ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

EU law, in particular Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66, as well as the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which does not allow review of a judgment, which has acquired the force of res judicata, of a court or tribunal of that Member State which has ruled on an action for annulment against an act of a contracting authority without addressing a question the examination of which was envisaged in an earlier judgment of the Court in response to a request for a preliminary ruling made in the course of the proceedings relating to that action for annulment or in an earlier judgment of the Court in response to a request for a preliminary ruling in a different case. However, if the applicable domestic rules of procedure include the possibility for national courts to reverse a judgment which has acquired the force of res judicata, for the purposes of rendering the situation arising from that judgment compatible with an earlier national judicial decision which has become final –– where both the court which delivered that judgment and the parties to the case leading to that judgment were already aware of that earlier decision –– that possibility must, in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, in the same circumstances, prevail in order to render the situation compatible with EU law, as interpreted by an earlier judgment of the Court of Justice.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2019 AEAT (Calculation of the length of service of vertical part-time workers)

(Joined Cases C‑439/18 and C‑472/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Clause 4 — Male and female workers — Principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Directive 2006/54/EC — Article 14(1) — Vertical part-time worker — Recognition of length of service — Method of calculation of three-yearly length-of-service increments — Exclusion of periods not worked)

1. Union law — Principles — Fundamental rights –Employment rights — Conditions of employment — Prohibition on discrimination against part-time workers — Scope (Council Directive 97/81, Annex, Clause 4) (see para. 30)

2. Social policy — Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Directive 97/81 — Conditions of employment — Concept — Length-of-service bonus — Included (Council Directive 97/81, Annex, Clause 4) (see para. 31)

3. Social policy — Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Directive 97/81 — Objective reasons justifying different treatment — Concept — Criteria to be taken into consideration (Council Directive 97/81, Annex, Clause 4.1) (see points 46, 47)

4. Social policy — Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Directive 97/81 — Prohibition on discrimination against part-time workers — Male and female workers — Access to employment and working conditions — Equal treatment — Directive 2006/54 — National rule excluding vertical part-time workers from including periods not worked in the calculation of their length of service in order to benefit from salary increments earned for every three years of service — Unlawful (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/54, Art. 14(1); Council Directive 97/81, Annex, Clauses 4.1 and 4.2) (see paras 38, 42, 43, 48-51, 58, 59, 61-63, operative part)

Operative part

Clause 4.1 and 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, and Article 14(1) 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 must be interpreted as precluding a national rule and a national business practice, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as, as regards vertical part-time workers, they take into account only periods actually worked and thus exclude periods not worked from the calculation of the period of service required in order to receive three-yearly length-of-service increments as additional remuneration, while full-time workers are not subject to such a rule or practice.

( 1 ) OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.
Judicial proceedings – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Elements to be taken into consideration – Discretion of the Court – Costs incurred in the context of an appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 144(b) and 184(1))

(see paras 17-21, 23)
49

It follows that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the child of a migrant worker, the latter being a national of a Member State, who lives with her mother in a non-member country is not entitled to family allowances, either on her own account, or as a member of her mother’s family or of her father’s family, the Member State of employment of that worker is in principle required, in accordance with its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004, to grant that child the right to the family allowances which would be granted to its own nationals and residents when identical conditions for granting those allowances exist under a bilateral international convention concluded with that non-member country, unless that Member State can put forward an objective justification for refusing to do so. Disturbing the balance and reciprocity of a bilateral international convention concluded between a Member State and a non-member country may constitute an objective justification for that Member State to refuse to extend to nationals of other Member States the advantages which its own nationals derive from that convention.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2020 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO

(Case C‑118/18 P-REV II)

(Application for revision — Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Request relating to an order made pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Conditions — Appeal — Absence of previously unknown facts — Inadmissibility)

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

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

(see paras 28-32, 34, 35)

Operative part

1. The application for revision brought by Hochmann Marketing GmbH is dismissed.
Action for annulment — Time limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date on which the measure at issue was published — Calculation

(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 59 and 60)

(see paras 15-18)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 June 2019 — Wilo Salmson France

(Case C‑10/19)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Lack of sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility

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

(see paras 12-25)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by Tribunalul Bucureşti (Regional Court, Bucharest, Romania), by decision of 2 February 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 10 September 2019 — Wirecard Technologies v EUIPO

(Case C‑375/19 P)

(Appeal — EU trade mark — Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal not demonstrating the significance of an issue of law with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed to proceed)

Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Request for the appeal to be allowed to proceed not demonstrating that the issue is significant — Not allowed to proceed

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

(see paras 8-12)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 September 2019 — ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO

(Case C‑228/19 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word sign ETI Bumbo — Rejection of the application for registration)

Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

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

(see para. 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
Appeal — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

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

(see para. 16)
Appeal — Jurisdiction of the Court — Scope — Prohibition on ruling ultra petita — Examination by the court of its own motion of a plea involving a matter of public policy — Lawfulness — Whether the court may annul a decision of the General Court going beyond the scope of the decision sought — Precluded

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(1))

(see paras 25, 26)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Request not setting out the reasons justifying the reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility

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

(see paras 37, 38, 41, 42, 45-50, operative part)
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 26 February 2020 — Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate v Commission

(Case C‑832/19 P(R))

(Appeal — Order for interim measures — Medicinal products for human use — Application for marketing authorisation for an orphan medicinal product —Commission decision to remove a medicinal product from the Register of Orphan Medicinal Products — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — None)

Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the General Court’s findings with regard to national law — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

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

(see para. 40, 41)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismisssed.
Appeal — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of opposition to the registration of the marks at issue applied for — Appeals which have become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56,second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 149 and 190(1))

(see paras 20-24)
1.

Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility criteria — Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought — Commission Decision taken as part of its examination of a complaint relating to allegedly unlawful aid — Suspension not preventing the serious and irreparable harm alleged — No legal interest in bringing proceedings (Arts 108(3) and 278 TFEU) (see paras 49-65, 76-81)
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 3 March 2020 – Pink Lady America v OCVV

(Case C-886/19 P)

(Appeal — Protection of plant varieties — Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request for the appeal to be allowed to proceed not demonstrating that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed

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

(see paras 12-15)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 – DER Touristik

(Case C‑153/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 12 – Package tour – Long delay of a flight – Passenger compensation – Further compensation —Passenger’s right to a reduction of the price of the trip)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 25, 26)

2. Transport – Air transport – Regulation No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Right to compensation in the event of delay – Concept of ‘further compensation’ – Right to a price reduction of the trip – Included – Conditions – To be determined by the national court (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art. 1(1), (7) and (12)) (see paras 27, 29, 32, 33, 36, operative part)

Operative part

Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the 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, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a passenger, already compensated under the Article 7 of that regulation, may be compensated by means of a right to a reduction in the price of the trip he has against a tour operator, provided for by the law of the Member State concerned, to the extent that the latter compensation is granted for individual damage which originates in one of the situations provided for in Article 1(1) of that regulation, which is for the referring court to determine.

( 1 ) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 – CCPL and Others v Commission

(Case C‑706/19 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Retail food packaging market – Appeal directed against the grounds – Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

Judicial proceedings – Res judicata – Scope – Limits

(see paras 23-26)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. CCPL – Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox group SpA and Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. shall bear their own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission.

( 1 ) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
1.

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding a term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, which is capable of being found to be unfair by a court, from being the subject of a novation agreement between that seller or supplier and that consumer, under which the consumer waives the effects which would result from a declaration that the term is unfair, provided that that waiver is the result of the free and informed consent of the consumer, which it is for the national court to determine. By contrast, a term under which that consumer waives, in respect of future disputes, legal proceedings based on the rights which he or she holds under Directive 93/13, is not binding on that consumer.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 28 May 2020 – Billa v EUIPO

(Case C‑61/20 P)

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

1. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 11)

2. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Request for an appeal to be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paras 12-14)

3. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request for the appeal to be allowed to proceed not demonstrating that the issue is significant – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see para. 16)

4. Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Not included (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Arts 58, first para., and 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 19)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – EU rules only taken into account – Decisions of national authorities not binding EU bodies (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 20)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 – Slovenský plynárenský priemysel

(Case C‑113/20)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Directive 90/435/EEC – Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States – Scope ratione temporis – Corporation tax relating to a period prior to the date of accession of a Member State to the European Union – Tax adjustment issued after the date of accession)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Interpretation of an EU directive on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States – Recovery of unpaid corporation tax in respect of a period prior to the date of accession of a Member State to the European Union – Tax adjustment issued after the date of accession – Precluded

(Art. 267 TFEU; Council Directive 90/435)

(see paras 25, 30, 31, operative part)

Operative part

Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990, on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States does not apply in a situation in which the tax authorities of a Member State recover from the taxpayer unpaid corporation tax in respect of a tax period preceding the accession of that Member State to the European Union by means of a tax adjustment issued after that accession.
Appeal – Judgment of the Court of Justice – Obligation to address the pleas and claims of the parties – Scope

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

(see para. 4)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility

Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)

(see paras 27-31, 33, 37-39, operative part)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 – BNP Paribas Personal Finance

(Case C‑535/20)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Consumer protection – Directive 2008/48/EC – Article 10 – Information to be included in consumer credit agreements – Article 22 – Level of harmonisation – National measure requiring credit institutions to present all components of a consumer credit agreement using the same font type, the same font format and the same font size)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court's existing case-law – Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 24-26)

2. Consumer protection – Credit agreements for consumers – Directive 2008/48 – Requirements of form for a credit agreement – National legislation requiring all components of a credit agreement to be presented using the same font type, the same font format and the same font size – Whether permissible – Condition – Compliance with the rules harmonised by that directive (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/48, Arts 10(2) and 22(1)) (see paras 27, 28, 33, 35-27 and operative part)

Operative part

Article 10(2) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which requires all components of a consumer credit agreement to be presented using the same font type, the same font format and the same font size, that is, no smaller than 12 point.
2.

Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Plea alleging distortion of the facts – Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 4, 5)