ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Must Articles 34 to 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a branded medicine (reference medicine) and a generic medicine have been put on the market in the EEA by economically linked undertakings, a trade mark proprietor’s opposition to the further commercialisation of the generic medicine by a parallel importer after the repackaging of that generic medicine by the affixing to it of the trade mark of the branded medicine (reference medicine) in the country of importation may lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets of the Member States?
5.

Are the answers to the questions the same in the light of Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in relation to rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of that income and of his other personal tax advantages (such as a tax reduction for long-term savings, that is to say premiums paid under an individual life insurance contract, and a tax reduction for costs incurred in energy savings) because, during the year in question, he also received rental income in respect of a property owned by him in another Member State which was taxed in that State?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 19 February 2020 by Currency One S.A. against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 19 December 2019 in Case T-501/18, Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkciarz.pl

(Case C-101/20 P)

(2020/C 304/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Currency One S.A. (represented by: P. Szmidt, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o.

By order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) delivered on 28 May 2020, the appeal was not allowed to proceed.
—

declare that, in failing to carry out the interconnection of its national electronic register to the new version of the European Register of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/480 of 1 April 2016 establishing common rules concerning the interconnection of national electronic registers on road transport undertakings and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1213/2010; (1)
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 14 July 2020 by Wonder Line, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-284/19, Wonder Line v EUIPO — De Longhi Benelux (KENWELL)

(Case C-322/20 P)

(2020/C 348/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Wonder Line, SL (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 26 August 2020 of the Vice-President, the Court of Justice held that the appeal is dismissed as inadmissible and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
2.

If a company that carries out supplies of goods in the territory of a Member State other than that in which it has established its business is to be regarded as having, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 11 of Council Regulation No 282/2011, (2) a fixed establishment in the State in which it carries out those supplies, is it necessary for the presumed fixed establishment to be directly involved in decisions relating to the supply of the goods, or is it sufficient for that company to have, in the State in which it carries out the supply of goods, technical and human resources that are made available to it through contracts concluded with third party companies for marketing, regulatory, advertising, storage and representation activities which are capable of having a direct influence on the volume of sales?
1.

Is a provision of national law such as Article 39(2) of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta de las Personas Físicas (Income Tax Law) 35/2006 of 28 November 2006, as amended by Article 3(2) of Law 7/2012 of 29 October 2012, which ‘in all cases’ classes [goods, assets or rights] as ‘unjustified capital gains’, on which tax must be paid in the earliest period which has not yet become time-barred, in the event of failure to comply with the formal aspects of the requirement to provide information via ‘Form 720’ on goods located abroad or rights and assets deposited abroad, or where the information is submitted late, without having regard to the rules on limitation established in the Ley General Tributaria (General Tax Law) 58/2003, other than in the cases of ‘declared income’ or income arising in periods during which the individual was not a tax resident in Spain, contrary to EU law, specifically Articles 63 and 65 TFEU and the fundamental principles of free movement, equal treatment and non-discrimination?
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the right to freedom of movement of EU citizens laid down in Article 21(1) TFEU and Article 45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) to be interpreted, especially in the light of the principle of the absence of checks on persons at internal borders established in Article 22 of Regulation 2016/399, as meaning that it includes the right not to be subject to checks on persons at internal borders, subject to the conditions and exceptions listed in the Treaties and, in particular, in the above regulation?
1.

Must Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, (1) governing equal treatment, which precludes any discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex, either directly or indirectly, as regards the obligation to pay social security contributions, and Article 5(b) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, (2) which lays down the same prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sex as regards the scope of social security schemes and the conditions of access to those schemes and the obligation to contribute, and the calculation of contributions, be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Article 251(d) LGSS, which provides: ‘d) The protection afforded by the Special Scheme for Domestic Workers shall not include protection in respect of unemployment.’?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 24 April 2020 by STADA Arzneimittel AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 February 2020 in Case T-487/18 — STADA Arzneimittel v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-174/20 P)

(2020/C 399/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: STADA Arzneimittel AG (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 3 September 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 6 August 2020 — A.M. v Dyrektor Z. Oddziału Regionalnego Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa

(Case C-373/20)

(2020/C 423/26)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.M.

Defendant: Dyrektor Z. Oddziału Regionalnego Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa

Question referred

Is the national authorities’ interpretation of the definition of ‘permanent pasture’ — set out in Article 2(c) of Commission Regulation (ΕC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (1)– as meaning that the natural periodic flooding of meadows and pastures situated in a special environmental protection zone (Natura 2000 Area; Ińsko Landscape Park) makes those areas of land subject to ‘crop rotation’, resulting in an interruption of the period of five years (or more) of not being subject to that ‘crop rotation’, with the result that it also constitutes a ground for withdrawing or reducing agri-environmental payments to the farmer, as well as further financial consequences connected with the interruption of the continuity of the five-year period for the implementation of an agri-environmental programme, correct?

(1) OJ 2009 L 316, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos (Portugal) lodged on 10 September 2020 — GD, ES v Luso Temp — Empresa de Trabalho Temporário, S. A.

(Case C-426/20)

(2020/C 423/41)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: GD, ES

Defendant: Luso Temp — Empresa de Trabalho Temporário, S. A.

Question referred

Do Article 3(1)(f) and Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work preclude a provision of law such as that in Article 185(6) of the Código do Trabalho (Employment Code) (adopted by Law No 7/2009 of 12 February [2009]), under which temporary agency workers are, in all cases, entitled to paid holiday and the corresponding holiday bonus pay only pro rata to the period of service in the user undertaking, even where their employment relationship commences in one calendar year and ends two or more calendar years later, whereas a worker recruited directly by the user undertaking who occupies the same job for the same period of time will be subject to the general holiday provisions, meaning that he or she will be entitled to a longer period of paid holiday and more holiday bonus pay, since these are not pro rata to the period of service?

(1) OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9.
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does the phrase ‘per 100 g’ in the second subparagraph of Article 33(2) FIR only refer to 100 grams of the product as sold, or does it also — at least additionally — refer to 100 grams of the food after preparation?
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU also if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was not conducted in an EU Member State, but in Switzerland?
1.

(a) Must the term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 7, point 2, of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) 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 (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1; ‘Brussels Ia Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that ‘the place of the event giving rise to the damage’ (Handlungsort) is the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress for the claims of its creditors, if that lack of redress is the result of a breach by that company’s grandparent company of its duty of care towards those creditors? (b) Must the term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 7, point 2, of the Brussels Ia Regulation be interpreted as meaning that ‘the place where the damage occurred’ (Erfolgsort) is the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress for claims of its creditors, if that lack of redress is the result of a breach by that company’s grandparent company of its duty of care towards those creditors? (c) Are additional circumstances required which justify the jurisdiction of the courts of the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress and, if so, what are those circumstances? (d) Does the fact that the Netherlands liquidator of the company which offers no redress for the claims of its creditors has, by virtue of his statutory duty to wind up the estate, made a claim for damages arising from tort/delict for the benefit of (but not on behalf of) the general body of creditors affect the determination of the competent court on the basis of Article 7, point 2, of the Brussels Ia Regulation? Such a claim implies that there is no room for an examination of the individual positions of the individual creditors and that the third party concerned cannot avail itself of all the defences against the liquidator which it might have been able to use in respect of certain individual creditors. (e) Does the fact that a portion of the creditors for whose benefit the liquidator makes the claim have their domicile outside the territory of the European Union affect the determination of the competent court on the basis of Article 7, point 2, of the Brussels Ia Regulation?
2.

In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, must the passenger, even in that event, have presented himself for check-in and boarding at the time indicated and no later than 45 minutes before the published departure time of the originally booked flight — as required in principle by Article 3(2) and Article 2(j) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004) — in order for that regulation to be applicable and, more specifically, in order to give rise to a case of denied boarding triggering an obligation to pay compensation, even though this was in fact no longer possible because the passenger had taken the rebooked earlier replacement flight?
Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2020 in Case T-616/19, Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-446/20 P)

(2021/C 9/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: S. Stolzenburg-Wiemer, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium B.V.

By order of 12 November 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.
1.

Is it compatible with the data subject’s right to respect for private life (Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 202 of 7 June 2016, p. 389) and to protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter), if, within the context of the weighing-up of conflicting rights and interests arising from Articles 7, 8, 11 and 16 of the Charter, within the scope of the examination of his request for de-referencing brought against the data controller of an internet search engine, pursuant to Article 17(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) 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, GDPR, OJ L 119 of 4 May 2016, p. 1), when the link, the de-referencing of which the applicant is requesting, leads to content that includes factual claims and value judgements based on factual claims the truth of which is denied by the data subject, and the lawfulness of which depends on the question of the extent to which the factual claims contained in that content are true, the national court also concentrates conclusively on the issue of whether the data subject could reasonably seek legal protection against the content provider, for instance by means of interim relief, and thus at least provisional clarification on the question of the truth of the content displayed by the search engine data controller could be provided?
1.

Is the Single Control Authority in a Member State in notifying and certifying to the European Commission under Article 33(2)(a) and Article 34 of the Control Regulation (1) limited to notifying the data as to catch in a particular fishing ground logged by fishers under Articles 14 and 15 of the Regulation when the Single Control Authority for good reason believes the logged data to be grossly unreliable or is it entitled to employ reasonable, scientifically valid methods to treat and certify the logged data so as to achieve more accurate outtake figures for notification to the European Commission?
—

annul the following provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector: — Article 1(3), in so far as it provides for a subparagraph (b) of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009. In the alternative, should the Court find that this is not possible, the Republic of Bulgaria claims that Article 1(3) should be annulled in its entirety; and — Article 2(4)(a). In the alternative, should the Court find that this is not possible, the Republic of Bulgaria claims that Article 2(4) should be annulled;
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 8 September 2020 by Scorify UAB against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-328/19, Scorify v EUIPO — Scor (SCORIFY)

(Case C-418/20 P)

(2021/C 28/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Scorify UAB (represented by: V. Viešūnaitė, advokatė)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Scor SE

By order of 26 November 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 October 2020 — L Fund v Finanzamt D

(Case C-537/20)

(2021/C 19/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: L Fund

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt D

Other party to the proceedings: Bundesministerium der Finanzen (Germany)

Question referred

Does Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now: Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) conflict with a rule in a Member State, by virtue of which domestic specialised property funds with exclusively foreign investors are exempt from corporate income tax, while foreign specialised property funds with exclusively foreign investors are subject to limited liability for corporate income tax on their rental income obtained within the Member State?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2020 — JT, NQ v Ryanair DCA

(Case C-516/20)

(2021/C 28/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: JT, NQ

Defendant: Ryanair DCA

Question referred

Is a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
b.

The damage 1. As regards the claims in the first, second and third indents of paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal: breach of the principle of compensation in kind; breach of the duty to state reasons incumbent on the General Court; failure to comply with the conditions governing admissibility; infringement of Article 76(e) and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; 2. As regards the claims in the fourth indent of paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal: breach of the obligation to state reasons incumbent on the General Court; infringement of Articles 76(e) and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; 3. As regards non-material damage: breach of the principle of compensation in kind; breach of the duty to state reasons incumbent on the General Court; infringement of Article 76(e) and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; error in the exercise of the General Court’s unlimited jurisdiction.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-534/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-312/20 P)

(2021/C 35/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (represented by: P. Lange, A. Auler, M. Wenz and C. Möller, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg

By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2020 — PJ v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-527/20)

(2021/C 28/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PJ

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
3.

[Is there] unequal treatment as regards the rules on VAT between the various Member States of the European Union, given that unlike the situation in Italy where healthcare services are exempt from VAT, in other Member States of the European Union (Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, France and Spain) the same healthcare services are subject to VAT, with the result that different rates of VAT and, therefore, a different right to deduct are applied to the same healthcare services?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2020 — UE v ShareWood Switzerland AG and VF

(Case C-595/20)

(2021/C 35/46)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UE

Respondents: ShareWood Switzerland AG, VF

Question referred

Is Article 6(4)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a contract for the purchase of teak and balsa trees between an undertaking and a consumer, which is intended to confer ownership of the trees, which are then managed, harvested and sold for profit, and which includes for that purpose a lease agreement and a service agreement, is to be regarded as ‘a contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property or a tenancy of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision?

(1) OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.