services closely linked to sport or physical education, that provision cannot be directly relied on before the national courts by a non-profit-making body to secure the exemption of other provisions closely linked to sport or physical education which that body provides to persons practising those activities and which that legislation does not exempt.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — José Cánovas Pardo SL v Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas

(Case C-186/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Article 96 - Calculation of the period of prescription for claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 - Point from which time starts to run - Date of grant of Community rights and of knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable - Date on which the course of action in question ceased - Repeated acts - Continuous acts - Restricted to acts carried out more than three years ago)

(2021/C 502/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: José Cánovas Pardo SL

Defendant: Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 96 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights must be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the ongoing nature of an act of infringement of a protected variety or of the date on which that act ended, the three-year period of prescription set out in that provision in respect of claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of that regulation starts to run from the date on which, first, the Community plant variety right was finally granted and, second, the holder of the right had knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable;

2. Article 96 of Regulation No 2100/94 must be interpreted as meaning that claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 of that regulation in respect of a set of acts of infringement of a protected variety brought after more than three years have elapsed are time barred only from when, first, the Community plant variety right was finally granted and, second, the right holder had knowledge of each individual act forming part of that set of acts and of the identity of the party liable for them.

(1) OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2021 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v European Commission

(Case C-572/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Customs union - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 211(6) - Authorisation for inward processing of certain grain-oriented electrical steel products - Risk of adverse effect on the essential interests of EU producers - Examination of the economic conditions - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 - Article 259 - European Commission’s conclusion on the economic conditions - Article 263 TFEU - Act not open to challenge)

(2021/C 228/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo (represented by: M. Günes and L.C. Heinisch, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal in Case C-572/18 P;

2. Orders thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against ZB

(Case C-627/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - Criteria - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purpose of executing a sentence)

(2020/C 54/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party to the main proceedings

ZB

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State which, although it confers the competence to issue a European arrest warrant for the purposes of executing a sentence on an authority which, whilst participating in the administration of justice in that Member State, is not itself a court, does not provide for the existence of a separate judicial remedy against the decision of that authority to issue such a European arrest warrant.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
2.

Article 132(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not requiring that, due to the fact that medical services are provided by telephone, nurses and medical assistants who provide those services are subject to additional professional qualification requirements in order for those services to benefit from the exemption provided for in that provision, provided that they can be regarded as being of a level of quality equivalent to that of services provided by other service providers using the same means of communication, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Oriol Junqueras Vies

(Case C-502/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Expedited procedure - Institutional law - Citizen of the European Union elected to the European Parliament while being held in provisional detention in the context of criminal proceedings - Article 14 TEU - Concept of ‘Member of the European Parliament’ - Article 343 TFEU - Immunities necessary for the performance of the tasks of the European Union - Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union - Article 9 - Immunities enjoyed by Members of the European Parliament - Immunity as regards travel - Immunities as regards sessions - Personal, temporal and material scope of the various immunities - Waiver of immunity by the European Parliament - Request to waive immunity from a national court - Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage - Article 5 - Term of office - Article 8 - Electoral procedure - Article 12 - Verification of the credentials of Members of the European Parliament following the official declaration of the election results - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 39(2) - Election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot - Right to stand as a candidate at elections)

(2020/C 68/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Criminal proceedings against

Oriol Junqueras Vies

Other parties: Ministerio Fiscal, Abogacía del Estado, Partido político VOX

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9 of the Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that:

— a person who was officially declared elected to the European Parliament while subject to a measure of provisional detention in the context of proceedings in respect of serious criminal offences, but who was not authorised to comply with certain requirements under national law following such a declaration and to travel to the European Parliament in order to take part in its first session, must be regarded as enjoying an immunity under the second paragraph of that article;

— that immunity entails that the measure of provisional detention imposed on the person concerned must be lifted, in order to enable that person to travel to the European Parliament and complete the necessary formalities there. That being said, if the competent national court considers that that measure should be maintained after the person concerned acquires the status of Member of the European Parliament, it must as soon as possible request the European Parliament to waive that immunity, on the basis of the third paragraph of Article 9 of that protocol.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Spenner GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-189/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Transitional system of free allocation of allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 9 - Determining the historical activity level - Significant change in the capacity of an installation that took place before the baseline period - Determining the relevant baseline period)

(2020/C 240/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Spenner GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 9(9) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to significant capacity extensions of an incumbent installation that took place before the baseline period determined in accordance with Article 9(1) of that decision.

2. Article 9(1) of Decision 2011/278 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the competent national authority itself to determine the relevant baseline period for the purposes of assessing the historical activity levels of an installation.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
1.

Declares that, by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to establish, publish and notify to the European Commission the flood risk management plans in respect of the river basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura, ES 123 Lanzarote, ES 124 Tenerife, ES 125 La Palma, ES 126 La Gomera and ES 127 El Hierro (Spain), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (5) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks; and by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to complete the public consultation and information on the elaboration of flood risk management plans in respect of the river basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura and ES 125 La Palma, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) and (2) of that directive.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — European External Action Service v Stéphane De Loecker

(Case C-187/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - European External Action Service (EEAS) - Member of the temporary staff - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Action for annulment and damages - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to be heard - Article 266 TFEU - Compliance with the annulling judgment)

(2020/C 262/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Stéphane De Loecker (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — AMA — Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA v Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti — Co.La.Ri.

(Case C-15/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 1999/31/EC - Existing landfill sites - Period of responsibility for after-care of the landfill following closure - Extension - Costs of the landfill of waste - Polluter pays principle - Temporal scope of the directive)

(2020/C 240/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: AMA — Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA

Respondent: Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti — Co.La.Ri.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 10 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste must be interpreted as not precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law to the effect that a landfill site in operation at the date of transposition of that directive must be subject to the obligations arising under that directive, in particular the obligation to extend the after-care period following the closure of the landfill, without it being necessary to make a distinction according to the date of storage of the waste or to provide for measures to limit the financial impact of that extension in respect of the holder of the waste.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 June 2020 — Gregor Schneider v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-116/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Internal reorganisation of the services of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) - Reassignment - Legal basis - Article 7 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Interests of the service - Substantial changes in tasks - Qualification - Transfer - Change - Misuse of power - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Right to a fair hearing - Right to effective judicial protection - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2020/C 279/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Gregor Schneider (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Gregor Schneider to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

(Case C-219/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Procurement procedure for the award of a service contract - Architectural and engineering services - Article 19(1) and Article 80(2) - National legislation limiting participation solely to economic operators in certain legal forms)

(2020/C 271/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura

Defendant: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(1) and Article 80(2) of 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, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that prevents non-profit-making entities from being able to take part in a procurement procedure for the award of a public contract for engineering and architectural services, even though those entities are entitled under national law to offer the services covered by the contract in question.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 — European Commission v HM

(Case C-70/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 - Refusal to allow participation in the assessment tests - Request for review - Email of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) - EPSO’s failure to send the request for review to the selection board of the competition - Ground for refusal - Out of time - Classification of EPSO’s email - Decision to reject the request for review - Powers - No legal basis - Setting aside)

(2020/C 287/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: HM (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 November 2018, HM v Commission (T-587/16, EU:T:2018:818);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG

(Case C-343/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Point 2 of Article 7 - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred - Place where the damage occurred - Manipulation of data relating to the emission of exhaust gases from engines produced by a motor vehicle manufacturer)

(2020/C 287/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Klagenfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Defendant: Volkswagen AG

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Article 7 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a manufacturer in a Member State has unlawfully equipped its vehicles with software that manipulates data relating to exhaust gas emissions before those vehicles are purchased from a third party in another Member State, the place where the damage occurs is in that latter Member State.

(1) OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.