ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2020 — DG v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-566/20)

(2021/C 28/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DG

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

(1) 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
1.

Can the provisions of Article 5[(1)(2)](b) and Article 6 of the Belgian Law of 15 May 2007 on the recognition and protection of the profession of automotive expert, read in conjunction with the provisions of the Law of 12 February 2008 establishing a general framework for the recognition of EU professional qualifications, in particular Articles 6, 8 and 9 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a service provider who changes his or her place of establishment to another Member State cannot, after that change, be entered, in his or her country of origin (in this instance, Belgium), in the IEA’s register of temporary and occasional service providers with a view to pursuing temporary and occasional activity in that country? Is such an interpretation compatible with the freedom of establishment granted under EU law?
1.

Is the first paragraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as precluding a trader from providing, in addition to a telephone number charged at no more than the basic rate, a telephone number which the consumer may use for matters relating to a contract previously concluded and for the use of which a price exceeding the basic rate is charged, and, furthermore, in the event that the provision of a telephone number that charges a rate exceeding the basic rate is deemed to be compatible with Article 21 in certain circumstances, are the factors of, for example, whether it is easy to find the telephone number subject to the basic rate, whether the intended purpose of the telephone numbers is specified with sufficient clarity and whether there are significant differences in the availability or level of customer service relevant to the assessment?
Appeal brought on 15 December 2020 by Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-255/17 Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission

(Case C-682/20 P)

(2021/C 44/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Les Mousquetaires S.A.S., ITM Entreprises S.A.S (represented by: N. Jalabert-Doury and K. Mebarek, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul paragraph 2 of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-255/17;

— Grant the forms of order sought by the applicants at first instance and annul European Commission Decision C(2017) 1057 of 9 February 2017 and Decision C(2017) 1361 of 21 February 2017, ordering Intermarché and Les Mousquetaires and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by them to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003;

— Order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the entire proceedings, including the proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges errors of law and a failure to state reasons in the context of the analysis of the effectiveness of the legal remedies concerning the conduct of inspections.

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR, Article 296 of the Treaty and Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 in that the General Court disregarded the obligation to state reasons and to limit inspection decisions.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law and infringement of Regulation No 1/2003 in that the General Court classified a procedural phase ‘before the adoption of any measure alleging that an infringement has been committed’ as not subject to the regulation.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR and Article 19 of Regulation No 1/2003 in that the General Court classified as reasonable grounds elements affected by formal and substantial irregularities.

The fifth ground of appeal alleges a failure to state reasons resulting from a failure to check the probative value of those grounds and an error as to the classification as ground.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 1 December 2020 — Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, Standesamtsaufsicht v TB

(Case C-646/20)

(2021/C 44/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, Standesamtsaufsicht

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: TB

Other parties to the proceedings: Standesamt Mitte von Berlin, RD

Questions referred

The following questions concerning the interpretation of Article 1(1)(a), Article 2, point 4, Article 21(1) and Article 46 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 (1) are referred for a preliminary ruling:

1. Is the dissolution of a marriage on the basis of Article 12 of Decreto Legge (Italian Decree-Law) No 132 of 12 September 2014 (‘DL No 132/2014’) a divorce within the meaning of the Brussels IIa Regulation?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the dissolution of a marriage on the basis of Article 12 of DL No 132/2014 to be treated in accordance with the rule in Article 46 of the Brussels IIa Regulation on authentic instruments and agreements?

(1) 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 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1; the Brussels IIa Regulation).
1.

Does Article 63 TFEU (ex Article 56 EC) preclude a national tax provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of the reimbursement of tax on income from capital, requires a company resident abroad which receives dividends from equity holdings and does not meet the minimum equity holding threshold laid down in Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 90/435 (1) on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (as amended by Directive 2003/123) (2) to prove, by means of a certificate from the foreign tax administration, not only that neither that company nor a shareholder with a direct or indirect equity holding in that company can offset the tax on income from capital or deduct it as an operating cost or as work-related outgoings, but also that no offset, deduction or carry-forward has actually taken place either, in the case where such proof is not required, for the purposes of the reimbursement of tax on income from capital, from a company with the same level of equity holding which is resident in national territory?
2.

If the answer to the first question is that such parent specimens do not constitute a part of the breeding stock, are competent bodies authorised to verify, in examining compliance with the condition set in Article 54(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, consisting of the establishment of stock legally and, at the same time, in a manner not detrimental to the survival of wild specimens, the origin of those parent specimens and to infer on that basis whether the breeding stock has been established in accordance with the rules set out in Article 54(2) of the Regulation?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 20 October 2020 — Alstom Transport SA v Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, and Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti

(Case C-532/20)

(2021/C 53/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Alstom Transport SA

Respondents: Compania Naţională de Căi Ferate CFR SA, Strabag AG — Sucursala Bucureşti, and Swietelsky AG Linz — Sucursala Bucureşti

Question referred

Are the third subparagraph of Article 1(1), Article 1(3) and Article 2c of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the period within which the successful tenderer in an award procedure may apply for review of the decision of the contracting authority declaring admissible the bid submitted by a tenderer placed lower in the ranking must be calculated by reference to the date on which the interest of the successful tenderer arose, that is, upon the lodging by the unsuccessful tenderer of an action against the outcome of the award procedure?

(1) OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14.
Appeal brought on 2 July 2020 by Peter Sabo, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK, Hasso Krull, 2 Celsius, Bernard Auric, Tony Lowes, Kent Roberson, Hiite Maja SA, Association de lutte contre toutes formes de Nuisance et de Pollutions sur les communes de Meyreuil et Gardanne (ALNP Meyreuil — Gardanne), Friends of the Irish Environment CLG against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 May 2020 in Case T-141/19, Sabo and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case C-297/20 P)

(2021/C 72/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Peter Sabo, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK, Hasso Krull, 2 Celsius, Bernard Auric, Tony Lowes, Kent Roberson, Hiite Maja SA, Association de lutte contre toutes formes de Nuisance et de Pollutions sur les communes de Meyreuil et Gardanne (ALNP Meyreuil — Gardanne), Friends of the Irish Environment CLG (represented by: R. Smith and C. Day, Solicitors, by P. Lockley and B. Mitchell, Barristers and by D. Wolfe QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

By order of 14 January 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) decided that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
2.

Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, where an air carrier cancels the originally scheduled flight owing to extraordinary circumstances, the re-routing of a passenger on a flight on which the passenger reaches his final destination on the day after the originally scheduled date of arrival constitutes a ‘reasonable measure’ which relieves that carrier of its obligation to provide compensation under Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of that regulation, unless there was another possibility of direct or indirect transport by a flight operated by itself or by another air carrier which arrived with a shorter delay than the next flight operated by the air carrier concerned, unless the latter proves that the provision of such alternative transport would have represented an unacceptable sacrifice for it in view of the capacity of its undertaking at the relevant time, which is for the referring court to determine.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Cazalla de la Sierra (Spain) lodged on 4 December 2020 — Caixabank, S.A. v ZN, SD, AH

(Case C-657/20)

(2021/C 88/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Cazalla de la Sierra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caixabank, S.A.

Defendants: ZN, SD, AH

Questions referred

Having regard to the rights set out in DIRECTIVE 93/13 (1) and the criteria laid down by the judgments of the European Court of Justice of 14 March 2013 and of 26 March 2019, which establish that non-performance of the payment obligation must be sufficiently serious in the light of the term and amount of the loan in order for the accelerated repayment clause to apply, the following question is referred:

Is it necessary for non-performance of the payment obligation to be sufficiently serious in respect of both the amount and the term of the loan simultaneously, or does it suffice for it to be sufficiently serious in respect of only one of those criteria?

If regard must be had to both criteria (term and amount of the loan), and both criteria must be satisfied and assessed jointly, this raises questions as to whether national legislation (Article 24 of Law 5/19) and national case-law (judgment of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) No 463/19) require both criteria to be weighed.

If both criteria (term and amount of the loan) must be satisfied and assessed jointly, this raises questions as to how to resolve cases where there is serious non-compliance only with regard to the amount of the loan as provided for in Article 24 of Law 5/19, on grounds of non-payment of 3 % of the principal sum, but there is no serious non-compliance as regards the term of the loan as provided for by the only temporal references in Article 24 of Law 5/19, in that fewer than 12 repayment instalments had been missed.

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
4.

In any event, is Article 127(1)(b) of the Withdrawal Agreement not invalid in part in so far as it infringes Articles 18, 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and also Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it deprives EU citizens who have exercised their right to freedom of movement and freedom to settle freely in the United Kingdom of the right to vote and to stand as candidates in municipal elections in that country and, if the General Court and the Court of Justice interpret them in the same way as the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France), does that infringement not extend to UK nationals who have exercised their freedom of movement and their freedom to settle freely in the territory of another Member State for more than 15 years and are subject to the UK 15-year rule, thus depriving them of any right to vote?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 26 August 2020 by CF, TB, LO S.A. and UM S.L. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-22/19, Noguer Enríquez and Others v Commission

(Case C-403/20 P)

(2021/C 163/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: CF, TB, LO S.A. and UM S.L. (represented by: J. Álvarez González and S. San Felipe Menéndez, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 3 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded, and ordered CF, TB, LO S.A. and UM S.L. to pay their own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2020 — GJ v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-712/20)

(2021/C 128/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GJ

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Question referred

Is a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

(1) 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Neamţ (Romania) lodged on 3 November 2020 — Ministerul Public — D.N.A. — Serviciul Teritorial Bacău v XXX and YYY

(Case C-580/20)

(2021/C 278/35)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Neamţ

Parties to the main proceedings

Accused persons: XXX and YYY

Other party to the proceedings: Ministerul Public — D.N.A. — Serviciul Teritorial Bacău

By order of 11 May 2021, the Court (Sixth Chamber) declared that the request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Neamţ (Regional Court, Neamţ, Romania), made by decision of 14 October 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 28 September 2020 by Lukáš Wagenknecht against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 July 2020 in Case T-715/19, Wagenknecht v European Council

(Case C-504/20 P)

(2021/C 217/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lukáš Wagenknecht (represented by: A. Koller, advokátka)

Other party to the proceedings: European Council

By order of 14 April 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and that Mr Lukáš Wagenknecht shall bear his own costs.
1.

Is Article 9 of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, read in conjunction with Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, in the harmonised field of value added tax, a national legal instrument such as that provided for in Article 19(2) of the DOPK [Danachno-osiguritelen protsesualen kodeks (Code of Tax and Social Security Procedure)], the application of which has the effect of triggering post factum the joint and several liability of a non-taxable natural person who is not liable for payment of VAT but whose conduct in bad faith led to non-payment of VAT by the taxable legal person which is liable for that payment?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 January 2021 — Uniqa Versicherungen AG v VU

(Case C-18/21)

(2021/C 128/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uniqa Versicherungen AG

Defendant: VU

Question referred

Are Articles 20 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) to be interpreted as meaning that those provisions preclude an interruption of the 30-day period for lodging a statement of opposition to a European order for payment, as provided for in Article 16(2) of that regulation, by Paragraph 1(1) of the Austrian Bundesgesetz betreffend Begleitmaßnahmen zu COVID-19 in der Justiz (Federal Law on accompanying measures for COVID-19 in the administration of justice), pursuant to which all procedural periods in proceedings in civil cases for which the event triggering the period occurs after 21 March 2020 or which have not yet expired by that date are to be interrupted until the end of 30 April 2020 and are to begin to run anew from 1 May 2020?

(1) OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.
Appeal brought on 7 January 2021 by Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 28 October 2020 in Case T-594/18, Pharma Mar v Commission

(Case C-6/21 P)

(2021/C 110/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: S. Heimerl, J. Möller, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pharma Mar, SA, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 October 2020 in Case T-594/18, Pharma Mar v Commission;

— uphold Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 4831 final of 17 July 2018 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Aplidin — plitidepsin’, a medicinal product for human use and dismiss the action;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; and

— order the applicant to bear the costs before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant considers that the General Court erred in law, first, by misinterpreting and misapplying Section 3.2.2. of the EMA policy on the handling of competing interests of 6 October 2016 (2) (‘the EMA Policy’). In so doing, the General Court wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the university hospital where the two experts were employed was a pharmaceutical company within the meaning of Section 3.2.2. of the EMA policy.

Second, the court wrongly appraised the allocation of the burden of proof. In particular, it is erroneous to assume that it was for the Commission to adduce evidence proving that the cell therapy centre is a separate entity within the university hospital, and is therefore not under its control, in order to remove the doubt thus created. Rather, the applicant should have proved that the cell therapy centre is in fact under the control of the university hospital.

Third, the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting and misapplying Section 4.2.1.2. of the EMA policy on so-called rival products. On the one hand, the General Court erred in law in taking into account the activities of the second expert in relation to certain rival products and, on the other hand, it wrongly found, in the context of its erroneous appraisal of the evidence, that there are few, if any, alternative medicinal products for the treatment of multiple myeloma on the market.

Fourth, the General Court erred in law in failing to recognise that the second expert’s participation in the Scientific Advisory Group for Oncology did not have a decisive impact on the conduct or outcome of the procedure.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).

(2) EMA, European Medicines Agency policy on the handling of competing interests of scientific committees’ members and experts, 6 October 2016, EMA/626261/2014,Rev. 1.
Plea alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment of Member States (first sentence of Article 4(2) TEU)

Poland submits that the provisions of the regulation do not guarantee that a finding that the principles of the rule of law have been infringed will be preceded by a ‘thorough qualitative assessment’ that will be objective, impartial and fair. Additionally, Poland indicates that the procedure for adopting measures for the protection of the Union budget unambiguously and directly discriminates against smaller and medium-sized Member States as compared with larger States.