ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

Article 125(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, together with the principles of non-discrimination and transparency to which that provision refers, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which project applications may not be the subject of clarification after the deadline for submission of those applications. However, in accordance with the principle of equivalence, that impossibility, for project applicants, to complete their file after the deadline for submission of project applications must concern all procedures which may, where appropriate, be regarded as comparable with regard to their purpose, cause of action and essential characteristics to that laid down for receipt of support from the European Regional Development Fund.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — PJ v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio dei monopoli per la Toscana, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-452/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2014/40/EU - Article 23(3) - World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control - Prohibition on selling tobacco products to minors - Rules on penalties - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties - Obligation on sellers of tobacco products to verify the buyer’s age when selling those products - Fine - Operation of a tobacconist’s shop - Suspension of trading licence for a period of 15 days - Principle of proportionality - Precautionary principle)

(2022/C 165/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: PJ

Respondents: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio dei monopoli per la Toscana, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in the case of a first infringement of the prohibition on the sale of tobacco products to minors, provides, in addition to the imposition of an administrative fine, for the suspension, for a period of 15 days, of the trading licence authorising the economic operator who has infringed that prohibition to sell such products, provided that such legislation does not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objective of protecting human health and reducing, in particular, smoking prevalence among young people.

(1) OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Vigo — Spain) — CJ v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

(Case C-389/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4(1) - Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of sex - Domestic workers - Protection against unemployment - Exclusion - Particular disadvantage to female workers - Legitimate social policy objectives - Proportionality)

(2022/C 165/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Vigo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CJ

Defendant: Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

Re:

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 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision excluding unemployment benefits from the social security benefits granted to domestic workers by a statutory social security scheme, since that provision places female workers at a particular disadvantage as compared with male workers and is not justified by objective factors wholly unrelated to discrimination based on sex.

(1) OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
1.

Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that a specific division of a prison facility which, first, while having its own director, is subject to the management of that establishment and is subject to the authority of the minister who has authority over prison facilities and in which, second, third-country nationals are detained, for the purpose of removal, in specific buildings which have their own facilities and are isolated from other buildings in that division in which those with a criminal conviction are held, may be regarded as a ‘specialised detention facility’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that the conditions of detention applicable to those nationals avoid, as much as possible, that detention resembling detention in a prison environment and provided that they are designed in such a way that the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rights enshrined in Article 16(2) to (5) and Article 17 of that directive are respected.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2022 — WV v European External Action Service (EEAS)

(Case C-171/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Request for assistance - Claim for damages - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 24, paragraphs 1 and 2 - Article 90(1) and (2) - Review of an administrative measure which has become final)

(2022/C 171/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents, and by M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogado, and F.-M. Hislaire, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders WV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Berlin Chemie A. Menarini SRL v Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii Bucureşti — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti

(Case C-333/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 44 - Place of supply of services - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 - Article 11(1) - Provision of services - Point of reference for tax purposes - Concept of a ‘fixed establishment’ - Company from one Member State affiliated to a company located in another Member State - Suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources - Ability to receive and use the services for the fixed establishment’s own needs - Marketing, regulatory, advertising and representation services provided by a related company to the recipient company)

(2022/C 213/08)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Berlin Chemie A. Menarini SRL

Defendant: Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii Bucureşti — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti

Intervener: Berlin Chemie AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, and Article 11(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a company which has its registered office in one Member State does not have a fixed establishment in another Member State on the ground that that company owns a subsidiary there that makes available to it human and technical resources under contracts by means of which that subsidiary provides, exclusively to it, marketing, regulatory, advertising and representation services that are capable of having a direct influence on the volume of its sales.

(1) OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Somogy Megyei Kormányhivatal v Upfield Hungary Kft.

(Case C-533/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Provision of food information to consumers - Labelling - Mandatory particulars - List of ingredients - Specific name of those ingredients - Addition of a vitamin to a food - Obligation to indicate the specific name of that vitamin - No obligation to indicate the vitamin formulation used)

(2022/C 198/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Somogy Megyei Kormányhivatal

Defendant: Upfield Hungary Kft.

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, must be interpreted, having regard specifically to Article 18(2), as meaning that, where a vitamin has been added to a food, the list of the ingredients of that food does not have to include, in addition to the name of that vitamin, the name of the vitamin formulation used.

(1) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
1.

A provision of the tax legislation of a Member State requiring intermediaries, in respect of tourist accommodation establishments that are located in a region of that Member State and for which they act as intermediary or carry on a promotion strategy, to provide the regional tax authorities, on the latter’s written request, with the particulars of the operator and the details of the tourist accommodation establishments, as well as the number of overnight stays and of accommodation units operated during the past year, must be regarded as being indissociable, as regards its nature, from the legislation of which it forms part and, accordingly, falls within the ‘field of taxation’ which is expressly excluded from the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’).
2.

Article 2(b) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC, as well as Article 2(1)(d) and Article 70 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that the extinguishment of the customs debt on the ground provided for in Article 124(1)(e) of the Union Customs Code does not lead to the extinguishment of the debt linked, respectively, to excise duty and to value added tax in respect of goods unlawfully introduced into the customs territory of the European Union.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings brought by RR, JG

(Case C-505/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union - Directive 2014/42/EU - Article 4 - Confiscation - Article 7 - Freezing - Article 8 - Procedural guarantees - Freezing and confiscation of property belonging to a person unconnected with the criminal proceedings - National legislation not providing for third party remedies during court proceedings and not allowing for the possible return of the property before the end of the criminal proceedings)

(2022/C 257/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: RR, JG

Intervener: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, where property is frozen as the instrumentalities or alleged proceeds of an offence, the owner of that property, a third party acting in good faith, has no right, during the judicial phase of the criminal proceedings, to apply to the competent court for the return of that property.

2. Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/42 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the confiscation of property belonging to a third party acting in good faith and used as an instrumentality of an offence, even where that property has been made available by that third party for the permanent use of the accused person.

(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Venezia — Italy) — U.I. Srl v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Venezia

(Case C-714/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 201 - Persons liable for payment of VAT - Import VAT - Union Customs Code - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 77(3) - Joint and several liability of the indirect customs representative and the importing company - Customs duties)

(2022/C 244/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Venezia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: U.I. Srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Venezia

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 77(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, according to only that provision, an indirect customs representative is liable solely for the customs duties payable in respect of goods which he or she has declared for customs purposes, but not also for the import value added tax in respect of the same goods;

2. Article 201 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an indirect customs representative cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the importer for the payment of import value added tax where there are no national provisions explicitly and unequivocally designating or acknowledging that indirect customs representative as being liable for that tax.

(1) Date lodged: 24/12/2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial — León — Spain) — AB Volvo, DAF TRUCKS NV v RM

(Case C-267/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Directive 2014/104/EU - Articles 10, 17 and 22 - Actions for damages for infringements of the provisions of EU competition law - Limitation period - Rebuttable presumption of harm - Quantification of harm suffered - Belated transposition of the directive - Temporal application - Substantive and procedural provisions)

(2022/C 303/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial — León

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AB Volvo, DAF TRUCKS NV

Defendant: RM

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union must be interpreted as constituting a substantive provision, within the meaning of Article 22(1) of that directive, and as meaning that an action for damages which, although relating to an infringement of competition law which ceased before the entry into force of that directive, was brought after the entry into force of the provisions transposing it into national law falls within its temporal scope, in so far as the time limit for transposition applicable to that action under the old rules did not expire before the time limit for transposition of the same directive.

Article 17(1) of Directive 2014/104 must be interpreted as constituting a procedural provision, within the meaning of Article 22(2) of that directive, and as meaning that an action for damages which, although relating to an infringement of competition law which ceased before the entry into force of that directive, was brought after 26 December 2014 and after the entry into force of the provisions transposing it into national law falls within its temporal scope.

Article 17(2) of Directive 2014/104 must be interpreted as constituting a substantive provision, within the meaning of Article 22(1) of that directive, and as meaning that an action for damages which, although brought after the entry into force of the provisions transposing belatedly that directive into national law, pertains to an infringement of competition law which ceased before the expiry of the time limit for transposing it does not fall within its temporal scope.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of A v HK/Danmark, HK/Privat

(Case C-587/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 3(1)(a) and (d) - Scope - Post of elected sector convenor of an organisation of workers - Statutes of that organisation under which only members under the age of 60 or 61 on the date of the election are eligible to stand as sector convenor)

(2022/C 284/04)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of A

Defendants: HK/Danmark, HK/Privat

Intervener: Fagbevægelsens Hovedorganisation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(a) and (d) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that an age limit laid down in the statutes of an organisation of workers for eligibility to stand as sector convenor of that organisation falls within the scope of that directive.

(1) OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
1.

Article 20(3) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that: it is not applicable by analogy to a situation in which a minor and his or her parents lodge applications for international protection in the Member State in which that minor was born, in circumstances where his or her parents are already the beneficiaries of international protection in another Member State;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — ÖBB-Infrastruktur Aktiengesellschaft v Lokomotion Gesellschaft für Schienentraktion mbH

(Case C-500/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - International agreements - Railway transport - Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) - Uniform Rules concerning the contract for the use of infrastructure in international rail traffic (CUI) - Article 4 - Mandatory law - Article 8 - Liability of the manager - Article 19 - Other actions - Jurisdiction of the Court - Damage to the carrier’s locomotives following a derailment - Leasing of replacement locomotives - Obligation on the infrastructure manager to reimburse lease costs - Contract extending the parties’ liability by reference to national law)

(2022/C 340/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur Aktiengesellschaft

Defendant: Lokomotion Gesellschaft für Schienentraktion mbH

Operative part of the judgment

1. The Court of Justice of the European Union, acting in accordance with Article 267 TFEU, has jurisdiction to interpret Article 4, Article 8(1)(b) and Article 19(1) of Appendix E to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999, entitled ‘Uniform Rules concerning the contract for the use of infrastructure in international rail traffic (CUI)’;

2. Article 8(1)(b) of Appendix E to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999 must be interpreted as meaning that the liability of the infrastructure manager for loss of or damage to property does not include the costs incurred by the railway undertaking as a result of having to lease replacement locomotives while the damaged locomotives were being repaired;

3. Article 4 and Article 19(1) of Appendix E to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999 must be interpreted as meaning that the parties to the contract may assume greater liability by means of a blanket reference to national law, under which the extent of the infrastructure manager’s liability is greater and such liability is conditional upon fault.

(1) OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.
1.

Article 1(2)(b) of 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, as amended by Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 as regards pharmacovigilance, must be interpreted as meaning that a national authority may, for the purpose of classifying a product as a ‘medicinal product’, within the meaning of that provision, establish the pharmacological properties of that product by relying on scientific knowledge relating to a structural analogue of that substance, where no scientific study of the substance of which that product consists is available, if the degree of analogy is such that it may be assumed on the basis of an objective scientific assessment that a substance present in a product with a given concentration has the same properties as an existing substance for which the required studies are available.