ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale — Italy) — DB v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-481/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2003/6/EC - Article 14(3) - Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 - Article 30(1)(b) - Market abuse - Administrative sanctions of a criminal nature - Failure to cooperate with the competent authorities - Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to remain silent and to avoid self-incrimination)

(2021/C 110/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte costituzionale

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DB

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Interested party: Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) and Article 30(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6 and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC, read in the light of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as allowing Member States not to penalise natural persons who, in an investigation carried out in respect of them by the competent authority under that directive or that regulation, refuse to provide that authority with answers that are capable of establishing their liability for an offence that is punishable by administrative sanctions of a criminal nature, or their criminal liability.

(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — De Ruiter vof v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-361/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Support scheme for farmers - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 97(1) and Article 99(1) - Direct payments - Reductions and exclusions in the event of non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules - Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to calculate the percentage reduction - Proportionate, effective and dissuasive penalties - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 - Article 73(4), first subparagraph, point (a))

(2021/C 88/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: De Ruiter vof

Defendants: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 97(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 99(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, and Article 73(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation No 1306/2013 with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance must be interpreted as meaning that reductions of direct payments due to non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules must be calculated on the basis of the payments granted or to be granted in the year in which such non-compliance occurred.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Banca Popolare di Bari Società Cooperativa per Azioni, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, Banca d’Italia

(Case C-425/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Measures adopted by a consortium of banks governed by private law for the benefit of one of its members - Measures authorised by the Central Bank of the Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Whether imputable to the State - State resources - Evidence supporting the conclusion that a measure is imputable - Distortion of elements of fact and of law - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market)

(2021/C 148/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, L. Flynn, A. Bouchagiar and by D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, P. Gentili and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato), Banca Popolare di Bari SCpA, formerly Tercas-Cassa di risparmio della provincia di Teramo SpA (Banca Tercas SpA) (represented initially by A. Santa Maria, M. Crisostomo, E. Gambaro and F. Mazzocchi, avvocati, and subsequently by A. Santa Maria, M. Crisostomo and E. Gambaro, avvocati), Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. Scassellati Sforzolini, G. Faella and A. Comino, avvocati), Banca d’Italia (represented by: M. Perassi, M. Todino, L. Sciotto and O. Capolino, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.
2.

The principle ne bis in idem, as enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to infringements of competition law, such as the abuse of a dominant position referred to in Article 102 TFEU, and precludes an undertaking from being found liable or proceedings from being brought against it afresh on the grounds of anticompetitive conduct for which it has been penalised or declared not liable by an earlier decision that can no longer be challenged. By contrast, that principle does not apply where proceedings are brought against or sanctions imposed on an undertaking separately and independently by a competition authority of a Member State and the European Commission for infringements of Article 102 TFEU relating to separate product markets or separate geographical markets, or where a competition authority of a Member State is relieved of its competence pursuant to the first sentence of Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association One Voice, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux v Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire

(Case C-900/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Articles 5 and 8 - Prohibition of the use of any method of capture of birds - Article 9(1) - Authorisation to use, by way of derogation, a traditional method of capture of birds - Conditions - No other satisfactory solution - Preservation of that traditional method as the sole justification for the absence of an ‘other satisfactory solution’ - Selectivity of catches - National legislation authorising the capture of birds using limes)

(2021/C 182/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association One Voice, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux

Defendant: Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire

Interested party: Fédération nationale des Chasseurs

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a method of capture of birds is traditional is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that another satisfactory solution, within the meaning of that provision, cannot be substituted for that method;

2. Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises, by way of derogation from Article 8 of that directive, a method of capture leading to by-catch where that by-catch, even in small quantities and for a limited period, is likely to cause harm other than negligible harm to the non-target species captured.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Wellcome Trust Ltd

(Case C-459/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 43 and 44 - Place of supply of services to a taxable person acting as such - Place of supply of investment management services received by a charitable organisation for a non-economic business activity from suppliers established outside the European Union)

(2021/C 182/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondent: Wellcome Trust Ltd

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, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person carrying on a non-economic activity in a business capacity acquires services for the purposes of that non-economic activity, those services must be regarded as being supplied to that taxable person ‘acting as such’, within the meaning of that article.

(1) OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske — Croatia) — Obala i lučice d.o.o. v NLB Leasing d.o.o.

(Case C-307/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Applicable law - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 and Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Scope ratione temporis - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(1) - Substantive scope - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Article 7(1) - Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘provision of services’ - Article 24(1) - Concept of ‘tenancies of immovable property’ - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Notaries acting in enforcement proceedings - Proceedings for the recovery of a debt relating to a daily parking ticket for a vehicle parked on the public highway)

(2021/C 206/11)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Obala i lučice d.o.o.

Defendant: NLB Leasing d.o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for recovery of a fee relating to a daily parking ticket for a designated parking space situated on the public highway, brought by a company which has been appointed by a local authority to manage such parking spaces, comes within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision;

2. Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for recovery of a fee relating to a daily parking ticket for a designated parking space situated on the public highway does not come within the concept of ‘tenancies of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision;

3. Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning, first, that an action for the recovery of a fee arising from a contract for parking in one of the defined parking spaces situated on the public highway which are organised and managed by a company appointed for that purpose comes within the scope of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of that provision and, second, that that contract constitutes a contract for the provision of services within the meaning of the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — D.J. v Radiotelevizija Slovenija

(Case C-344/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘working time’ - Stand-by time according to a stand-by system - Specific work maintaining television transmitters situated far away from residential areas - Directive 89/391/EEC - Articles 5 and 6 - Psychosocial risks - Obligation to prevent)

(2021/C 182/03)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: D.J.

Defendant: Radiotelevizija Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that a period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system, during which the worker is required only to be contactable by telephone and able to return to his or her workplace, if necessary, within a time limit of one hour, while being able to stay in service accommodation made available to him or her by his or her employer at that workplace, without being required to remain there, does not constitute, in its entirety, working time within the meaning of that provision, unless an overall assessment of all the facts of the case, including the consequences of that time limit and, if appropriate, the average frequency of activity during that period, establishes that the constraints imposed on that worker during that period are such as to affect, objectively and very significantly, the latter’s ability freely to manage, during the same period, the time during which his or her professional services are not required and to devote that time to his or her own interests. The limited nature of the opportunities to pursue leisure activities within the immediate vicinity of the place concerned is irrelevant for the purposes of that assessment.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 April 2021 — Council of the European Union v Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-46/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common Foreign and Security Policy - Combating terrorism - Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(3), (4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Conditions - Decision by a competent authority - Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Decision to review the national decision on which the initial inclusion was based - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 228/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) (represented by: A.M. van Eik and T.M.D. Buruma, advocaten), European Commission (represented by: R. Tricot, T. Ramopoulos and J. Norris, acting as Agents), and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by S. Brandon, acting as Agent, and by P. Nevill, Barrister, and subsequently by F. Shibli and S. McCrory, acting as Agents, and by P. Nevill, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: A.L. Desjonquères, B. Fodda and J.-L. Carré, acting as Agents) and Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside points 1 to 11, 13 and 14 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 November 2018, PKK v Council (T-316/14, EU:T:2018:788);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Grupa Warzywna sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-935/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 273 - Overstatement in the tax return of the amount of the refund of VAT - Error of assessment by the taxable person concerning the taxable nature of a transaction - Correction of the tax return following an audit - Penalty of an amount equal to 20 % of the overstated VAT reimbursement - Principle of proportionality)

(2021/C 217/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grupa Warzywna sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 273 of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national law which imposes on a taxable person, who wrongly classified a transaction that is exempt from VAT as a transaction which is subject to that tax, an additional tax liability equal to 20 % of the amount of the overstated VAT reimbursement that was wrongly claimed, where that sanction applies without distinction to a situation where the irregularity is the result of an error of assessment made by the parties to the transaction regarding the taxable nature of that transaction, which is characterised by the lack of evidence of evasion and of losses of revenues for the State Treasury, and to a situation where such specific circumstances do not exist.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — FORMAT Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

(Case C-879/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Determination of the legislation applicable - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 13(2)(a) - Article 14(2) - Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States - Single employment contract - Employer established in the worker’s Member State of residence - Paid employment activity pursued exclusively in other Member States - Work performed in different Member States during successive periods - Conditions)

(2021/C 278/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FORMAT Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

Intervener: UA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as not applying to a person who, under a single employment contract concluded with a single employer providing for the pursuit of professional activity in several Member States, works, for several successive months, solely in the territory of each of those Member States, where the duration of the uninterrupted periods of work completed by that person in each of those Member States exceeds 12 months, which it is for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP plc

(Case C-709/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred - Damage consisting in purely financial loss)

(2021/C 278/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vereniging van Effectenbezitters

Defendant: BP plc

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the direct occurrence in an investment account of purely financial loss resulting from investment decisions taken as a result of information which is easily accessible worldwide but inaccurate, incomplete or misleading from an international listed company does not allow the attribution of international jurisdiction, on the basis of the place of the occurrence of the damage, to a court of the Member State in which the bank or investment firm in which the account is held has its registered office, where that firm was not subject to statutory reporting obligations in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
1.

Article 40(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which any document submitted by an applicant for international protection in support of a subsequent application is automatically considered not to constitute a ‘new element or finding’, within the meaning of that provision, when the authenticity of that document cannot be established or its source objectively verified;