ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — Orange România SA v Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP)

(Case C-61/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 2(h) and Article 7(a) - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 4(11) and Article 6(1)(a) - Processing of personal data and protection of private life - Collection and storage of the copies of identity documents by a provider of mobile telecommunications services - Concept of the data subject’s ‘consent’ - Freely given, specific and informed indication of wishes - Declaration of consent by means of a tick box - Signing of the contract by the data subject - Burden of proof)

(2021/C 19/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Orange România SA

Defendant: Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(h) and Article 7(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and Article 4(11) and Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the data controller to demonstrate that the data subject has, by active behaviour, given his or her consent to the processing of his or her personal data and that he or she has obtained, beforehand, information relating to all the circumstances surrounding that processing, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, allowing that person easily to understand the consequences of that consent, so that it is given with full knowledge of the facts. A contract for the provision of telecommunications services which contains a clause stating that the data subject has been informed of, and has consented to, the collection and storage of a copy of his or her identity document for identification purposes is not such as to demonstrate that that person has validly given his or her consent, as provided for in those provisions, to that collection and storage, where

— the box referring to that clause has been ticked by the data controller before the contract was signed, or where

— the terms of that contract are capable of misleading the data subject as to the possibility of concluding the contract in question even if he or she refuses to consent to the processing of his or her data, or where

— the freedom to choose to object to that collection and storage is unduly affected by that controller, in requiring that the data subject, in order to refuse consent, must complete an additional form setting out that refusal.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) v European Commission

(Case C-313/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 - Action for annulment brought by an association - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Person directly concerned)

(2020/C 433/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) (represented by: G. Dalfino, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Bianchi and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
1.

Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that an employer cannot be deemed to be in a ‘state of insolvency’ where an action for enforcement has been brought against that employer in connection with a judicially recognised claim for compensation, but the claim is deemed irrecoverable in the enforcement proceedings on account of that employer’s informal insolvency. It is, however, for the referring court to ascertain whether, in accordance with Article 2(4) of Directive 2008/94, the Member State concerned has decided to extend employee protection as provided for under that directive to such a situation of insolvency, established by proceedings which are different from those mentioned in Article 2(1) and which are provided for under national law;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Atresmedia Corporación de Medios de Comunicación SA v Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI), Artistas Intérpretes o Ejecutantes, Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE)

(Case C-147/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Rights related to copyright - Directive 92/100/EEC - Article 8(2) - Directive 2006/115/EC - Article 8(2) - Communication to the public of an audiovisual work incorporating a phonogram or a reproduction of a phonogram - Single equitable remuneration)

(2021/C 28/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Atresmedia Corporación de Medios de Comunicación SA

Defendants: Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI), Artistas e Intérpretes o Ejecutantes, Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(2) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property and Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be interpreted as meaning that the single equitable remuneration referred to in those provisions must not be paid by the user where he or she makes a communication to the public of an audiovisual recording containing the fixation of an audiovisual work in which a phonogram or a reproduction of that phonogram has been incorporated.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — M.S., M.W., G.S. v Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-616/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - Procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status - Directive 2005/85/EC - Article 25(2) - Grounds for inadmissibility - Rejection by one Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible due to the earlier grant to the applicant of subsidiary protection in another Member State - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013)

(2021/C 44/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M.S., M.W., G.S.

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 25(2) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which is subject to 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, but which is not bound by 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, in accordance with which an application for international protection is considered to be inadmissible where the applicant benefits from subsidiary protection status in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale v VR

(Case C-303/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Article 11 - Right to equal treatment - Social security - Legislation of a Member State excluding, for the determination of rights to a family benefit, the family members of a long-term resident who do not reside in the territory of that Member State)

(2021/C 35/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale

Defendant: VR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(d) 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 precluding legislation of a Member State under which, for the purposes of determining entitlement to a social security benefit, the family members of a long-term resident, within the meaning of Article 2(b) thereof, who do not reside in the territory of that Member State, but in a third country are not taken into account, whereas the family members of a national of that Member State who reside in a third country are taken into account, where that Member State has not expressed its intention of relying on the derogation to equal treatment permitted by Article 11(2) of that directive by transposing it into national law.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
1.

Article 19(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that the reference to the ‘function of a cosmetic product’ which must appear, under that provision, on the container and packaging of such a product must be such as to inform the consumer in a clear manner of the use and the method of use of the product so as to ensure that it can be used safely by consumers without harming their health, and therefore cannot be limited to a mere indication of the purposes of the product’s use, as referred to in Article 2(1)(a) of that regulation. It is for the referring court to ascertain, in the light of the characteristics and properties of the product concerned and the expectations of an average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, the nature and extent of the information which must appear in that regard on the container and packaging of the product so that it can be used without risk to human health.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — WEG Tevesstraße v Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen

(Case C-449/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption for leasing and letting immovable property - National legislation exempting from VAT the supply of heat by an association of residential property owners to property owners belonging to that association)

(2021/C 53/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WEG Tevesstraße

Defendant: Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(l) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which exempts from value added tax the supply of heat by an association of residential property owners to the property owners belonging to that association.

(1) OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.
1.

Article 4(1)(e) of Directive 2003/4/EC 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘internal communications’ covers all information which circulates within a public authority and which, on the date of the request for access, has not left that authority’s internal sphere — as the case may be, after being received by that authority, provided that it was not or should not have been made available to the public before it was so received.
3.

Orders the European Commission to pay Printeos SA interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations, plus 3,5 percentage points, on the amount of EUR 184 592,95 for the period from 31 March 2017 until the date of payment in full;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane v Silcompa SpA

(Case C-95/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 76/308/EEC - Articles 6 and 8 and Article 12(1) to (3) - Mutual assistance for the recovery of certain claims - Excise duty payable in two Member States for the same transactions - Directive 92/12/EC - Articles 6 and 20 - Release of products for consumption - Falsification of the accompanying administrative document - Offence or irregularity committed in the course of movement of products subject to excise duty under a duty suspension arrangement - Irregular departure of products from a suspension arrangement - ‘Duplication of the tax claim’ relating to the excise duties - Review carried out by the courts of the Member State in which the requested authority is situated - Refusal of the request for assistance made by the competent authorities of another Member State - Conditions)

(2021/C 138/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agenzia delle Dogane

Respondent: Silcompa SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(3) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, as amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001, read in conjunction with Article 20 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action disputing enforcement measures taken in the Member State in which the requested authority is situated, the competent body of that Member State may refuse to grant the request to recover excise duties submitted by the competent authority of another Member State in respect of goods which irregularly departed from a suspension arrangement, for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Directive 92/12, as amended by Directive 92/108, where that request is based on the facts relating to the same export transactions which are already subject to excise duty recovery in the Member State in which the requested authority is situated.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
1.

Article 9 of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts and Article 27 of Directive 2011/83/EU 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, read in conjunction with Article 5(5) of, and point 29 of Annex I to, Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, do not regulate the formation of contracts, with the result that it is for the referring court to assess, in accordance with national legislation, whether a contract may be regarded as concluded between a water supply company and a consumer in the absence of the latter’s express consent;
2.

EU law, in particular Article 34(5) of Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the Member States to provide for an appeal procedure against decisions refusing a visa for the purpose of studies, within the meaning of that directive, the procedural rules of which are a matter for the legal order of each Member State, in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, and that procedure must, at a certain stage, guarantee a judicial appeal. It is for the referring court to establish whether the application for a national long-term visa for the purpose of studies that is at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of that directive.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Gmina Wrocław v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

(Case C-604/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Article 9(1) - Article 13(1) - Article 14(1) and (2)(a) - Concept of ‘supply of goods’ - Transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into full immovable property ownership rights by operation of law - Municipality collecting fees for the transformation - Concept of ‘compensation’ - Concept of ‘taxable person acting as such’ - Exception - Bodies governed by public law which engage in activities or transactions as public authorities)

(2021/C 138/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gmina Wrocław

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 14(2)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into full immovable property ownership rights provided for by national legislation against payment of a fee constitutes a supply of goods within the meaning of that provision.

2. Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into full immovable property ownership rights provided for by national legislation takes place against payment of a fee to the municipality which owns the property, enabling it to obtain income therefrom on a continuing basis, that municipality, subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, acts as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive, and not as a public authority for the purposes of Article 13(1) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Germany) — FD v Staatliches Amt für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt Mittleres Mecklenburg

(Case C-365/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Direct payments - Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Article 24 - Young farmer having received an initial allocation of payment entitlements - Article 30(6) - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 - Article 28(2) - Further allocation of payment entitlements from the national reserve)

(2021/C 182/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FD

Defendant: Staatliches Amt für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt Mittleres Mecklenburg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 30(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, read in conjunction with Article 28(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation No 1307/2013 and amending Annex X to that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that a young farmer, within the meaning of Article 30(11)(a) of Regulation No 1307/2013, read in conjunction with Article 50(2) of that regulation, who has already received, under Article 24 of that regulation, an initial allocation of payment entitlements in respect of the eligible hectares which he or she has declared at the time of his or her application is entitled to receive, subsequently, a further allocation of payment entitlements from the national reserve equal to the number of additional eligible hectares that he or she now holds and for which he or she has not received any payment entitlement. That right is subject to the existence of sufficient available funds in the national or regional reserves. If that is not the case, the allocation must be made in such a way as to ensure the equal treatment of farmers eligible for entitlements under Article 30(6) of Regulation No 1307/2013 and to avoid distortions of the market and of competition.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.