ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as meaning that a motor vehicle that falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information does not show the quality which is normal in goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect where, although it is covered by a valid EC type-approval and may, consequently, be used on the road, that vehicle is fitted with a defeat device, the use of which is prohibited under Article 5(2) of that regulation.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH

(Case C-633/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Single market in insurance - Directive 2002/92/EC - Definition of ‘insurance intermediary’ - Activity of ‘insurance mediation’ - Directive (EU) 2016/97 - Activity of ‘distribution of insurance’ - Scope of those directives - Membership of a group insurance policy - Assignment of rights under the insurance contract - Insurance benefits in the event of sickness or accident abroad - Remuneration paid by the member in consideration for the insurance cover acquired - Consumer protection - Equal treatment of insurance intermediaries)

(2022/C 432/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Defendant: TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(3) and (5) of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation, as amended by Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014, and of Article 2(1)(1), (3) and (8) of Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016, on the distribution of insurance, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/411 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2018,

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘insurance intermediary’ and, therefore, that of ‘insurance distributor’, within the meaning of those provisions, covers a legal person whose activity consists in offering its customers membership on a voluntary basis, in return for payment which it receives from them, of a group insurance policy to which it has subscribed previously with an insurance company, where that membership entitles those customers to insurance benefits in the event, in particular, of sickness or accident abroad.

(1) OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam — Netherlands) — E.K. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-624/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Scope - Third-country national with a right of residence under Article 20 TFEU - Article 3(2)(e) - Residence solely on temporary grounds - Autonomous concept of EU law)

(2022/C 408/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.K.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(2)(e) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of residence ‘solely on temporary grounds’, which is referred to therein, is an autonomous concept of EU law, which must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States.

2. Article 3(2)(e) of Directive 2003/109 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of residence ‘solely on temporary grounds’, which is referred to therein, does not cover the residence of a third-country national under Article 20 TFEU within the territory of the Member State of which the Union citizen concerned is a national.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 November 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — WM (C-37/20), Sovim SA (C-601/20) v Luxembourg Business Registers

(Joined Cases C-37/20 and C-601/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing - Directive (EU) 2018/843 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 - Amendment to Article 30(5), first subparagraph, point (c), of Directive 2015/849 - Access for any member of the general public to the information on beneficial ownership - Validity - Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Respect for private and family life - Protection of personal data)

(2023/C 24/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: WM (C-37/20), Sovim SA (C-601/20)

Defendant: Luxembourg Business Registers

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(15)(c) of Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU, is invalid in so far as it amended point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 30(5) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, in such a way that point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 30(5), as thus amended, provides that Member States must ensure that information on the beneficial ownership of companies and of other legal entities incorporated within their territory is accessible in all cases to any member of the general public.

(1) OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2022 — European Commission v Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-211/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Public guarantee granted by a public entity - Loans to three football clubs from the Community of Valencia (Valencia CF, Hércules CF and Elche CF) - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the decision in so far as it concerns Valencia CF - Concept of ‘advantage’ - Assessment of the existence of an advantage - Guarantee Notice - Interpretation - Duty of care on the part of the European Commission - Burden of proof - Distortion)

(2023/C 7/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by G. Luengo, P. Němečková and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Valencia Club de Fútbol SAD (represented by G. Cabrera López, J.R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. López Rus, abogados), Kingdom of Spain (represented by M.J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Valencia Club de Fútbol SAD;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — JW, HD, XS v LOT Polish Airlines

(Case C-20/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Second indent of Article 7(1)(b) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Concept of ‘place of performance of the obligation in question’ - Contract for the provision of services - Air transport - Flight consisting of a confirmed single booking and performed in several legs by two separate air carriers - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 7 - Right to compensation - Delay on the first leg of the journey - Claim for compensation brought against the air carrier operating that first leg of the journey before the court for the place of arrival of that first flight)

(2022/C 128/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: JW, HD, XS

Defendant: LOT Polish Airlines

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) 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, in respect of a flight consisting of a confirmed single booking for the entire journey and divided into two or more legs on which transport is performed by separate air carriers, where a claim for compensation, brought on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, arises exclusively from a delay of the first leg of the journey caused by a late departure and is brought against the air carrier operating that first leg, the place of arrival for that first leg may not be classified as a ‘place of performance’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA ‘PRODEX’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-72/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings - Subheading 4418 20 - Scope - Doors and their frames and thresholds - MDF panels and mouldings - First sentence of general rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature - Incomplete or unfinished article - Concept)

(2022/C 237/18)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘PRODEX’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 44180 20 of the Combined Nomenclature, read in conjunction with the first sentence of general rule 2(a) for the interpretation of that nomenclature, in Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in its version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as covering, as separate articles, goods described as wooden panels and mouldings, the profile and decorative finish of which objectively indicate that they are intended for the manufacture of door frames and thresholds, even if incomplete or unfinished, provided that those goods have undergone working which renders them exclusively usable as such and that they thus have the essential characteristics of finished articles.

(1) OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — IA v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

(Case C-231/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Dublin system - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Article 29(2) - Transfer of the asylum seeker to the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection - Six-month time limit for transfer - Possibility of extending that time limit up to a maximum of one year in the event of imprisonment - Definition of ‘imprisonment’ - Court-authorised non-voluntary committal of the asylum seeker to a hospital psychiatric department)

(2022/C 207/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IA

Defendant: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 29(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘imprisonment’ referred to in that provision is not applicable to the non-voluntary committal of an asylum seeker to a hospital psychiatric department, which has been authorised by a judicial decision, on the ground that that person, due to a mental illness, is a serious danger to him- or herself or to society.

(1) OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — SGL Carbon SE (C-65/21 P), Química del Nalón SA, formerly Industrial Química del Nalón SA (C-73/21 P), Deza a.s. (C-74/21 P), Bilbaína de Alquitranes SA (C-75/21 P) v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(Joined Cases C-65/21 P and C-73/21 P to C-75/21 P) (1)

(Appeals - Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures - Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 - Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance - Annulment - Actions for damages)

(2022/C 303/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: SGL Carbon SE (C-65/21 P), Química del Nalón SA, formerly Industrial Química del Nalón SA (C-73/21 P), Deza a.s. (C-74/21 P), Bilbaína de Alquitranes SA (C-75/21 P) (represented by: M. Grunchard, P. Sellar and K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, R. Lindenthal and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz and M.J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, M. Heikkilä and S. Mahoney, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders SGL Carbon SE, Química del Nalón SA, Deza a.s. and Bilbaína de Alquitranes SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-33/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Legislation applicable - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(a)(i) and (ii) - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 11(5) - Article 13(1)(a) and (b) - Concept of ‘operating base’ - Flight and cabin crew - Workers employed in the territory of two or more Member States - Connecting factors)

(2022/C 266/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2)(a)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, Article 13(1)(a) and Article 87(8) 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, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, and subsequently by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, and Article 11(5) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 465/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the social security legislation applicable to the flight and cabin crew of an airline, established in a Member State, which crew is not covered by E101 certificates and which work for 45 minutes per day in premises intended to be used by staff, known as the ‘crew room’, which that airline has in the territory of another Member State in which that flight and cabin crew reside and, which for the remaining working time, are on board that airline’s aircraft is the legislation of the latter Member State.

(1) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2022 — Universität Bremen v European Research Executive Agency (REA)

(Case C-110/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation of non-privileged parties in a direct action before the Courts of the European Union - University teacher - University teacher teaching at the university represented in that action and performing duties as coordinator and head of the project that is the subject matter of the dispute - Condition of independence - Existence of a direct and personal interest in the outcome of the dispute)

(2022/C 340/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Universität Bremen (represented by: C. Schmid)

Other party to the proceedings: European Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: V. Canetti and S. Payan Lagrou, Agents, and by R. van der Hout, advocaat, and C. Wagner, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2020, Universität Bremen v REA (T-660/19, not published, EU:T:2020:633);

2. Refers Case T-660/19 back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Clemente v Comunidad de Castilla y León (Dirección General de la Función Pública)

(Case C-192/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4(1) - Principle of non-discrimination - Failure to take into account the services provided by an interim civil servant who has become a career civil servant for the purpose of consolidating his or her personal grade - Assimilation of those services to those provided by a career civil servant - Concept of ‘objective grounds’ - Taking into account the period of service for the purpose of acquiring the status of career civil servant - Structure of the vertical progression of career civil servants under national legislation)

(2022/C 318/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mr Clemente

Defendant: Comunidad de Castilla y León (Dirección General de la Función Pública)

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is 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, precludes national legislation under which, for the purposes of consolidating a personal grade, account is not taken of services which a career civil servant provided as an interim civil servant before he or she acquired the status of career civil servant.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.
2.

Article 20(4) and (5) of Directive 2013/33 must be interpreted as precluding the imposition, on an applicant for international protection who has engaged in seriously violent behaviour against public officials, of a sanction consisting in the withdrawal of material reception conditions, within the meaning of Article 2(f) and (g) of that directive, relating to housing, food or clothing, in so far as it would have the effect of depriving the applicant of the possibility of meeting his or her most basic needs The imposition of other sanctions under Article 20(4) of the directive must, in all circumstances, comply with the conditions laid down in Article 20(5) thereof, including those concerning the principle of proportionality and respect for human dignity.
1.

Article 2(4) and Article 4.1 of 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 the condition of double criminality of the act, provided for in those provisions, is met in the situation in which a European arrest warrant has been issued for the enforcement of a custodial sentence handed down for acts which are covered, in the issuing Member State, by an offence which requires that those acts impair a legal interest protected in that Member State, where such acts are also covered by a criminal offence under the law of the executing Member State and the impairment of that legal interest is not an element constituting that criminal offence.
1.

Article 81 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘claim’ in that article refers only to an application made by a person who has exercised his or her right to freedom of movement to the authorities of a Member State which is not competent under the conflict rules laid down by that regulation. Therefore, that concept does not include either the initial application made under the legislation of a Member State by a person who has not yet exercised his or her right to freedom of movement or the periodic payment, by the authorities of that Member State, of a benefit normally payable, at the time of that payment, by another Member State.