ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2022 — PL v État belge

(Case C-56/22)

(2022/C 148/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PL

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Does EU law, essentially the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive 2008/115/EC, (1) apply to a practice of a Member State allowing it to regularise in situ a foreign national staying there illegally? If it does, must Articles 5, 6 and 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in accordance with [recitals 6 and 24] thereof, and Articles 1, 7, 14, 20, 21, 24 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State is considering granting an autonomous residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons to a third-country national staying illegally on its territory, it is entitled to: (i) require that national, first of all, to prove that it is impossible to make his or her application in his or her country of origin; and (ii) not set out in its legislation the, a fortiori objective, conditions and criteria for proving those compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons (whether as far as admissibility is concerned, by requiring that exceptional circumstances be demonstrated but not defining them, or as far as substance is concerned, by failing to lay down any objective criteria for defining the, inter alia humanitarian, reasons justifying a residence authorisation), thereby rendering the response to such an application unpredictable, or even arbitrary? If it is permissible for those criteria not to be laid down by legislation, in the event of a refusal, is the right to an effective remedy not undermined by the fact that the only remedy provided is based on strict legality, excluding any considerations of appropriateness?

(1) Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).
Appeal brought on 25 February 2022 by Patrick Breyer against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-158/19, Breyer v European Research Executive Agency

(Case C-135/22 P)

(2022/C 171/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Patrick Breyer (represented by: J. Breyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Research Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 in Case T-158/19, Breyer v REA, and annul the decision of the European Research Executive Agency (REA) of 17 January 2019 (ARES [2019] 266593) in its entirety; and

2. order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In summary, the appellant claims, on the basis of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) to have a right to full access to documents concerning the implementation of the Horizon 2020 research project ‘iBorderCtrl: Intelligent Portable Border Control System’. The public interest in disclosure with regard to the publicly funded development of AI systems which are intended to be used by authorities responsible for border control as polygraphs or to asses a risk posed by persons seeking to enter the country, outweighs private commercial interests.

Due to the ethical, social and human rights implications of the high-risk technology in question, the public interest in access to information arises already at the beginning of the research phase and cannot legitimately be deferred to the phase after completion of the research project.

The system for the dissemination of results provided for in Regulation No 1290/2013 (2) and the grant agreement is not capable of satisfying academic interest, media interest and the interest of the public in general in the project.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in ‘Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)’ and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 81).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against BK and ZhP

(Case C-176/22)

(2022/C 191/32)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

BK and ZhP

Question referred

Is Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice to be interpreted as imposing an obligation on a national court that has made a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to stay the main proceedings in their entirety, or is it sufficient to stay only that part of the main proceedings that relates to the question referred for a preliminary ruling?
1.

Are records of formal meetings of the executive branch of government of a Member State, at which members of the government are required to meet and act as a collective authority, to be characterised, for the purpose of a request for access to environmental information contained therein, as ‘internal communications’ or as ‘proceedings’ of a public authority within the meaning of those terms as set out, respectively, in Article 4(1)(e) and Article 4(2), first paragraph, indent (a), respectively, of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC?
1.

Do the quantitative limits on the release for consumption established by Article 106 of the Código dos Impostos Especiais do Consumo (Excise Duty Code, ‘the CIEC’) constitute quantitative restrictions on imports or measures having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU, in so far as Article 106 stipulates that, during the last four months of each year, the quantities of cigarettes sold by operators may not exceed the average monthly quantity of cigarettes released for consumption in the 12 months immediately preceding?
Appeal brought on 4 April 2022 by Mylan IRE Healthcare Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 26 January 2022 in Case T-303/16, Mylan IRE Healthcare v Commission

(Case C-237/22 P)

(2022/C 213/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mylan IRE Healthcare Ltd (represented by: I. Vernimme and L. Bidaine, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, UAB VVB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

— set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal;

— if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 2083 final of 4 April 2016 concerning, in the framework of Article 29 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for ‘Tobramycin VVB and associated names’, medicinal products for human use which contain the active substance ‘tobramycin’ (the contested decision); otherwise, refer the case back to the General Court;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the appellant incurred as a result of both the present proceedings and those of the proceedings at first instance;

— order UAB VVB to support its own costs incurred as a result of both the present proceedings and those of the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law alleging an error in law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘clinical superiority’ in the sense of Article 8(3)(c) of the Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (1) (the Orphan Regulation), especially in the light of the interpretation given by the General Court to the concept of ‘significant benefit’ within the meaning of Article 3 of the Orphan Regulation.

Second plea in law alleging an insufficient reasoning of the General Court to base its conclusion that TOBI / Tobramycin VVB was safer than Tobi Podhaler in a substantial portion of the target population especially in the light of the content of contested decision.

(1) OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1.
Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Dyson Ltd, Dyson Technology Ltd, Dyson Operations Pte Ltd, Dyson Manufacturing Sdn Bhd, Dyson Spain, SL, Dyson Austria GmbH, Dyson sp. z o.o., Dyson Ireland Ltd, Dyson GmbH, Dyson, Dyson Srl, Dyson Sweden AB, Dyson Denmark ApS, Dyson Finland Oy, Dyson BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-127/19, Dyson and Others v Commission

(Case C-122/22 P)

(2022/C 207/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Dyson Ltd, Dyson Technology Ltd, Dyson Operations Pte Ltd, Dyson Manufacturing Sdn Bhd, Dyson Spain, SL, Dyson Austria GmbH, Dyson sp. z o.o., Dyson Ireland Ltd, Dyson GmbH, Dyson, Dyson Srl, Dyson Sweden AB, Dyson Denmark ApS, Dyson Finland Oy, Dyson BV (represented by: E. Batchelor, T. Selwyn Sharpe and M. Healy, solicitors and avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the Contested Judgment in its entirety;

— Rule that the Commission committed a sufficiently serious breach of EU law and remit the damages application back to the General Court; and

— Order the Commission to pay its own costs and Dyson’s costs in connection with these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the General Court mischaracterised Dyson’s pleas and failed to state its reasoning. Dyson’s plea was solely directed to the Commission’s grave and manifest error in choosing the one test method that was clearly outside its discretion, namely of testing with no dust at all. The General Court did not address this plea;

Second, the General Court erred in applying the case law on sufficiently serious breach, in not according determinative weight to its conclusion that the Commission breached a non-discretionary requirement under Art. 10 Parent Directive;

Third, the General Court misapplied the law on sufficiently serious breach and legally mischaracterized the evidence in concluding that the ‘during use’ specification in the Parent Directive gave rise to interpretational difficulties;

Fourth, the General Court misapplied the law on sufficiently serious breach in concluding that the ‘during use’ specification in the Parent Directive gave rise to regulatory complexity;

Fifth, the General Court misapplied the law on sufficiently serious breach in concluding there was no grave and manifest error in connection with the Commission’s breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment;

Sixth, the General Court misapplied the law on sufficiently serious breach in concluding there was no grave and manifest error in connection with the Commission’s breach of the fundamental principles of sound administration and/or to act diligently;

Seventh, the General Court misapplied the law on sufficiently serious breach in concluding there was no grave and manifest error in connection with the Commission’s breach of the fundamental principle of the right to pursue a trade or business.
1.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which a taxable person relies, on the basis of the judgment in Mensing, (1) on the fact that the supply of works of art that were supplied to him in the context of an exempt intra-Community supply by the creator (or his successors in title) also falls under the margin scheme of Article 311 et seq. of Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) is the taxable amount to be determined, in accordance with paragraph 49 of that judgment, exclusively on the basis of EU law, with the result that it is not permissible for the national court adjudicating at last instance to interpret a provision of national law (in the present case: the third sentence of Paragraph 25a(3) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz (the Law on turnover tax) to the effect that the tax due on the intra-Community acquisition does not form part of the taxable amount?
Appeal brought on 8 April 2022 by Scania AB, Scania CV AB, Scania Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 February 2022 in Case T-799/17, Scania and Others v Commission

(Case C-251/22 P)

(2022/C 213/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Scania AB, Scania CV AB, Scania Deutschland GmbH (represented by: D. Arts, advocaat, F. Miotto, avocate, N. De Backer, advocate, C.E. Schillemans, advocaat, C. Langenius, S. Falkner, L. Ulrichs, P. Hammarskiöld, advokater)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment under the appeal;

— annul, in whole or in part, Decision C(2017) 6467 final of 27 September 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement (Case AT.39824 — Trucks) and / or cancel or reduce the relevant fines;

— or, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and for the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on the following four grounds of appeal:

1. In their first ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, by failing to acknowledge that the Commission, by adopting the Settlement Decision (1) and thereafter continuing its investigation against Scania by relying on the same case team, infringed Article (41)1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice.

2. In their second ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, by characterising the geographic scope of the German level conduct as extending to the whole of the EEA, whereas it was limited to Germany.

3. In their third ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, by characterising the series of acts at the three different levels as a single infringement.

4. In subsidiary order, in their fourth ground of appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, by upholding a fine in relation to conduct that is time-barred.

(1) Commission Decision C(2016) 4673 final of 19.07.2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39824 — Trucks).
2.

If, according to the answer to the first question, they are to be classified as environmental information: Is Article 4(1)(d) of the environmental information directive consequently to be interpreted as meaning that data on the location of permanent sample plots for the statistical forest inventory are also to be classified as material in the course of completion or unfinished documents or data? Is Article 4(2)(a) of the environmental information directive to be interpreted as meaning that the condition laid down in that provision — namely that the relevant confidentiality is provided for by law — is satisfied where the confidentiality requirement is laid down by law not for a specific type of information but results, by way of interpretation, from a provision of an instrument of a general nature, such as the Law on public information or the Law on State statistics? Is it necessary, for the purposes of the application of Article 4(2)(b) of the environmental information directive, to establish the existence of actual negative effects on the international relations of the State resulting from the disclosure of the requested information, or is it sufficient to establish that there is a risk in that regard? Does the ground of ‘the protection of the environment [in question]’ referred to in Article 4(2)(h) of the environmental information directive justify restricting access to environmental information in order to ensure the reliability of State statistics?
Can a third-country national who has been granted long-term resident status under Directive 2003/109/EC (1) by a first Member State (in casu, Italy) require the second Member State (in casu, Germany) to renew a residence permit issued to him or her in implementation of Article 14 et seq. of Directive 2003/109/EC without providing evidence of the continuing existence of long-term resident status?

If that question is answered in the negative:
Appeal brought on 3 March 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-796/19, HB v European Commission

(Case C-161/22 P)

(2022/C 244/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and B. Araujo Arce, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: HB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— Set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court on 21 December 2021 (T-796/19), in so far as it dismisses as inadmissible the action for annulment against Commission Decision C(2019) 7318 final of 15 October 2019 (point 1 of the operative part), and orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings (point 3 of the operative part);

— Refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance;

— Order HB to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission puts forward three grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of legal characterisation, in that the General Court overlooked and rendered ineffective the provisions of the Decision adopted by the Commission using its public powers within a contractual framework, by characterising those measures as contractual and subject to adjudication by the courts with jurisdiction to hear contractual disputes. That incorrect legal characterisation concerns paragraphs 62 to 87 of the judgment under appeal.

The second ground of appeal alleges an incorrect legal characterisation of Article 1 of the Decision (paragraphs 62 to 73 of the judgment) and a distortion of the facts. In its characterisation of Article 1 of the Decision, which establishes HB’s liability for an irregularity in the contract award procedure, the General Court distorted the facts and incorrectly characterised Article 1 as contractual in nature.

The third ground of appeal alleges an incorrect legal characterisation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Decision (paragraphs 74 to 83 of the judgment). In applying the reduction of the price of the contract to EUR 0 and recovering the amounts already paid, the Commission did not act within a contractual framework, but exercised its public powers. The General Court erred in treating those provisions in the same way as if they were the consequences of a contractual annulment on grounds of fraud or vitiated consent.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 22 April 2022 — Edil Work 2 S.r.l., S.T. S.r.l. v STE S.a.r.l.

(Case C-276/22)

(2022/C 266/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Edil Work 2 S.r.l., S.T. S.r.l.

Cross-appellant: STE S.a.r.l.

Question referred

Do Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude a situation where a Member State in which a (limited liability) company was originally incorporated applies to that company the provisions of national law relating to the operation and management of the company where the company, having transferred its registered office and reincorporated the company under the laws of the Member State of destination, maintains its principal place of business in the Member State of origin and the management act in question has a decisive effect on the company’s activities?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora (Portugal) lodged on 6 April 2022 –TL

(Case C-242/22)

(2022/C 257/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Évora

Parties to the main proceedings

TL

Other party to the proceedings: Ministério Público

Question referred

Is it possible to interpret Articles 1 to 3 of [Directive 2010/64/EU] (1) and Article 3 of [Directive 2012/13/EU] (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, alone or in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR, as meaning that they do not preclude a provision of national law which imposes a penalty of relative nullity, which must be pleaded, for failure to appoint an interpreter and to translate essential procedural documents for an accused person who does not understand the language of the proceedings, and which permits the rectification of that type of nullity owing to the passage of time?

(1) Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010 L 280, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 April 2022 — Criminal proceedings against BW

(Case C-246/22)

(2022/C 276/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Concerned party: BW

Other parties: Staatsanwaltschaft Köln, Bundesamt für Güterverkehr

Question referred

Is the transport of empty containers to or from the loading or the unloading point an inseparable part of the transport of the loaded containers such that the transport of the empty containers benefits from the privileged treatment afforded to the transport of the full containers in so far as those empty containers are exempt from the cabotage rules in the context of combined transport?
(1)

The General Court erred in law, infringing Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (1) (‘Regulation No 1/2003’) by: (a) incorrectly interpreting that provision, read in conjunction with paragraph 127 of the Commission notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, which led it incorrectly to conclude that the Commission had not made a manifest error of assessment in respect of the adequacy of the commitments; (b) manifestly distorting the facts on a number of occasions, which led it to misapply Article 9 of Regulation No 1/2003 and, as a result of that infringement, incorrectly to find that the Commission had not made a manifest error of assessment in respect of the adequacy of the commitments; (c) failing to consider that, in the context of its permissible discretion in assessing complex economic and technical issues, the Commission was obliged to act in a manner that complied with and accounted for the provisions of the TFEU and the fundamental principles of the EU legal order, since its actions may not be contrary to the provisions of the TFEU and the fundamental principles of the EU legal order; nor may they lead to an outcome that would be contrary to those provisions [or] principles;