ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 February 2021 — ‘Romega’ UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

(Case C-89/21)

(2021/C 163/20)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Romega’ UAB

Respondent: Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

Question referred

Must Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 (1) of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs and Article 14(8) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety be interpreted as conferring on the competent supervisory authorities of a Member State the discretion to determine that fresh poultry meat which meets the requirements set out in Row l.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005 fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 178/2002 in the case where a food product coming under that food category is contaminated by Salmonella serotypes other than those referred to in Row l.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005, as has been established in the present case?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (OJ 2005 L 338, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 8 March 2021 — Comité interprofessionnel des huiles essentielles françaises (CIHEF), Florame, Hyteck Aroma-Zone, Laboratoires Gilbert, Laboratoire Léa Nature, Laboratoires Oméga Pharma France, Pierre Fabre Médicament, Pranarom France, Puressentiel France v Ministre de la Transition écologique, Premier ministre

(Case C-147/21)

(2021/C 182/62)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Comité interprofessionnel des huiles essentielles françaises (CIHEF), Florame, Hyteck Aroma-Zone, Laboratoires Gilbert, Laboratoire Léa Nature, Laboratoires Oméga Pharma France, Pierre Fabre Médicament, Pranarom France, Puressentiel France

Defendants: Ministre de la Transition écologique, Premier ministre

Question referred

Does the regulation of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (1) preclude a Member State from adopting, in the interests of public health and the environment, restrictive rules relating to commercial practices and advertising such as those laid down in Articles L. 522-18 and L. 522-5-3 of the Environmental Code? If not, under what conditions may a Member State adopt such measures?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).
2.

Are the provisions of [Regulation 2016/679] (2) applicable to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria in view of the fact that information concerning a person, which was collected by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in its capacity as ‘controller’ pursuant to point 8 of Article 3 of [Directive 2016/680], in an investigation file opened in relation to that person with a view to verifying indications of a criminal offence, was used in the context of the judicial defence of the Public Prosecutor’s Office as a party to civil proceedings — by virtue of the fact that the circumstance of that file having been opened was revealed or that the contents of the file were presented?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 2 March 2021 — Proximus NV v Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit

(Case C-129/21)

(2021/C 189/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Proximus NV

Respondent: Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit

Questions referred

1. Must Article 12[(2)] of Directive 2002/58, (1) read in conjunction with Article 2[(f)] thereof and Article 95 of the General Data Protection Regulation (2) be interpreted as permitting a national supervisory authority to require a subscriber’s ‘consent’ within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation as the basis for the publication of the subscriber’s personal data in public directories and directory enquiry services, published both by the operator itself and by third-party providers, in the absence of national legislation to the contrary?

2. Must the right to erasure contained in Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as precluding a national supervisory authority from categorising a request by a subscriber to be removed from public directories and directory enquiry services as a request for erasure within the meaning of Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation?

3. Must Article 24 and Article 5[(2)] of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as precluding a national supervisory authority from concluding from the obligation of accountability laid down therein that the controller must take appropriate technical and organisational measures to inform third-party controllers, namely, the telephone service provider and other providers of directories and directory enquiry services which have received data from that first controller, of the withdrawal of the data subject’s consent in accordance with Article 6 in conjunction with Article 7 of the General Data Protection Regulation?

4. Must Article 17[(2)] of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as precluding a national supervisory authority from ordering a provider of public directories and directory enquiry services which has been requested to cease disclosing data relating to an individual to take reasonable steps to inform search engines of that request for erasure?

(1) Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).

(2) 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) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2021 — Le Port de Bruxelles v Infrabel SA and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Infrabel SA

(Case C-229/21)

(2021/C 217/42)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Le Port de Bruxelles, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Respondent: Infrabel SA

Interested parties: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Le Port de Bruxelles, Lineas SA

Question referred

Where an inland port — which forms part of the core network — is already connected to the road and to the rail network, does Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU, (1) construed in isolation or in conjunction with other provisions of that regulation, lay down an obligation to keep and to maintain both those links or an obligation to refrain from removing one of them, even merely by failing to maintain it?

(1) OJ 2013 L 348, p. 1.
—

In the event that the case is not referred back to the General Court to be adjudicated on again, the appellant claims that the Court of Justice should rule that the EU institutions have gravely breached their obligations and caused the appellant harm, in so far as: (a) the European Commission adopted the GBER in a form in which, inter alia, it exceeds the limits of the Commission’s legal authority under the Treaties, in which it does not ensure observance of the constitutional principles that interference in competition affecting the common market must take place only exceptionally and must be justified and in which it unlawfully allowed state aid to be implemented in the context of the OPEI, which damaged the business of the appellant’s firm; (b) by its decision of 3 December 2007, the European Commission adopted the Operational Programme infringing the Treaties and the Charter and did not publish that decision; (c) the European Commission did not proceed properly in dealing with the appellant’s complaint as to the unlawfulness of the OPEI inasmuch as it, first, failed to check the circumstances of the creation and implementation of the OPEI and, secondly, failed to properly justify its rejection of the applicant’s complaint; (d) the General Court refused to address the merits of the case in the application for annulment of the GBER and dismissed the application as manifestly unfounded, thereby breaching its constitutional obligation to apply the principle of proportionality, and by its excessively formalistic, unilateral approach infringed the applicant’s constitutional right to effective legal protection and a fair trial;
2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, is it necessary, for the purposes of determining the customs value in accordance with Article 30(2)(a) and (b), to approach the customs authorities of other Member States in order to obtain the customs value of similar goods listed in their databases, and/or is it necessary to consult a Community database and obtain the customs values listed in it?
2.

Do Article 49 and Article 107(1) TFEU preclude a rule of national law which, without any reasonable justification, requires a second licence and the fulfilment of additional requirements for PHVs wishing to provide urban services?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 9 April 2021 — ‘HA.EN.’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

(Case C-227/21)

(2021/C 242/16)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘HA.EN.’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Question referred

Is Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) in conjunction with the principle of fiscal neutrality, to be interpreted as prohibiting or not prohibiting a practice of national authorities under which the right of a taxable person to deduct input VAT is denied where that person, when acquiring items of immovable property, knew (or should have known) that the supplier, due to his insolvency, would not pay (or would not be able to pay) the output VAT into the State budget?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
2.

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation under which a court, where it finds that a contractual term is unfair, with the result that the agreement is invalid, may supplement the content of the agreement with a supplementary provision of national law, in order to prevent the agreement from being invalid, even though the consumer consents to its being invalid?
2.

Is the award of compensation for micro-reserves created 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 subject to the restrictions which 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 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (3) lays down in respect of payments for undertakings in difficulty?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

(Case C-256/21)

(2021/C 278/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KP

Defendants: TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

Question referred

Must Article 124(d) and Article 128 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the EU trade mark court has jurisdiction to rule on the invalidity of an EU trade mark asserted by a counterclaim within the meaning of Article 128 of that regulation even after the action for infringement based on that EU trade mark for the purposes of Article 124(a) has been validly withdrawn?

(1) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).
1.

Should EU law, in particular Article 2(f), read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a), of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) be interpreted as meaning that a refugee who is an ‘unaccompanied minor’, and who resides in a Member State, must be ‘unmarried’ under her national law in order to enjoy the right to family reunification with relatives in the direct ascending line?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 7 May 2021 — ‘Vittamed technologijos’ UAB, in liquidation v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

(Case C-293/21)

(2021/C 289/40)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Vittamed technologijos’ UAB, in liquidation

Respondent: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Question referred

Are Articles 184 to 187 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 a taxable person is (or is not) obliged to adjust deductions of value added tax (VAT) charged on the acquisition of goods and services for the purposes of producing capital goods in the case where those goods are no longer intended to be used in the course of taxable economic activities because the owner (shareholder) of the taxable person decides to place it in liquidation and that taxable person submits a request that it be removed from the register of VAT payers? Is the answer to that question affected by the reasons for deciding to liquidate the taxable person, namely the fact that the decision to place that person in liquidation was taken due to growing losses, the absence of orders and the shareholder’s doubts as to the profitability of the planned (intended) economic activity?

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

Is the principle of the proportionality of penalties, enshrined in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as also applying to facts other than those which are formally defined as criminal offences under national law, but which may be regarded as ‘criminal charges’ within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the light of the criteria developed by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the criterion of the severity of the penalty, as in the case in the main proceedings in so far as concerns the appraisal of conflicts of interests which may result in the application of an additional penalty consisting in a prohibition on holding elective public office for a period of three years?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2021 — S.M.

(Case C-237/21)

(2021/C 297/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Person whose surrender is sought: S.M.

Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München

Question referred

Do the principles governing the application of Articles 18 and 21 TFEU established by the Court in its judgment of 13 November 2018 in Raugevicius (C-247/17, EU:C:2018:898) require that a request from a third country under the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 seeking the extradition of an EU citizen for the purpose of enforcing a sentence is to be refused, even where the requested Member State is obliged by international law under that Convention to extradite the EU citizen, because it has defined the term ‘nationals’ within the meaning of Article 6(1)(b) of the Convention as meaning that it refers only to its own nationals, not to other EU citizens?
1.

Must the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, (1) be regarded as an act of an institution of the Union, within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, and therefore amenable to interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union? Do the terms, nature and duration of the CVM established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 fall within the scope of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, signed by Romania in Luxembourg on 25 April 2005? Are the requirements laid down in the reports prepared in accordance with the CVM binding on the Romanian State?
1.

Does the award of compensation under Article 82 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (the GDPR) also require, in addition to infringement of provisions of the GDPR, that an applicant must have suffered harm, or is the infringement of provisions of the GDPR in itself sufficient for the award of compensation?
1.

Do Articles 18, 26, 49, 54 and 55 TFEU, Articles 3 and 13 of Directive 2018/1972/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018, (1) and Articles 16 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a provision of national law that delegates to the administrative authorities the task of determining the remuneration to be paid to telecommunications operators for the mandatory performance of activities ordered by the judicial authorities consisting in the interception of communication flows, where that provision does not require compliance with the principle of the full reimbursement of the costs actually incurred and duly documented by the operators in relation to those activities and, furthermore, requires that the administrative authorities achieve cost savings compared to previous criteria for calculating remuneration?
Appeal brought on 13 January 2021 by Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções, Lda, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-416/20 REC Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union and Others

(Case C-21/21 P)

(2021/C 329/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellants: Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções, Lda, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo (represented by: M. Ribeiro, advogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union, General Court of the European Union, European Central Bank

By order of 30 June 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-379/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Sweden; Covid-19)

(Case C-320/21 P)

(2021/C 349/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Kingdom of Sweden, SAS AB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2784 final of 24 April 2020 on State Aid SA.57061 (2020/N) — Sweden — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines is void; and

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on six pleas in law.

First plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the Commission breached the requirement that aid granted under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU is not to make good the damage suffered by a single victim.

Second plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in the application of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and the proportionality principle in relation to damage caused to SAS AB by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in rejecting the appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.

Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to open a formal investigation procedure.

Sixth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to state reasons.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 4 June 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-388/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair I; Covid-19)

(Case C-353/21 P)

(2021/C 349/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 3387 final of 18 May 2020 on State Aid SA.56809 (2020/N) — Finland — COVID-19: State loan guarantee for Finnair is void; and

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the Appellant’s plea concerning the infringement of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.

Second plea in law: the General Court infringed EU law in rejecting the Appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the Appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.

Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the failure to open a formal investigation procedure.

Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the failure to state reasons.