ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 4 March 2021 — EV v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (FEDASIL)

(Case C-134/21)

(2021/C 217/31)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EV

Defendant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (FEDASIL)

By order of 26 March 2021, the Court (Fifth Chamber) ruled:

Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, is to be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from adopting, in relation to an applicant who has brought an appeal against a decision to transfer him to another Member State as referred to in Article 26(1) of that regulation, measures preparatory to such a transfer, such as the allocation of a place in a specific reception facility where those accommodated receive support in preparing for their transfer.
Action brought on 22 April 2021 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-259/21)

(2021/C 217/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen, I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Articles 15 to 17, 20 and 59(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2021/92 of 28 January 2021 fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters; (1)

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Parliament, the legislative acts governing the matter, namely Articles 10(4) and 15 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 (2) and Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2019/472 (3) provide that measures such as those referred to in the present action are to be adopted by delegated acts referred to in Article 290 TFEU.

In support of its action, the Parliament therefore raises four pleas in law. The first alleges that there was a breach and misuse of procedure in that the contested measures should have been introduced by means of the delegated acts referred to in Article 290 TFEU and not by the procedure laid down in Article 43(3) TFEU. The second alleges a breach of sincere cooperation in contravention of Article 13(2) TEU. By adopting the contested provisions by a procedure other than that provided for for that purpose in acts which it co-drafted, the Council denied the Parliament the right of examination to which it would have been entitled had the proper procedure been used.

(1) OJ 2021, L 31, p. 31.

(2) Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973, (EU) 2019/472 and (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 (OJ 2019 L 198, p. 105).

(3) Regulation (EU) 2019/472 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a multiannual plan for stocks fished in the Western Waters and adjacent waters, and for fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Regulations (EU) 2016/1139 and (EU) 2018/973, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007 and (EC) No 1300/2008 (OJ 2019, L 83, p. 1).
1.

Does the psychological impairment of a passenger, which is caused by an accident and has clinical significance, constitute a ‘bodily injury’ within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air concluded on 28 May 1999 in Montreal, signed on 9 December 1999 by the European Community and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC (1) of 5 April 2001?
—

Order the defendant to pay compensation for material damage (i) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2018, that is, an increase of 1,4 % for the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018; (ii) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the consequences of applying the annual adjustment of 0,7 % for 2018 on the amount of the salaries which will be paid from January 2018; (iii) for default interest on outstanding salaries due until full payment of the amounts due, the rate of default interest to be applied having to be calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus three percentage points;
3.

If the response to the first question is in the affirmative, do the requirements of the establishment of a single national regulatory body for the railway sector, pursuant to Article 55(1) of Directive 2012/34; of the functions of a regulatory body pursuant to Article 56(2), (11), and (12) thereof; and of cooperation of regulatory bodies pursuant to Article 57(2) thereof, admit the possibility that the decisions of a regulatory body on the merits of the case can be substituted by judgments of individual courts of general jurisdiction, which are not bound by the regulatory body’s findings of fact?
2.

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation under which a court, having found that a contractual term is unfair, without which the contract could not continue in existence, may modify the remainder of the contract by interpreting the parties’ declarations of intent, in order to prevent the contract, which is beneficial to the consumer, from being invalid?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 March 2021 — Criminal proceedings against V. S.

(Case C-205/21)

(2021/C 252/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Applicant:

Ministerstvoto na vatreshnite raboti, Glavna direktsia za borba s organiziranata prestapnost

Accused:

V. S.

Questions referred

1. Is Article 10 of Directive 2016/680 (1) effectively transposed into national law — Article 25(3) and Article 25a of Zakon za ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Bulgarian Law on the Ministry of Interior) — by the inclusion of a reference to the similar provision in Article 9 of Regulation 2016/679? (2)

2. Is the requirement set in Article 10(a) of Directive 2016/680 in conjunction with Article 52 and with Articles 3 and 8 of the Charter, that any limitation on integrity and protection of personal data must be provided for by law, fulfilled if contradictory national provisions exist in relation to the permissibility of processing of genetic and biometric data for the purposes of creating a police record?

3. Is a national law, namely Article 68(4) of the Bulgarian Law on the Ministry of Interior, which provides for the obligation of the court of first instance to order the forced collection of personal data (taking photographs for the file, taking fingerprints, and taking samples in order to create a DNA profile), compatible with Article 6(a) of Directive 2016/680 in conjunction with Article 48 of the Charter, if a person who is charged with a premeditated criminal offence requiring public prosecution refuses to voluntarily cooperate in the collection of these personal data, without the court being able to assess whether there are serious grounds for believing that the person has committed the criminal offence with which he or she is charged?

4. Is a national law, namely Article 68(1) to (3) of the Bulgarian Law on the Ministry of Interior, which provides, as a general rule, for the taking of photographs for the file, the taking of fingerprints, and the taking of samples in order to create a DNA profile for all persons who are charged with a premeditated criminal offence requiring public prosecution, compatible with Article 10, Article 4(1)(a) and (c), and Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2016/680?

(1) Directive (EU) 2016/680 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 by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 89).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).
1.

Must Article 63 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 65(1) TFEU, be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a personal income tax scheme which a Member State operates as part of direct taxation and which, in the case of non-resident taxable persons and earnings from capital gains realised through the sale of immovable property situated in that Member State, combines two legal regimes, under one of which (i), a special proportional flat rate of 28 % is applied to all earnings from capital gains (the tax base), calculated in accordance with the general rules for the determination (quantification, quantum) of such earnings, while, under the other (ii), the rules for residents apply, meaning that, once earnings realised from capital gains have been calculated in accordance with those general rules, account is taken of only half (50 %) of those earnings (the tax base) and those earnings (50 % of the capital gains) are — compulsorily — cumulated (by increment, aggregation) with the other income which the taxable person has earned worldwide that year, in order then to determine the tax rate applicable to the totality of those incomes on the basis of the general schedule applicable to residents (comprising rates, arranged by band, ranging from 14,5 % to 48 % which can be increased by a maximum rate of 5 % if the total amount of income exceeds certain thresholds), that tax rate being applicable, in the case of non-residents, exclusively to the abovementioned income, that is to say to capital gains from property, which are taken into account in the proportion of 50 % (whereas, in the case of residents, the rate so calculated is applied to the abovementioned income and the other income earned that year)? It is to be noted that a non-resident taxable person must opt for one or other of the available regimes on the income tax return which he or she is in any event obliged to submit in the Member State [in question] (Portugal), whether he or she chooses to be taxed under the general regime for non-residents [set out in point (i) above] or elects to be taxed under the regime applicable to residents [as set out in point (ii) above], and on which he or she must tick one of those two options. It must be observed that the obligation for non-residents to file a return (submission of a form 3 income tax return) existed even before the adoption of the legislative amendment whereby the possibility of opting for the regime applicable to residents was included on the official form It may be noted that, when opting to be taxed under the regime applicable to residents, a non-resident must specify (on the return itself) the total amount of all the income he has earned worldwide during the year.
Appeal brought on 30 March 2021 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2021 in Case T-328/17 RENV, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)

(Case C-201/21 P)

(2021/C 263/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), M. J. Dairies EOOD

By order of 21 May 2021 of the Vice-President, the Court of Justice held that the appeal is dismissed as inadmissible and that Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi shall bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale v Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza

(Case C-214/21)

(2021/C 289/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Italy Emergenza Cooperativa Sociale

Defendant and respondent: Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza

Intervener: ANPAS — Associazione Nazionale Pubbliche Assistenze Odv

Question referred

Does Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) — together with recital 28 of that directive — preclude national legislation which provides that contracts for the provision of emergency ambulance transport services may be directly awarded, on a preferential basis, solely to voluntary organisations — provided that they have been registered for at least six months in the national third sector register, belong to a network of associations and are accredited under the relevant sectoral regional legislation (if any) and on the condition that such an award ensures that the service can be provided within a framework of effective contributions to social goals, which pursues objectives of solidarity, in an economically efficient and appropriate manner and in accordance with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination — to the exclusion of other non-profit organisations, and more specifically social cooperatives, such as non-profit-making social enterprises, including social cooperatives which offer rebates to their members in relation to activities of general interest, within the meaning of Article 3(2a) of Legislative Decree No 112/2017?

(1) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty represented by O. SA

(Case C-250/21)

(2021/C 289/36)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Respondent: O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty represented by O. SA

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption which that provision provides for in respect of transactions concerning the granting and the negotiation of credit and the management of credit is applicable to the subparticipation agreement described in the main proceedings?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 1 April 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 February 2021 in Case T-238/20, Ryanair v Commission

(Case C-209/21 P)

(2021/C 297/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2366 final of 11 April 2020 on State Aid SA.56812 (2020/N) — Sweden — COVID-19: Loan guarantee scheme to airlines is void; and

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

alternatively:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; and

— reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First, the General Court infringed EU law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Second, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the appellant’s claim on free movement of services.

Third, the General Court made an error in law in rejecting the application of the balancing test.

Fourth, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to state reasons.

Fifth, the General Court made an error in law and distorted the facts regarding the Commission’s failure to open a formal investigation procedure.
2.

Mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC (a) Is Article 10(2)(p) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the amount of interest payable per day, which must be specified in the credit agreement, must be calculated from the contractual borrowing rate specified in the agreement? (b) Article 10(2)(r) of Directive 2008/48/EC: (aa) Is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that the information in the credit agreement concerning the compensation payable in the event of early repayment of the loan must be sufficiently precise to enable the consumer to calculate at least approximately the compensation payable? (should Question (aa) above be answered in the affirmative) (bb) Do Article 10(2)(r) and the second sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC preclude national legislation pursuant to which, in the case of incomplete information within the meaning of Article 10(2)(r) of that directive, the period for withdrawal nevertheless commences on conclusion of the agreement and only the creditor’s right to compensation for early repayment of the credit is lost? If at least one of the above Questions 2(a) and 2(b) is answered in the affirmative: (c) Is Article 14(1), second sentence, point (b), of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the period of withdrawal does not begin until the information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been provided fully and correctly? If not: (d) What are the relevant criteria for determining whether the period of withdrawal is to begin in spite of the fact that that information is incomplete or incorrect? If the above Question 1(a) and/or one of Questions 2(a) and 2(b) is answered in the affirmative:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 June 2021 — PV v Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

(Case C-343/21)

(2021/C 320/31)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: PV

Respondent: Zamestnik izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’

Questions referred

1. Does the interpretation of Article 45(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 (1) laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 permit the assumption that, in a case such as the present one, a holding has been ‘reparcelled’ or has been the subject of ‘land-consolidation measures’ as a result of which the beneficiary is unable to comply with the commitments given by him or her?

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the fact that a Member State has not taken the measures necessary to allow the beneficiary’s commitments to be adapted to the new situation of the holding provide justification for not requiring reimbursement of the funds in respect of the period in which the commitment was effective?

3. If the first question is answered in the negative, how is Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (2) of 19 January 2009 to be interpreted in the light of the facts established in the main proceedings and what is the nature of the time limit under Article 75(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 (3) of 30. November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 15, Special edition in Bulgarian: Chapter 03 Volume 080 P. 133).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 1 April 2021 by Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-817/19, Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO

(Case C-219/21 P)

(2021/C 320/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Kondrat, adwokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 24 June 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. shall bear its own costs.