ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against HN

(Case C-420/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 47 and 48 - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Article 6 - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Article 8 - Right to be present at the trial - Return decision accompanied by an entry ban of five years - Conditions for holding a trial in the absence of the person concerned - Obligation to be present at the trial provided for under national law)

(2022/C 418/02)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski Rayonen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

HN

Intervening party: Sofiyska rayonna prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes an obligation on suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings to be present at their trial.

2. Article 8(2) of Directive 2016/343 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which permits a trial to be held in the absence of the suspect or accused person, where that person is outside that Member State and is unable to enter its territory because of an entry ban imposed on him or her by the competent authorities of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.
2.

Article 12(b) and point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 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, as well as Article 17(3)(a) of Regulation 2016/679 must be interpreted as meaning that in the context of the weighing-up exercise which is to be undertaken between the rights referred to in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on the one hand, and those referred to in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on the other hand, for the purposes of examining a request for de-referencing made to the operator of a search engine seeking the removal from the results of an image search carried out on the basis of the name of a natural person of photographs displayed in the form of thumbnails representing that person, account must be taken of the informative value of those photographs regardless of the context of their publication on the internet page from which they are taken, but taking into consideration any text element which accompanies directly the display of those photographs in the search results and which is capable of casting light on the informative value of those photographs.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, Standesamtsaufsicht v TB

(Case C-646/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Divorce - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 2(4) and Article 21 - Concept of ‘judgment’ - Recognition, in a Member State, of the dissolution of a marriage agreed in an agreement between spouses and pronounced by a civil registrar of another Member State - Criterion for determining the existence of a ‘judgment’)

(2023/C 15/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, Standesamtsaufsicht

Defendant: TB

Intervening parties: Standesamt Mitte von Berlin, RD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(4) 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,

must be interpreted, in particular for the purpose of the application of Article 21(1) of that regulation, as meaning that a divorce decree drawn up by a civil registrar of the Member State of origin, containing a divorce agreement concluded by the spouses and confirmed by them before that registrar in accordance with the conditions laid down by the legislation of that Member State, constitutes a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Article 2(4).

(1) OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Pharmacie populaire — La Sauvegarde SCRL v État belge (C-52/21), Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL v État belge (C-53/21)

(Joined Cases C-52/21 and C-53/21) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Obligation for purchasers of services to draw up and submit supporting documents to the tax authorities concerning amounts invoiced by suppliers of services established in another Member State - No such obligation regarding purely domestic supplies of services - Justification - Effectiveness of fiscal supervision - Proportionality)

(2022/C 165/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Pharmacie populaire — La Sauvegarde SCRL (C-52/21), Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL (C-53/21),

Defendant: État belge (C-52/21 and C-53/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires that any company established on the territory of that Member State submit statements to the tax authorities concerning payments for services purchased from suppliers established in another Member State in which the latter are subject to legislation on the accounting system of undertakings and under the obligation to issue invoices in accordance with legislation on value added tax, failing which a corporation tax levy of 50 % or 100 % of the value of those services is to be made, whereas, in accordance with an administrative practice, the former Member State imposes no equivalent obligation where those services are provided by suppliers established on its territory.

(1) OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ‘Piltenes meži’ SIA v Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-251/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 - Support for rural development by the EAFRD - Article 30 - Natura 2000 payments - Scope - Application for aid in respect of a micro-reserve created in a forest that is not part of the Natura 2000 network, with the purpose of protecting a species of wild bird - Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 - Block exemption for certain types of aid to the agriculture and forestry sectors - Application to aid co-financed by means of EU resources - No application to undertakings in difficulty)

(2022/C 237/22)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Piltenes meži’ SIA

Defendant: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as meaning, in particular taking account of Article 30(6), that aid applied for in respect of a micro-reserve, created in a forest in pursuance of the objectives of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, falls within the scope of Article 30;

2. Commission Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that aid applied for on the basis of Regulation No 1305/2013, in respect of a micro-reserve created in a forest in pursuance of the objectives of Directive 2009/147, by an undertaking in difficulty, within the meaning of Article 2(14) of Regulation No 702/2014, cannot be declared compatible with the internal market under that latter regulation.

(1) OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz Bozen — Italy) — KW (C-102/21), SG (C-103/21) v Autonome Provinz Bozen

(Joined Cases C-102/21 and C-103/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Aid granted by Member States - Aid scheme for the construction of mini-hydroelectric power plants - Alpine and mountain huts without connection to an electricity grid - Authorisation by the European Commission - Expiry)

(2022/C 213/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz Bozen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KW (C-102/21), SG (C-103/21)

Defendant: Autonome Provinz Bozen

Operative part of the judgment

1. The authorisation for the aid scheme for the construction of mini-hydroelectric power plants resulting from Commission Decision C(2012) 5048 final of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.32113 (2010/N) — Italy: Aid scheme for energy savings, district heating and electrification of remote areas in Alto Adige/South Tyrol was no longer in force when the Autonome Provinz Bozen (Autonomous Province of Bolzano, Italy) granted subsidies to KW and SG;

2. Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the European Commission is not required to request the Member State to recover unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
2.

Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 561/2006, as amended by Regulation 2020/1054, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has granted, on the basis of that provision, exceptions from Articles 5 to 9 of that regulation, which are applicable to the carriage of goods by vehicles covered by that provision, and where those vehicles carry those goods not only within a radius of up to 100 km from the base of the undertaking concerned, but also outside of that radius, those exceptions are applicable only to the carriage of goods by those vehicles which does not occur outside of that radius.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Get Fresh Cosmetics Limited v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba

(Case C-122/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 87/357/EEC - Article 1(2) - Scope - Non-food products that may be confused with foodstuffs - Concept - Risk of suffocation, poisoning, or the perforation or obstruction of the digestive tract - No presumption of danger - Proof)

(2022/C 284/09)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Get Fresh Cosmetics Limited

Defendant: Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba

Intervening party: V.U.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 87/357/EEC of 25 June 1987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning products which, appearing to be other than they are, endanger the health or safety of consumers must be interpreted as meaning that it is not necessary to demonstrate by objective and substantiated data that placing in the mouth, sucking or ingesting products which, although not foodstuffs, possess a form, odour, colour, appearance, packaging, labelling, volume or size, such that it is likely that consumers, especially children, will confuse them with foodstuffs and in consequence place them in their mouths, or suck or ingest them may entail risks such as suffocation, poisoning, or the perforation or obstruction of the digestive tract. Nevertheless, the competent national authorities must assess on a case-by-case basis whether a product meets the conditions listed in that provision and justify their assessment that that is the case.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 August 2022 — Aquind Ltd, Aquind Energy Sàrl, Aquind SAS v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic

(Case C-310/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Energy - Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 - Trans-European energy infrastructure - Projects of common interest of the European Union - Article 3(4) and Article 16 - Delegation of power to the European Commission - Article 290 TFEU - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/389 - Amendment of the list of projects of common interest of the Union - Act adopted by the Commission - Right of objection of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union - Time limit - Nature of the act before the expiry of that period)

(2022/C 359/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Aquind Ltd, Aquind Energy Sàrl, Aquind SAS (represented by: C. Davis and S. Goldberg, Solicitors, and by E. White, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and B. De-Meester, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agent), Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Aquind Ltd, Aquind Energy Sàrl and Aquind SAS to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Ville de Mons, Zone de secours Hainaut-Centre v RM

(Case C-377/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Principle of pro rata temporis - Taking into account, for the purpose of calculating the remuneration of a full-time professional firefighter, the length of service for remuneration purposes which he has acquired as a volunteer firefighter, in accordance with the principle of pro rata temporis)

(2022/C 318/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ville de Mons. Zone de secours Hainaut-Centre

Defendant: RM

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement implemented by Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, for the purposes of calculating the remuneration of professional firefighters employed on a full-time basis, accredits, in respect of the length of service for remuneration purposes, work performed previously on a part-time basis as a volunteer firefighter in line with the principle of pro rata temporis, that is to say, on the basis of the work actually performed.

(1) OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — SRS, AA v Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-22/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Article 3(2), first subparagraph, point (a) - Concept of ‘other family members who are members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence’ - Assessment criteria)

(2022/C 418/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SRS, AA

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Operative part of the judgment

Point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

the concept of ‘any other family members who are members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence’, mentioned in that provision, refers to persons who have a relationship of dependence with that citizen, based on close and stable personal ties, forged within the same household, in the context of a shared domestic life going beyond a mere temporary cohabitation entered into for reasons of pure convenience.

(1) OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt R v W-GmbH

(Case C-98/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1), Article 9(1), Article 167 and Article 168(a) - Deduction of input tax - Definition of ‘taxable person’ - Holding company - Expenditure linked to a shareholder contribution in kind to its subsidiaries - No contribution of expenditure to the general costs - Subsidiaries’ activities largely tax-exempt)

(2022/C 408/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt R

Defendant: W-GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 167 thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

a holding company which carries out taxable output transactions in favour of subsidiaries is not entitled to deduct the input tax levied on the services that it obtains from third parties and supplies to the subsidiaries in return for the grant of a share in the general profit, where, first, the input services have direct and immediate links not with the holding company’s own transactions but with the largely tax-exempt activities of the subsidiaries, second, those services are not included in the price of the taxable transactions carried out in favour of the subsidiaries and, third, the said services are not part of the general costs of the holding company’s own economic activity.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2022 — KN v European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

(Case C-673/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Institutional law - European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) - Code of Conduct - Allegations of psychological harassment against a member of the EESC - Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Decision to relieve the member of his supervisory and personnel management functions - Action for annulment and compensation)

(2022/C 451/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: KN (represented by: M. Aboudi and M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee) (represented by: X. Chamodraka, M. Pascua Mateo, L. Camarena Januzec and A Carvajal García-Valdecasas, acting as agents, and by A. Duron, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders KN to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).

(1) OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.
3.

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, must be interpreted as meaning that: the insertion, into the contract concluded between a lawyer and his or her client, of a term which provides for a financial penalty to be borne by the latter if he or she withdraws himself or herself from the legal proceedings the conduct of which he or she has entrusted to that lawyer, that term referring to the fee-scale of a professional association and not having been referred to in the advertisement or in the information given prior to the conclusion of the contract, must be regarded as being a ‘misleading’ commercial practice, within the meaning of Article 7 of that directive, provided that it causes the consumer, or is likely to cause the consumer, to take a transactional decision that he or she would not otherwise have taken, which it is for the national court to ascertain.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia and Others v YF and Others

(Case C-301/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(1) and (2) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - National legislation which leads to a situation in which the remuneration of certain judges is higher than that of other judges of the same rank and performing the same work - Article 1 - Purpose - Exhaustive nature of the discrimination referred to)

(2022/C 472/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia, Curtea de Apel Cluj, Tribunalul Bihor, Tribunalul Satu Mare, Tribunalul Sălaj

Respondents: YF, KP, OJ, YS, SL, DB, SH

Other parties to the proceedings: Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării, Tribunalul Cluj

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation which — as interpreted in binding national case-law — leads to a situation in which the remuneration of certain judges appointed after that legislation entered into force is lower than that of judges appointed before that legislation entered into force, where there is no resulting direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age.

2. Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding discrimination only where it is based on one of the criteria referred to expressly in Article 1 of that directive.

(1) OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.