ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
15

Both that interim order and the judgments delivered by the referring court on 29 March and 3 April 2017 were reversed by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) by, respectively, an order of 20 November 2017 and two decisions of 4 December 2017 and 5 February 2018. According to the explanations provided by the referring court, those decisions make it clear that conduct constituting an infringement in competition matters cannot be classified as ‘grave professional misconduct’ for the purposes of the application of Article 38(1)(f) of the Code on public contracts and that ‘only failures and negligence committed in the performance of a public contract’ can be classified as such. ‘Matters, even unlawful ones, which occurred during the preceding award procedure should therefore be ruled out.’ That interpretation is based on the legal certainty of economic operators. According to the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), that interpretation is compatible with the judgment of 18 December 2014, Generali-Providencia Biztosító (C‑470/13, EU:C:2014:2469), from which it can be inferred only that national legislation which expressly classifies an infringement of competition law as ‘grave professional misconduct’ does not breach EU law, and not that EU law requires such infringements to be included in the concept of ‘grave professional misconduct’. It follows that, under Italian law, the commission of such infringements is irrelevant in public procurement procedures governed by the Code on public contracts.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 – Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO

(Case C‑118/18 P-REV III)

(Application for revision – Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Application relating to an order made pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure – Conditions – No unknown earlier facts – Inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings – Revision of a judgment – Conditions for the admissibility thereof – New fact – Definition – Earlier fact unknown before the order was served – None – Inadmissibility

(Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 44; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 159(1) and (5))

(see paras 38, 39, 42-47)

Operative part

1. The application for revision brought by Hochmann Marketing GmbH is dismissed.
Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 4)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Statement of the reasons for requiring an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, art. 94)

(see paras 11-15)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 12-17, 22, operative part)
Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Plea alleging distortion of the facts — Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

(Art. 256 TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

(see paras 24, 25, 50)
Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 5)
Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see paras 27, 28)
Appeal — Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Burden of proof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see paras 9, 13)
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2020 — Banca E

(Case C‑381/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EC — Introduction of a new legal procedure during the proceedings — Principles of legal certainty and effectiveness)

Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Means to prevent the use of unfair terms — National legislation introducing a legal procedure and an additional level of jurisdiction during the proceedings — Whether admissible having regard to the principles of legal certainty and effectiveness — Condition — Legal procedure open both to consumers and professionals

(Council Directive 93/13, Art. 7(1))

(see paras 28-35, operative part)

Operative part

The principles of legal certainty and effectiveness must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a procedural rule which modifies the system of procedures provided for by the national legal order, by introducing a legal procedure and an additional level of jurisdiction, and which applies to proceedings already in progress at the time of that modification, those proceedings involving a consumer against a professional, provided that new legal procedure is open to both the consumer and the professional.

( 1 ) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
2.

Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Prima facie examination of the grounds put forward in support of the main appeal proceedings — Appeal lodged by the Commission — Annulment of the Commission implementing decision authorising certain uses of substances that are carcinogenic and toxic for reproduction, included in Annex XIV of Regulation No 1907/2006 — Rejection of the request for the effects of the contested decision to be maintained in the event of its annulment — Ground raising the precise scope of Article 56(1)(d) of the regulation — Ground revealing the existence of complex legal questions — Ground prima facie not lacking in foundation (Art. 278 and 279 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 56(1)(d)) (see paras 49-61)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2020 — Telecom Italia

(Case C‑338/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Article 108 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Recovery of aid by the Member State of its own motion — Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 — Applicable interest rate)

1. State aid — Planned aid — Notifying the Commission — Decision of the Commission not to raise an objection — Implementation of aid in accordance with the planned aid notified — Recovery of aid by the Member State of its own initiative and according to the stipulations of the planned aid notified — Applicability of the rules laid down by Regulation No 659/1999 in cases of misuse of aid —None (Art. 108(3) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 16) (see paras 20-27)

2. State aid — Planned aid — Notifying the Commission — Decision of the Commission not to raise an objection — Implementation of aid in accordance with the planned aid notified — Recovery of aid by the Member State of its own initiative and according to the stipulations of the planned aid notified — Determination of the interest rate under national law — Conditions — Compliance with the principle of effectiveness — Consequences (Art. 108(3) TFEU; Commission Regulation No 794/2004, Art. 9) (see paras 28-31, operative part)

Operative part

The interest rate set out in Article 9(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU], as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008, is not intended to apply when a national authority recovers State aid of its own motion.

( 1 ) OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Appeal — Grounds — Pleas which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see paras 9, 10)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 May 2020 – Paix et justice pour les juifs séfarades en Israël v Commission and Council of Europe

(Case C‑798/19 P)

(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Institutional law – Actions for damages – Complaints with the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights – Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169)

(see paras 10-14)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.
1.

Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’, for the purposes of that provision, covers French prosecutors, managed and supervised by their hierarchical superiors and under the authority of the Minister of Justice in accordance with the statutory rules and institutional framework to which they are subject, since their statute grants them a guarantee of independence, in particular vis-à-vis the executive, in the context of the issue of a European arrest warrant.
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of EU law – Operative part well founded for other legal reasons – Rejection

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 27, 30-38)
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded – Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)

(see para. 2)
Judicial proceedings – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties – Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer – Included – Elements to be taken into consideration for the purposes of taxation of costs

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b))

(see paragraphs 14-17, 20, 23-25)
15

The applicant in the main proceedings brought an appeal against that decision before the referring court. That court takes the view that the judgment of 4 September 2014, Germanwings (C‑452/13, EU:C:2014:2141), must be applied. Therefore, in order to calculate the extent of the delay, it is necessary to establish at what point the doors of the aircraft would have been opened had the flight not been delayed, which can then be compared with the point at which the doors were actually opened. In that regard, although flight schedules do not indicate the expected time of door opening, experience shows that the period between the time at which the aircraft reaches its parking position and the opening of the doors is usually the same for every flight. It follows that the period between the actual arrival time and the actual door opening, on the one hand, and the period between the scheduled time of arrival and the expected door opening, on the other, is the same, meaning that none of those periods should be taken into account in the calculation of the delay.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2020 — Clarke v European Commission

(Case C‑284/19 P-OST)

(Article 155 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — No failure to adjudicate)

Judicial proceedings — Omission to give a decision — Definition — Obligation to rule on all the pleas in law submitted by the parties — No failure to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 155)

(see paras 15-19)

Operative part

1. The application under Article 155(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, lodged on 10 October 2019 by Mr Andrew Clarke, is dismissed.
2

That judgment contains, in the introductory part, errors which it is appropriate for the Court to rectify at the request of the Polish Government and of its own motion, pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 28 May 2020 – Currency One v EUIPO

(Case C‑101/20 P)

(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Appeal not allowed to proceed)

1. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 12)

2. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Request for an appeal to be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 13-16)

3. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request for the appeal to be allowed to proceed not demonstrating that the issue is significant – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 17, 19-24)

4. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Contrary to the Court’s case-law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b(1)) (see para. 18)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
European Parliament – Verification of members’ credentials – Limits – Exercise taking note of the disqualification of a Member of Parliament from holding office as a result of the application of national law – Parliament’s lack of competence to rule on the lawfulness of the national electoral procedures having regard to EU law

(Arts 5(1) and 13(2) TEU; Arts 258 and 267 TFEU; act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, Art. 13(3); Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Art. 4(4), second para.)

(see paras 57-66)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 – Wallonische Region (Registration of a loaned vehicle)

(Joined Cases C‑41/20 to C‑43/20)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 63 TFEU – Free movement of capital – Road traffic – Registration and taxation of motor vehicles – Driver resident in one Member State – Vehicle registered in another Member State – Vehicle provided free of charge for a short period of time – Requirement to carry in the vehicle at all times evidence of the lawful use of that vehicle – Proportionality)

1. Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope – Cross-border lending of a motor vehicle free of charge – Included (Art. 63 TFEU) (see para. 34)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Identification of the relevant aspects of EU law – Reformulation of the questions – Providing the national court with full guidance on the interpretation of EU law (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 39, 40)

3. Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments – Restrictions – Road traffic – Use of a vehicle with foreign registration plates – Vehicle provided free of charge for a short period of time by its owner – National legislation laying down a requirement to provide on the spot evidence of lawful use, failing which a fine will be imposed – No possibility of providing documents subsequently – Not permissible – No justification (Art. 63 TFEU) (see paras 44-50, 52-57, operative part)

Operative part

Article 63(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a person residing in that Member State may rely on a derogation from the requirement to register vehicles laid down in that Member State, as regards a vehicle that is registered in another Member State and provided to him or her free of charge for a short period of time by the owner of that vehicle residing in that other Member State, only if the documents proving that that person fulfils the conditions for that derogation are carried in that vehicle at all times, with no possibility of providing such documents subsequently.
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b)

(see paras 18, 22, 23, 26)
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of 8 December 2020 – Price v Council

(Case C‑298/20 P(R))

(Appeal – Order for interim relief – Area of freedom, security and justice – Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community – Decision (EU) 2020/135 – Loss of EU citizenship – Loss of the right to vote – Municipal elections in the Member State of residence – Application for suspension of operation – No right to submit a reply – Examination of admissibility of the main action – Manifest inadmissibility of the main action)

1. Application for interim relief – Procedure – Whether desirable to hear the parties – Whether appropriate to admit additional observations and documents after the end of the written or oral procedure – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Art. 278 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 39, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 157(1) and (2)) (see paras 24-27)

2. Application for interim relief – Admissibility criteria – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought – Possibility to supplement the information and evidence submitted in the application – Discretion of the Courts of the Union (see paras 29-32, 34)

3. Application for interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Admissibility criteria – Prima facie admissibility of the main action – Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures (see paras 51, 52, 53)

4. Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 68, 69)

5. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Person individually affected by a measure of a general nature – Conditions – Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom and decision of the Council relating thereto – Action brought by an British national who is an expatriate in another Member State and who has lost his or her right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections in that State – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 75-80)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1), second subparagraph, TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para., Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see para. 4)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 January 2021 – Sabo and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case C‑297/20 P)

(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Environment – Directive (EU) 2018/2001 – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility – Persons not individually concerned – Aarhus Convention)

1. Appeal – Grounds – Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded – Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see para. 20)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Individual concern – Criteria – Directive providing a common framework for the promotion of the production of renewable energy and setting a target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions – Action brought by individuals relying on a violation of fundamental rights – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2018/2001) (see paras 26-29)

3. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned – Not permissible (Art. 48 TEU; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 32-34)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.
Appeal – Grounds of appeal – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Excluded except in case of distortion – Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the evidence – Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

(Art. 256(1), para. 2, TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1)

(see para. 35)