ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — A. B., B. B. v Personal Exchange International Limited

(Case C-774/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 15(1) - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Poker playing contract concluded online between a natural person and an organiser of games of chance - Natural person earning a living from online poker games - Knowledge of that person - Regularity of that activity)

(2021/C 53/17)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A. B., B. B.

Defendant: Personal Exchange International Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person domiciled in a Member State who, first, has concluded with a company established in another Member State a contract to play poker on the internet, containing general terms and conditions specified by that company, and, second, has neither officially declared such activity nor offered it to third parties as a paid service does not lose the status of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision, even if that person plays that game for a large number of hours per day, possesses extensive knowledge and receives substantial winnings from the game.

(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
2.

Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83, read together with Article 7(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that any social and financial support provided by private actors, such as the family or the clan of a third country national concerned, falls short of what is required under those provisions to constitute protection and is, therefore, of no relevance either to the assessment of the effectiveness or availability of the protection provided by the State within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of that directive, or to the determination, under Article 11(1)(e) of that directive, read together with Article 2(c) thereof, of whether there continues to be a well-founded fear of persecution.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Lexel AB v Skatteverket

(Case C-484/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Taxation of associated companies - National tax legislation prohibiting a company which is established in one Member State from deducting interest paid to a company established in another Member State, belonging to the same group of companies, in the case where a substantial tax benefit is gained)

(2021/C 79/13)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lexel AB

Defendant: Skatteverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that a company established in one Member State is not permitted to deduct interest payments made to a company belonging to the same group, established in another Member State, on the ground that the principal reason for the debt linking them appears to be the obtaining of a substantial tax benefit, whereas such a tax benefit would not have been deemed to exist if both companies had been established in the first Member State, as in that situation they would have been covered by the provisions on intra-group financial transfers.

(1) OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2021 — RFA International LP v European Commission

(Case C-56/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 11(9) and (10) - Rejection of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid - Constructed export price - Assessment as to whether the anti-dumping duties have been reflected in the resale prices and subsequent selling prices in the European Union - Obligation to apply the same methodology as in the investigation which led to the imposition of the anti-dumping duty - Change in circumstances - Deduction of anti-dumping duties paid - Conclusive evidence)

(2021/C 128/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: RFA International LP (represented by: B. Evtimov, advokat, M. Krestiyanova and E. Borovikov, avocats, N. Tuominen, avocată, and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, A. Demeneix and P. Němečková, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders RFA International LP to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR

(Case C-649/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/13/EU - Articles 4 to 7 - Letters of Rights set out in Annexes I and II - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Letter of Rights on arrest - Right to be informed of the accusation - Right of access to the materials of the case - Person arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant in the executing Member State)

(2021/C 88/11)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main criminal proceedings

IR

Interested party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4 (in particular Article 4(3)), Article 6(2) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the rights referred to therein do not apply to persons who are arrested for the purposes of the execution of a European arrest warrant.

2. The examination of the third and fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing that is capable of affecting the validity of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, in the light of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
2.

Article 12(1)(a) to (c) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that, first, it precludes a national practice whereby, should the purpose of a human activity, such as forestry work or land development, be manifestly different from the killing or disturbance of animal species, the prohibitions laid down in that provision apply only in the event of a risk of adverse effects on the conservation status of the species concerned and, secondly, the protection afforded by that provision does not cease to apply to species which have achieved a favourable conservation status;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — M, A, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, T

(Case C-673/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum and immigration - Directive 2008/115/EC - Articles 3, 4, 6 and 15 - Refugee staying illegally in the territory of a Member State - Detention for the purpose of transfer to another Member State - Refugee status in that other Member State - Principle of non-refoulement - No return decision - Applicability of Directive 2008/115)

(2021/C 138/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M, A, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, T

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3, 4, 6 and 15 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from placing in administrative detention a third-country national residing illegally on its territory, in order to carry out the forced transfer of that national to another Member State in which that national has refugee status, where that national has refused to comply with the order to go to that other Member State and it is not possible to issue a return decision to him or her.

(1) OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach — Poland) — A. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

(Case C-895/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Indirect taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Intra-Community acquisition of goods - Deduction of input tax payable on such an acquisition - Procedural requirements - Substantive requirements - Period within which the tax declaration must be submitted - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)

(2021/C 182/22)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Other party: Rzecznik Małych i Średnich Przedsiębiorców

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167 and 178 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the exercise of the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) payable on an intra-Community acquisition in the same accounting period as that in which the VAT is due subject to entry of the VAT due in the tax declaration submitted within a three-month period following the end of the month in which the tax liability arose in relation to the goods acquired.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
1.

National legislation which provides for the concurrent application, in the course of one and the same collective redundancy procedure, of two different systems for the protection of permanent workers in the event of a collective redundancy carried out in breach of the criteria for determining which workers will be dismissed under that procedure does not come within the scope of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies and cannot, therefore, be examined in the light of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in particular, Articles 20 and 30 thereof.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — FV v Council of the European Union

(Case C-875/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Application for annulment - Civil service - Staff report - Assessment criteria - Consistency of output - Delays - Submission of a medical certificate - Duty of care)

(2021/C 217/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: FV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders FV to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
1.

Declares that, by applying to cigarettes an overall excise duty of less than 60 % of the weighted average retail selling price of cigarettes released for consumption and levying an excise duty of less than EUR 115 per 1 000 cigarettes, after the expiry of the transitional period granted until 31 December 2017, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(2) and (3) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Granarolo SpA v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto

(Case C-617/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - Article 3(e) - Concept of ‘installation’ - Article 3(f) - Concept of ‘operator’ - Points 2 and 3 of Annex I - Aggregation rule - Aggregation of the capacities of the activities in an installation - Transfer of an electricity and heat cogeneration unit by the owner of an industrial facility - Contract for the supply of energy between the transferor and transferee undertakings - Updating of the greenhouse gas emissions permit)

(2021/C 263/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Granarolo SpA

Defendants: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto

Intervener: E.ON Business Solutions Srl, formerly E.ON Connecting Energies Italia Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(e) and (f) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, read in conjunction with points 2 and 3 of Annex I to Directive 2003/87, must be interpreted as not precluding an owner of a production facility which has a thermal power facility the activity of which comes under Annex I from being able to obtain the updating of its greenhouse gas emissions permit within the meaning of Article 7 of that directive where it has transferred a cogeneration unit situated on the same industrial site as that production facility, implementing an activity the capacity of which is below the threshold provided for in Annex I, to an undertaking specialising in the energy sector, whilst at the same time concluding with that undertaking a contract providing, inter alia, that the energy produced by that cogeneration unit will be provided to that production facility in the event that the thermal power facility and the cogeneration unit do not constitute a single installation within the meaning of Article 3(e) of that directive and where, in any event, the owner of the production facility is no longer the operator of the cogeneration unit within the meaning of Article 3(f) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Außenstelle Graz) — Austria) — SK Telecom Co. Ltd v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

(Case C-593/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Determination of the place of supply of telecommunications services - Roaming of third-country nationals on mobile communications networks within the European Union - Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 59a - Option for Member States to transfer the place of supply of telecommunications services to their territory)

(2021/C 217/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht (Außenstelle Graz)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SK Telecom Co. Ltd

Defendant: Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

Operative part of the judgment

Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 59a of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended, from 1 January 2010, by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that roaming services supplied by a mobile phone operator established in a third country to its customers who are also established, have their permanent address or usually reside in that third country, allowing them to use the national mobile communications network of the Member State in which they are temporarily staying, must be considered to be ‘effectively used and enjoyed’ within the territory of that Member State, for the purposes of that provision, so that that Member State may consider the place of supply of those roaming services to be situated within its territory where, regardless of the tax treatment to which those services are subject under the domestic tax law of that third country, the exercise of such an option has the effect of preventing the non-taxation of those services within the European Union.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
1.

Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a ban on entry and stay, imposed by a Member State, which has not made use of the option provided for in Article 2(2)(b) of that directive, against a third-country national who is on its territory and is the subject of an expulsion order on grounds of public security and public policy, on the basis of a previous criminal conviction.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Poland) — CNP spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością v Gefion Insurance A/S

(Case C-913/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - Article 10 - Article 11(1)(a) - Ability to sue an insurer domiciled in a Member State in another Member State, in the case of actions brought by the policyholder, the insured person or a beneficiary, in the courts of the place where the person bringing the claim is domiciled - Article 13(2) - Action brought by the injured party directly against the insurer - Scope ratione personae - Concept of ‘injured party’ - Business active in the insurance sector - Special jurisdiction - Article 7(2) and (5) - Concept of ‘branch’, ‘agency’ or ‘other establishment’)

(2021/C 278/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CNP spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością

Defendant: Gefion Insurance A/S

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof, must be interpreted as not applying in the case of a dispute between, on the one hand, a business which has acquired a claim originally held by an injured party against a civil liability insurance undertaking and, on the other hand, that same civil liability insurance undertaking, so that it does not preclude jurisdiction to hear and determine such a dispute from being founded on Article 7(2) or Article 7(5) of that regulation, as appropriate;

2. Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking which adjusts losses in the context of motor liability insurance in one Member State pursuant to a contract concluded with an insurance undertaking established in another Member State, in the name and on behalf of that undertaking, must be regarded as being a branch, agency or other establishment, within the meaning of that provision, where that undertaking: — has the appearance of permanency, such as an extension of the insurance undertaking; and — has a management and is materially equipped to negotiate business with third parties, so that they do not have to deal directly with the insurance undertaking.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
1.

Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70 of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court to assess, in accordance with all the applicable rules of national law, whether the limitation to three consecutive years, except under specific conditions, of the employment of fixed-term workers under contracts known as ‘fijos de obra’ by the same undertaking at different workplaces located within the same province and the grant to those workers of compensation for termination, assuming that that national court finds that those measures are actually taken in respect of those workers, constitute adequate measures to prevent and, where appropriate, to penalise abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships or ‘equivalent legal measures’ within the meaning of that Clause 5(1). In any event, such national legislation cannot be applied by the authorities of the Member State concerned in such a way that the renewal of successive fixed-term ‘fijos de obra’ employment contracts is considered justified by ‘objective reasons’, within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of that framework agreement, on the sole ground that each of those contracts is generally concluded for a specific construction project, irrespective of its duration, in so far as such national legislation does not prevent, in practice, the employer concerned from covering, by means of such renewal, fixed and permanent staffing needs;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2021 — European Commission v Fernando De Esteban Alonso

(Case C-591/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Internal investigation by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) - Forwarding of information by OLAF to the national judicial authorities - Filing of a complaint by the European Commission - Concepts of an official who is ‘referred to by name’ and ‘implicated’ - Failure to inform the interested party - Commission’s right to file a complaint with the national judicial authorities before the conclusion of OLAF’s investigation - Action for damages)

(2021/C 297/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Fernando De Esteban Alonso (represented by: C. Huglo, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 June 2019, De Esteban Alonso v Commission (T-138/18, EU:T:2019:398);

2. Dismisses the action in Case T-138/18;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.