ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against DD

(Case C-347/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - 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(1) - Right of an accused person to be present at the trial - Examination of an incriminating witness in the absence of the accused person - Possibility of remedying the infringement of a right at a later stage in the proceedings - Additional examination of the same witness - Directive 2013/48/EU - Right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings - Article 3(1) - Examination of an incriminating witness in the absence of the lawyer of the accused person)

(2022/C 418/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main proceedings

DD

Intervening party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

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 and Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty,

must be interpreted as meaning that where, in order to ensure that the right of the accused person to be present at his or her trial and his or her right of access to a lawyer are safeguarded, the national court carries out an additional examination of an incriminating witness since, for reasons beyond their control, the accused person and his or her lawyer could not be present at the previous examination of that witness, it is sufficient that the accused person and his or her lawyer be able freely to question that witness, providing, prior to that additional examination, the accused person and his or her lawyer were sent a copy of the minutes of the previous examination of that witness. In those circumstances, it is not necessary to repeat in its entirety, thereby invalidating the procedural steps taken during that examination, the examination which took place in the absence of the accused person and his or her lawyer.

(1) OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Rigall Arteria Management sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Bank Handlowy w Warszawie S.A.

(Case C-64/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 7(1)(b) - Self-employed commercial agents - Transaction concluded with a third party whom the commercial agent has previously acquired as a customer - Remuneration - Whether the agent’s right to commission is mandatory or supplementary)

(2022/C 463/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rigall Arteria Management sp. z o.o. sp.k.

Defendant: Bank Handlowy w Warszawie S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1)(b) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents

must be interpreted as meaning that

it is possible to derogate contractually from the right which that provision confers on an independent commercial agent to receive a commission in respect of a transaction entered into, during the term of the agency contract, with a third party whom that agent previously acquired as a customer for transactions of the same kind.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
1.

Article 2(83) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that an entity organised under private law which carries out several activities, including research, but the majority of whose revenue comes from economic activities, such as the provision of teaching services for consideration, may be regarded as being a ‘research and knowledge-dissemination organisation’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that it can be established, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case, that its primary goal is to conduct, in complete independence, activities of fundamental research, industrial research or experimental development, possibly supplemented by activities for the dissemination of the results of those research activities, by means of teaching, publications or transfers of knowledge. In that context, such an entity cannot be required to earn a certain proportion of its revenue from its non-economic activities of research and dissemination of knowledge.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Nesebar — Bulgaria) — ‘S.V.’ OOD v E. Ts. D.

(Case C-485/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 2(b) - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Article 2(c) - Concept of ‘seller or supplier’ - Natural person who owns an apartment in a building in co-ownership - Different types of legal relationships relating to the management and maintenance of that building - Difference in treatment, as regards the status of consumer, arising from the law of a Member State between co-owners who have concluded an individual contract for the management and maintenance of the communal areas of such a building and those who have not concluded such a contract)

(2022/C 472/23)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad — Nesebar

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘S.V.’ OOD

Defendant: E. Ts. D.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and Article 2(b) and (c) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that:

— a natural person who owns an apartment in a building in co-ownership must be regarded as a ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that directive, where that person enters into a contract with a managing agent for the purpose of managing and maintaining the communal areas of that building, provided that he or she does not use that apartment for purposes which fall exclusively within his or her trade, business or profession. The fact that some of the services provided by that managing agent under that contract are the result of the need to comply with specific requirements relating to safety and town and country planning laid down by national law is not such as to remove that contract from the scope of that directive,

— where a contract relating to the management and maintenance of the communal areas of a building in co-ownership is entered into between the managing agent and the general meeting of the property owners or owners’ association of that building, a natural person who owns an apartment in that building may be regarded as a ‘consumer’, within the meaning of Directive 93/13, in so far as that person may be classified as a ‘party’ to that contract and does not use that apartment exclusively for purposes which fall within his or her trade, business or profession.

(1) OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Komisia za zashtita na lichnite danni, Tsentralna izbiratelna komisia v Koalitsia ‘Demokratichna Bulgaria — Obedinenie’

(Case C-306/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Scope - Article 2(2)(a) - Meaning of ‘activity which falls outside the scope of Union law’ - National and European Elections - Article 6(1)(e) - Lawfulness of processing - Article 58 - Act adopted by the supervisory authorities limiting, or where appropriate, prohibiting the video recording of the determination of the election results at electoral premises)

(2022/C 472/17)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Komisia za zashtita na lichnite danni, Tsentralna izbiratelna komisia

Defendant: Koalitsia ‘Demokratichna Bulgaria — Obedinenie’

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(2)(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 the processing of personal data in the context of the organisation of elections in a Member State is not excluded from the scope of that regulation.

2. Article 6(1)(e) and Article 58 of Regulation 2016/679, must be interpreted as meaning that those provisions do not preclude the competent authorities of a Member State from adopting an administrative act of general application which provides for the limitation or, where appropriate, the prohibition of the video recording of the determination of the electoral results in polling stations during elections in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 November 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-166/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Directive 92/83/EEC - Exemption from the harmonised excise duty - Ethyl alcohol used for the production of medicines - Article 27(1)(d) - Exemption conditional on placing the alcohol under a duty suspension arrangement - No facility to obtain a refund of the excise duty paid - Principle of proportionality)

(2023/C 24/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Perrin and M. Siekierzyńska, and subsequently by C. Perrin and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and A. Kramarczyk-Szaładzińska, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: O. Serdula, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland;

3. Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Burgas — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against DELTA STROY 2003

(Case C-203/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA - Applicability - Imposition of a financial penalty on a legal person for non-payment of tax debts - Concept of ‘confiscation’ - Articles 48, 49 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Penalties of a criminal nature - Principles of the presumption of innocence and the legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties - Rights of the defence - Imposition of a criminal penalty on a legal person for an offence committed by the representative of that legal person - Parallel criminal proceedings against that representative that have not been concluded - Proportionality)

(2023/C 7/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Okrazhen sad — Burgas

Party in the main proceedings

DELTA STROY 2003

Intervening party: Okrazhna prokuratura — Burgas

Operative part of the judgment

Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a national court may impose on a legal person a criminal penalty for an offence for which a natural person who has the power to bind or represent that legal person is allegedly liable, where that legal person has not been put in a position to dispute the reality of that offence.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — GV v Caisse nationale d’assurance pension

(Case C-731/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of persons - Article 45 TFEU - Workers - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(1) and (2) - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Survivor’s pension - Members of a civil partnership - National legislation making the grant of a survivor’s pension conditional upon the entry in the national register of a partnership that was validly concluded and registered in another Member State)

(2023/C 35/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GV

Defendant: Caisse nationale d’assurance pension

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/589 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2016,

must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a host Member State which provides that the grant, to the surviving partner of a partnership that was validly entered into and registered in another Member State, of a survivor’s pension due on account of the exercise, in the first Member State, of a professional activity by the deceased partner, is subject to the condition that the partnership was first recorded in the register kept by that State.

(1) OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 4 de Castelló de la Plana — Spain) — Casilda v Banco Cetelem SA

(Case C-302/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dispute in the main proceedings which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2023/C 24/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 4 de Castelló de la Plana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Casilda

Defendant: Banco Cetelem SA

Operative part of the judgment

It is not necessary to give a ruling on the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 4 de Castelló de la Plana (Court of First Instance, No 4, Castelló de la Plana, Spain) by decision of 7 May 2021.

(1) OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/31

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 20 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Metro International GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-245/05) (1)

(2008/C 64/45)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/29

Order of the Court of 6 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann

(Case C-415/06) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Answer clearly able to be deduced from case-law - Free movement of capital - Taxation on income - Company having permanent establishments in a non-Member State - Account taken of losses incurred by those establishments)

(2008/C 51/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)

Parties

Applicant: Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC, 57(1) EC and 58 EC — Deduction from the taxable profits of a German company of losses resulting from the activity of a permanent establishment in a non-member country — Deduction refused on the basis of a bilateral double taxation convention concluded with that non-member country

Operative part of the order

A national system of taxation under which a company having its head office in a Member State, when determining its results, cannot deduct losses incurred by an establishment in a non-Member State fundamentally affects the exercise of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 43 EC to 48 EC. Those provisions cannot be relied upon in a situation involving such an establishment in a non-Member State.

(1) OJ C 326, 31.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/18

Order of the President of the Court of 26 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-187/06) (1)

(2009/C 6/31)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Grand Chamber of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/30

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 7 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-424/06) (1)

(2008/C 171/49)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/39

Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Zala Megyei Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — OTP Bank rt and Merlin Gerin Zala kft v Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

(Case C-195/07) (1)

(2008/C 51/68)

Language of the case: Hungarian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/40

Order of the President of the Court of 4 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern — Germany) — Kathrin Haase, Adolf Oberdorfer, Doreen Kielon, Peter Schulze, Peter Kliem, Dietmar Bössow, Helge Riedel, André Richter, Andreas Schneider v Superfast Ferries SA, Superfast OKTO Maritime Company, Baltic SF VIII LTD

(Case C-413/07) (1)

(2008/C 51/74)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/25

Order of the President of the Court of 28 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-399/07) (1)

(2008/C 92/51)

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/11

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud'hommes de Beauvais (France)) — Olivier Polier v Najar EURL

(Case C-361/07) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Convention No 158 of the International Labour Organisation - European Social Charter - Dismissal of an employee without valid reason - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2008/C 79/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil de prud'hommes de Beauvais (France)

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Polier

Defendant: Najar EURL

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil de Prud'Hommes de Beauvais — Interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 30 and 33), the European Social Charter (Articles 24 and 27) and Convention No 158 of the International Labour Organisation on termination of employment — Dismissal of an employee without valid reason — Whether national legislation is valid in the light of the abovementioned provisions

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions posed by the Conseil de prud'hommes de Beauvais by decision of 9 July 2007.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/21

Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-44/07) (1)

(2008/C 142/36)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/27

Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2008 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-167/07) (1)

(2008/C 128/53)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.
4.

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the Framework Agreement is to be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as domestic law of the Member State concerned does not include, in the sector under consideration, any other effective measure to prevent and, where relevant, punish the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts, the Framework Agreement precludes the application of national legislation which, in the public sector alone, prohibits absolutely the conversion into an employment contract of indefinite duration of a succession of fixed-term contracts that have been intended to cover ‘fixed and permanent needs’ of the employer and must therefore be regarded as constituting an abuse. It is however for the referring court, in accordance with its obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law, to determine whether its domestic law does not include any such other effective measure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/15

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Prud'homie de pêche (France)) — Jonathan Pilato v Jean-Claude Bourgault

(Case C-109/07) (1)

(Meaning of court or tribunal of a Member State - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

(2008/C 209/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Prud'homie de pêche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jonathan Pilato

Defendant: Jean-Claude Bourgault

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prud'homie de pêche de Martigues — Interpretation of Article 11a of Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ 1997 L 132, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 (OJ 1998 L 171, p. 1) — Definition of ‘drift-net’ — Whether that definition includes the ‘thonaille’ — Environmental objective of the prohibitive measure laid down in Article 11a — Validity of this provision in the light, in particular, of the legal basis used for its adoption

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly does not have jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Prud'homie de pêche de Martigues by decision of 17 December 2006.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.