ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 10 December 2019 by Esim Chemicals GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 October 2019 in Case T-713/18, Esim Chemicals v EUIPO

(Case C-902/19 P)

(2020/C 161/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Esim Chemicals GmbH (represented by: I. Rungg, Rechtsanwalt, I. Innerhofer, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 3 March 2020 the Court of JusticeJustice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Esim Chemicals GmbH shall bear its own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 16 November 2019 by Karolina Romańska against the order of the General Court delivered on 6 September 2019 in Case T-212/18, Romańska v Frontex

(Case C-839/19 P)

(2020/C 304/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Karolina Romańska-Kuć (represented by: A. Tetkowska, adwokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)

By order of 31 January 2020, the case was removed from the register.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen (Belgium) lodged on 15 October 2019 — ES v Wallonische Region

(Case C-757/19)

(2020/C 230/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Gericht Erster Instanz Eupen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ES

Defendant: Wallonische Region

By order of 28 May 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) ruled that Article 49 TFEU is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which a person residing in that Member State can rely on an exception to the obligation to register vehicles in his or her Member State of residence, as regards a vehicle that is registered in a different Member State and that has been made available to that person by a company which is resident in that Member State and of which that person is managing partner, only if the documents proving that that person has met the conditions for the exception are carried in the vehicle at all times.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 January 2020 — L.R. v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-8/20)

(2020/C 87/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L.R.

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Question referred

Is a national provision according to which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was not conducted in a Member State of the EU, but in Norway?

(1) Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Badajoz (Spain) lodged on 15 January 2020 — Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España (Adicae Consumidores Críticos y Responsables) v Liberbank S.A.

(Case C-16/20)

(2020/C 137/46)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Badajoz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España (Adicae Consumidores Críticos y Responsables)

Defendant: Liberbank, S.A.

Questions referred

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling are identical to those in referred in Case C-224/19. (1)

(1) OJ 2019 C 246, p. 4.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (Slovenia) lodged on 20 January 2020 — ALPINE Bau GmbH, Salzburg —Celje branch — in liquidation

(Case C-25/20)

(2020/C 103/20)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Ljubljani

Party to the main proceedings

Debtor: ALPINE Bau GmbH, Salzburg — Celje branch — in liquidation

Question referred

Is Article 32(2) of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the rules on the time limits for lodging creditors’ claims, and the consequences of lodging claims out of time under the law of the State in which the secondary proceedings are being conducted, apply to the lodgement of claims in secondary proceedings by the liquidator in the main insolvency proceedings?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).
2.

Must the principle non bis in idem, as guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter, be interpreted as not precluding the competent administrative authority of a Member State from imposing a fine for infringing EU competition law, in a situation such as that of the present case, where the same legal person has already been finally acquitted of an offence for which an administrative fine had been imposed on it by the national postal regulator for an alleged infringement of postal legislation, on the basis of the same or similar facts, on the grounds that a limitation of the principle non bis in idem is justified by the fact that competition legislation pursues a complementary general interest objective, that is to say, protecting and maintaining a system of undistorted competition within the internal market, and does not go beyond what is appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objective that such legislation legitimately pursues, and/or in order to protect the right and freedom to conduct business of those other operators under Article 16 of the Charter?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 29 February 2020 by Vanda Pharmaceuticals Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 December 2019 in Case T-211/18, Vanda Pharmaceuticals v Commission

(Case C-115/20 P)

(2020/C 137/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Ltd (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, S. De Knop, B. Natens, advocaten, C. Muttin, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-211/18;

— uphold the application at first instance and annul the European Commission Implementing Decision ‘C(2018) 252 final’ refusing a marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) for the medicinal product for human use Fanaptum — iloperidone;

— order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs, and its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal;

In the alternative, the appellant requests that the Court:

— quashes the judgment of the General Court in case T-211/18;

— refers the case back to the General Court for judgment;

— reserves the costs at first instance and on appeal for final judgment by the General Court;

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: The General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the applicable standard of judicial review, and distorted the evidence.

Second ground of appeal: The General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the Note for Guidance CHMP/ICH/2/04 on the Clinical Evaluation of QT/QTc 2 Interval Prolongation and Proarrhythmic Potential for Non Antiarrhythmic Drugs (‘QT Guidance’).

Third ground of appeal: The General Court did not assess the appellant’s second plea in law in its entirety.

Fourth ground of appeal: The General Court distorted the evidence and misapplied the principle of equal treatment.

Fifth ground of appeal: The General Court misinterpreted Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 12 and 81(2) of Regulation No 726/2004.

(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).
1.

Is Article 57(5)(a) of Regulation No 865/2006, (1) as amended by Regulation No 2015/870, to be interpreted as meaning that an importer carrying a total of more than 125 grams (g) of caviar of sturgeon species (Acipenseriformes spp.) in individually marked containers, for which he presents neither a (re-)export document nor an import permit, is to be allowed to keep up to 125 g of caviar, provided that the import is not for any of the purposes listed in the first subparagraph of Article 57(1) of Regulation No 865/2006? If that question is to be answered in the affirmative:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 24 February 2020 — Apcoa Parking Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-90/20)

(2020/C 161/48)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Apcoa Parking Danmark A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred

Must Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that control fees for infringement of regulations on parking on private property constitute consideration for a service supplied and that there is therefore a transaction subject to VAT?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 February 2020 — ZM in his capacity as liquidator in the insolvency proceedings relating to Oeltrans Befrachtungsgesellschaft mbH v E.A. Frerichs

(Case C-73/20)

(2020/C 191/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: ZM in his capacity as liquidator in the insolvency proceedings relating to Oeltrans Befrachtungsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant in the appeal on a point of law: E.A. Frerichs

Question referred

Are Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) and Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (‘Rome I’) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to a contract under the latter regulation also governs the payment made by a third party in performance of a contracting party’s contractual payment obligation?

(1) OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Portugal) lodged on 12 March 2020 — MV v SATA Internacional — Serviços de Transportes Aéreos SA

(Case C-137/20)

(2020/C 209/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MV

Defendant: SATA Internacional — Serviços de Transportes Aéreos SA

Question referred

Must an event such as that which occurred on 6 June 2016, in which a flight was cancelled due to the meteorological conditions at the destination airport — that is to say, because at the time of the flight’s departure the minimal horizontal visibility limits, and also the minimum vertical visibility limits for the runway, were not ensured and, therefore, the required safety conditions not guaranteed in that airport and for the aircraft in question for the landing manoeuvre, it even being forecast that the atmospheric conditions would deteriorate in the following hours — be characterised as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) which relieves the air carrier of the obligation to pay compensation?

(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.

Must Article 2, Article 4(3), Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’) in conjunction with the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, Article 38 of the Charter and Article 7(1) and (2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts … (1) be interpreted as meaning that a body which includes a person appointed to the position of judge for the first or a subsequent time (to a higher court) by a political body within the executive branch of a State characterised by a totalitarian, undemocratic and communist system of power (the Rada Państwa Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej (the Council of State of the People’s Republic of Poland)) at the request of the Minister for Justice of that State, is a duly qualified independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of EU law, in particular given (1) the lack of transparency of the appointment criteria, (2) the possibility that the judge may be removed from office at any time, and the lack of participation in the appointment procedure of (3) judicial self-government or (4) suitable public authorities elected through democratic elections, all of which could undermine the confidence which the judiciary should inspire in a democratic society?
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the evaluation of the conditions for the liability of a Member State for damage caused to an individual due to a breach of EU law influenced by the fact — which was at issue in the original proceedings — that the Member State itself regulated the method of financing of waste from photovoltaic panels prior to the adoption of the directive, which newly included photovoltaic panels in the scope of EU regulation and imposed the obligation to finance the costs on producers, including in relation to panels placed on the market prior to the expiry of the directive’s implementation period (and the adoption of regulation at European Union level)?
3.

If, under the applicable laws of the European Union, the guarantor is not regarded as a debtor within the meaning of Article 221(3) of the regulation or as the subject of the enforcement of the decision or as a person concerned by the enforcement, can the requirement implied by the principle of legal certainty, which requires a reasonable limitation period to be observed, be applied to the guarantor?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 27 February 2020 — Regione Puglia v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others

(Case C-110/20)

(2020/C 247/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Regione Puglia

Defendant: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Commissione tecnica di verifica dell’impatto ambientale

Question referred

Is Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that described which on the one hand recommends, for the purpose of issuing a hydrocarbons exploration permit, an area of a specified extent, granted for a specific period of time — in the present case, an area of 750 square kilometres for six years — and on the other hand allows those limits to be exceeded by the issue of multiple exploration permits for adjacent areas to the same legal entity, provided that they are issued following separate administrative procedures?

(1) Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (OJ 1994 L 164, p. 3).
Appeal brought on 22 April 2020 by WD against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2020 in Case T-320/18, WD v EFSA

(Case C-167/20 P)

(2020/C 271/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WD (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Food Safety Authority

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 in Case T-320/18;

— consequently, grant the appellant the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

— annul the decision of 14 July 2017 taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, according to which the appellant is not among the staff members promoted during the 2017 reclassification round;

— annul the decision of the AACC of 9 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 October 2017 directed against the decision of 14 July 2017;

— annul the decision of 9 August 2017 and notified on 10 August 2017, taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, not to renew the appellant’s employment contract;

— annul the decision of the AACC of 12 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 November 2017 directed against the decision of 9 August 2017;

— award damages for the harm suffered;

— order the respondent to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards EFSA’s decision of 14 July 2017 not to reclassify the appellant at grade AST 6 in the 2017 reclassification round, the first ground of appeal alleges infringement of the procedural rules applicable and more specifically the rules on admissibility of pleas, infringement of the obligation to state reasons and distortion of the file. The second ground is based on infringement of the applicable regulatory framework (Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, decision of 22 April 2008 and guidance document of 30 June 2010), infringement of the rules on adducing evidence and the obligation to state reasons.

As regards EFSA’s decision of 9 August 2017 not to renew the appellant’s employment contract, the first ground alleges infringement of the decision of 8 December 2012. The second ground is based on breach of the duty of care and of the instruction of 7 March 2017 and distortion of the file. The third ground alleges infringement of the concepts of manifest error of assessment and misuse of power, distortion of the file and failure to comply with the rules on adducing evidence.
1.

Is Article 4 of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which applies reduced rates of excise duty to beer brewed by independent small breweries pursuant to that provision must also apply the provision on the joint taxation of small breweries contained in the second sentence of Article 4(2) of that directive, or is the application of the latter provision left to the discretion of the Member State concerned?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 24 February 2020 — Siebenburgisches Nugat Srl, Hans Draser Internationales Marketing v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală a Vămilor — Direcția Regională Vamală Brașov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu

(Case C-99/20)

(2020/C 279/25)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Siebenburgisches Nugat Srl, Hans Draser Internationales Marketing

Defendants: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală a Vămilor — Direcția Regională Vamală Brașov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu

Question referred

Is the combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation No 2658/87 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that goods generically described as ‘rail components for hanging curtains and drapes, or finished tubes (painted, nickel-plated, chromed)’, such as those at issue in the present case, fall under tariff subheading 8302 41 90 or under subheading 7306 30 77 of the combined nomenclature?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1, Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 02 Volume 004 P. 3).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 May 2020 — DocMorris NV v Apothekerkammer Nordrhein

(Case C-190/20)

(2020/C 279/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: DocMorris NV

Respondent: Apothekerkammer Nordrhein

Question referred

Is it compatible with the provisions of Title VIII and, in particular, with Article 87(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) if a national provision (in this case the first sentence of Paragraph 7(1) of the Gesetz über die Werbung auf dem Gebiete des Heilwesens (Law on Advertising in the Field of Medicine’)) is interpreted as prohibiting a mail-order pharmacy established in another Member State from using a prize competition to attract customers if participation in the prize competition is linked to the submission of a prescription for a medicinal product for human use subject to a medical prescription, the prize offered is not a medicinal product but another object (in this case an electric bike worth EUR 2 500 and electric toothbrushes), and there is no risk that irrational and excessive use of that medicinal product is encouraged?

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 9 June 2020 — Skatteverket v Skellefteå Industrihus Aktiebolag

(Case C-248/20)

(2020/C 279/45)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Skellefteå Industrihus Aktiebolag

Question referred

Is it compatible with the VAT Directive, (1) in particular with Articles 137, 168, 184 to 187, 189 and 192 thereof, that a property owner, who opted for taxation of the construction of a building and who has deducted the input tax paid on the acquisitions relating to the building project, must immediately repay the total amount of input tax, together with interest, on the ground that the liability for tax ceases by reason of the discontinuance of the construction project before the building is completed and that there is therefore no letting?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
2.

Interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I): is the minimum wage applicable in the country in which the employee has habitually carried out his or her work a right that falls within the scope of ‘provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement under the law that, in the absence of choice, would have been applicable’, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 8(1) of the regulation?
Appeal brought on 4 February 2020 by Billa AG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 December 2019 in Case T-524/18, Billa AG v EUIPO

(Case C-61/20 P)

(2020/C 287/41)

Language of the case: English

By order of 28 May 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Billa AG to bear its own costs.