ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 17 January 2020 – European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-24/20)

(2020/C 77/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, J. Norris and I. Naglis, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul article 3 of Council Decision 2019/1754 (1) of 7 October 2019 on the accession of the European Union to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications;

— annul Article 4 of Decision 2019/1754 to the extent that it contains references to the Member States, or, in the alternative, to annul Article 4 entirely if references to the Member States cannot be severed from the rest of the Article;

— maintain the effects of the parts of Decision 2019/1754 which have been annulled, in particular any use of the authorisation granted under Article 3, implemented before the date of the judgment by the Member States which are currently parties to the 1958 Lisbon Agreement, until the entry into force, within a reasonable period which should not exceed six months from the date of delivery of the judgment, of a decision of the Council of the European Union;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: breach of Article 218(6) and 293(1) TFEU, of the principle of conferral of powers laid down in Article 13(2) TEU and of the principle of institutional balance and the Commission’s right of initiative, in that the contested Decision has been adopted without a proposal of the Commission.

Second plea: in the alternative, breach of Articles 2(1) and 207 TFEU and lack of motivation, as the Council exceeded its power by granting an authorisation which is general, permanent and not duly justified.

(1) OJ 2019, L 271, p. 12.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 14 February 2020 — Criminal proceedings against M.B.

(Case C-78/20)

(2020/C 137/54)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

M.B.

Generálna prokuratúra Slovenskej republiky

Question referred

Must the requirements which an European arrest warrant must satisfy as a judicial decision under Articles 1(1) and 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 (1) be applied also to supplementary information provided pursuant to Article 15(2) thereof, where, for the purposes of the decision of the executing judicial authority, it substantially supplements or changes the content of the arrest warrant originally issued?

(1) Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes (France) lodged on 21 January 2020 — PF and QG v Caisse d’allocations familiales d’Ille-et-Vilaine (CAF)

(Case C-27/20)

(2020/C 95/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PF and QG

Defendant: Caisse d’allocations familiales d’Ille-et-Vilaine (CAF)

Question referred

Is EU law, in particular Articles 20 and 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 (1) and Article 7 of Regulation No 492/2011, (2) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national legislation, such as Article R 532-3 of the code de la sécurité sociale (French Social Security Code), which defines the reference calendar year, for the purposes of calculating family allowances, as the year before that preceding the payment period, and results, in a situation where the income of the person claiming the allowance has risen substantially in another Member State, and then fallen [following] his or her return to his or her Member State of origin, in that person being deprived, unlike residents who have not exercised their right of free movement, of part of his or her family allowance rights?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).
3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative: a) As regards the requirements governing a legitimate interest within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 49(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 49(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, must a distinction be drawn between the registration procedure under Articles 49 to 52 of that regulation, on the one hand, and the procedure for amending the specification under Article 53 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, on the other, and, b) in the procedure for a non-minor amendment of the specification, does a legitimate interest within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 53(2), in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 49(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 49(4), of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 therefore lie only with producers that produce or specifically intend to produce products in the geographical area which comply with the product specification, so that ‘non-local’ operators are automatically excluded from the outset from claiming a legitimate interest?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 February 2020 — ‘Lifosa’ AB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-75/20)

(2020/C 137/52)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant:‘Lifosa’ AB

Defendant and respondent: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Question referred

Are Articles 29(1) and 32(1)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Articles 70(1) and 71(1)(e)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the transaction (customs) value must be adjusted to include all the costs actually incurred by the seller (producer) in transporting the goods to the place where they were brought into the customs territory of the European Union (Community) when, as in the present case, (1) under the delivery conditions (‘Incoterms 2000’ — DAF) the obligation to cover those costs was borne by the seller (producer) and (2) those costs of transport exceeded the price that was agreed upon and was actually paid (payable) by the buyer (importer), but (3) the price actually paid (payable) by the buyer (importer) corresponded to the real value of the goods, even if that price was insufficient to cover all the costs of transport incurred by the seller (producer)?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.
1.

Does the Royal Decree of 20 July 1971 establishing insurance for allowances and maternity insurance for self-employed workers and spouses infringe Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, (1) 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 (recast), (2) Council Directive 86/613/EEC of 11 December 1986 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood (3) and the Framework Agreement on part-time work implemented by Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning part-time work (4) in not providing for an adequate allowance in the context of maternity leave for a self-employed woman who works part-time on a supplementary basis but pays contributions as a worker on a primary basis, whereas a self-employed woman who works part-time on a primary basis receives the full amount of the maternity allowance?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 2 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 22 January 2020 — RH v AB Volvo and Others

(Case C-30/20)

(2020/C 161/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 2 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RH

Defendants: AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España, S. A.

Question referred

Should Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which establishes that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State: ‘… in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’, be interpreted as establishing only the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State for the aforesaid place, meaning that the national court with territorial jurisdiction within that State is to be determined by reference to domestic rules of procedure, or should it be interpreted as a combined rule which, therefore, directly determines both international jurisdiction and national territorial jurisdiction, without any need to refer to domestic regulation?

(1) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 27 February 2020 — HR v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf

(Case C-108/20)

(2020/C 201/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HR

Defendant: Finanzamt Wilmersdorf

Question referred

Are Articles 167 and 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as precluding the application of national law under which input tax deductions are not to be allowed where, when turnover tax fraud about which a taxable person knew or should have known was committed at a preceding stage, the taxable person, through the transaction carried out with him or her, did not participate in and was not connected to the turnover tax fraud and did not encourage or facilitate the turnover tax fraud committed?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
4.

If in the case referred to in Question 3, an appeal by the Minister for Justice has been lodged with a Bar Association disciplinary court, and: (a) one of the factors which in the view of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) as expressed in its judgment of 5 December 2019, case reference III PO 7/18, as well as in the view of the Bar Association disciplinary court, justify the assumption that the Izba Dyscyplinarna Sądu Najwyższego (Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), that is, the body referred to in Question 3(a), is not an independent and impartial tribunal for the purposes of Article 47 of the Charter, is the influence of the executive, including the Minister for Justice, on its composition; (b) the function of Public Prosecutor General, who — according to the position expressed by the Izba Dyscyplinarna Sądu Najwyższego (Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), that is, the body referred to in Question 3(a), would be entitled to lodge an appeal on a point of law against the decision made on appeal, and according to the position of the Izba Karna Sądu Najwyższego (Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court), that is, the judicial body referred to in Question 3(b), and also according to the position of the Bar Association disciplinary court, is not entitled to lodge such an appeal, is by operation of law actually performed by the Minister for Justice, should the Bar Association disciplinary court ignore that appeal if it is the only way in which it can ensure that the proceedings are compatible with Article 47 of the Charter and, in particular, prevent interference in those proceedings by a body which is not an independent and impartial tribunal for the purposes of that provision?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 26 February 2020 — XY v Hauptzollamt B

(Case C-100/20)

(2020/C 209/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XY

Defendant: Hauptzollamt B

Question referred

Is interest payable under EU law in respect of an entitlement to a refund of incorrectly assessed electricity tax if the assessment of the electricity tax in a lower amount was based on the optional tax reduction pursuant to Article 17(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1) and the tax assessment in too high an amount was based solely on an error in the application of the national provision adopted to transpose Article 17(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96?

(1) OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.
1.

Are Articles 103(3)(b) and 124(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1) applicable to a customs debt that was incurred before 1 May 2016 and whose period of limitation had not yet expired as of that date?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2020 — Novartis Pharma GmbH v Abacus Medicine A/S

(Case C-147/20)

(2020/C 215/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Novartis Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Abacus Medicine A/S

Questions referred

1. Can it lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice if the safety features of original outer wrapping/original packaging which are provided for under Article 54(o) and Article 47a of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) can, in the event that the parallel trader retains that original packaging, be replaced in compliance with Article 47a(1)(b) of that directive only in such a way that visible traces of opening remain after the originally existing safety features have been partly or fully removed and/or covered?

2. Is it of significance for answering the first question whether the traces of opening become visible only when the medicinal product has been thoroughly inspected by wholesalers and/or persons authorised or entitled to supply medicinal products to the public, such as pharmacies, in fulfilment of their obligation under Articles 10, 24 and 30 of Regulation (EU) 2016/161, (2) or may be overlooked in a superficial inspection?

3. Is it of significance for answering the first question whether the signs of opening become visible only when the packaging of a medicinal product is opened, for example by the patient?

4. Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/161 to be interpreted as meaning that the barcode containing the unique identifier within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of that regulation must be printed directly on the packaging, so that Article 5(3) is not complied with if a parallel trader affixes the unique identifier to the original outer packaging using an additional external sticker?

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 of 2 October 2015 supplementing Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down detailed rules for the safety features appearing on the packaging of medicinal products for human use (OJ 2016 L 32, p. 1).
Appeal brought on 30 January 2020 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2019 in Case T-502/16, Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others v Commission

(Case C-54/20 P)

(2020/C 209/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, T.S. Bohr and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, as heir of Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Anne Jeanne Cécile Magdalena Maria Sintobin, as heir of Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Maria Letizia Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, as heir of Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Carlo Amedeo Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Giustina Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Tommaso Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Filiberto Missir Mamachi di Lusignano

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court ordered the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered by Ms Maria Letizia Missir and Mr Stefano Missir following the death of Mr Alessandro Missir;

— dispose of the case itself and dismiss the action at first instance as inadmissible;

— order Mr Stefano Missir and Ms Maria Letizia Missir to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on two grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal is divided into two parts. By the first part, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of the person ‘to whom the Staff Regulations apply’. That part is directed against paragraphs 48 to 64 of the judgment under appeal. By the second part, the appellant claims, in the alternative, that the General Court erred in law by recognising the brother and sister of a deceased official as being entitled to receive compensation for non-material damage on the basis of the Staff Regulations. That part is directed against paragraphs 134 and 135 of the judgment under appeal.

By the second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court failed to have regard for the obligation to state reasons when ordering the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the brother and sister of a deceased official as a result of the latter’s death. The second ground of appeal is directed against paragraphs 154 to 168, 171 to 172 and 181 of the judgment under appeal.
4.

In the case of a consumer credit agreement, is the creditor excluded from invoking the plea of forfeiture in respect of the exercising of the right of withdrawal of the consumer in accordance with the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC (a) if some of the mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been neither properly included in the credit agreement nor subsequently duly provided and the period of withdrawal in accordance with Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC has therefore not begun? (b) (if Question a) above is answered in the negative) if the forfeiture is decisively based on the lapse of time since conclusion of the agreement and/or on the complete fulfilment of the agreement by both parties and/or on the creditor’s disposal of the recovered loan amount or the return of the loan security and/or (in the case of a purchase agreement linked with the credit agreement) on the use or sale of the financed object by the consumer, but the consumer had no knowledge of the continued existence of his right of withdrawal in the relevant period and when the relevant circumstances arose and is also not responsible for that lack of knowledge, and the creditor could also not assume that the consumer has such knowledge?
5.

Must Article 30(1) of Regulation No 1305/2013, read together with Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that someone is entitled to a Natura 2000 payment by virtue of his plans for a new economic activity if, when he acquired the property, he was already aware of the restrictions that applied to it?
2.

If the first question referred is answered in the negative, is the term ‘raw’ within the meaning of subheading 1521 9091 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that beeswax which has been melted down in the exporting country and from which foreign bodies have been mechanically separated during the process of melting it down, whereby some foreign bodies still remain in beeswax, must be classified under that subheading?
Action brought on 24 June 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-278/20)

(2020/C 271/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, J. Baquero Cruz and P.J.O. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— A declaration that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 32(3) to (6) and the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of Law 40/2015, and the third subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Law 39/2015, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principles of effectiveness and equivalence as limitations on the autonomy enjoyed by Member States when laying down the substantive and procedural conditions governing their liability for harm caused to individuals in breach of EU law;

— an order that the Kingdom of Spain pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application for failure to fulfil obligations, submitted in accordance with Article 258 TFEU, relates to Article 32(3) to (6) and the second subparagraph of Article 34(1) of Law 40/2015 of 1 October 2015 on the legal rules governing the public sector, and the third subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Law 39/2015 of 1 October 2015 on the common administrative procedure for public bodies.

The provisions at issue have aligned the rules on the liability of the State as legislature for breaches of EU law with the provisions laid down for infringements of the Spanish Constitution by acts of the legislature, by adding certain substantive conditions.

The alignment of the rules and the associated procedural requirements have the effect of making it impossible or extremely difficult to seek redress for infringements of EU law by the Spanish legislature, in breach of the principle of effectiveness.

Furthermore, the substantive conditions added for infringements of EU law are incompatible with the principle of equivalence, by making redress for harm caused by the Spanish legislature in breach of EU law subject to conditions that are less favourable than those applicable to harm arising from an infringement of the Spanish Constitution.
In the event that Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the negative:

Are the national implementing provisions applicable to a review of unfairness in accordance with Directive 93/13/EEC determined by the law of the Member State on which jurisdiction has been conferred via prorogation or by the lex causae of the Member State seised?
2.

In so far as the abovementioned law [of the European Union] does not preclude the national legislation referred to in Question 1, may the respective provisions of Article 4(1)(a) and (c), and of Article 9(1), of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of 17 December 2013 be interpreted as meaning that a legal person who has concluded a concession contract in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings and who keeps animals under loan-for-use contracts concluded with physical persons, by which the lenders entrust to the borrowers, free of charge, the animals which they keep as owners, for the purpose of use for grazing, on the pastureland made available to the borrowers and over the agreed periods of time, may be regarded as an ‘active farmer’?