ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil 7 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2021 — AD and Others v PACCAR Inc, DAF TRUCKS NV, DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-163/21)

(2021/C 252/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Mercantil 7 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AD and Others

Defendants: PACCAR Inc, DAF TRUCKS NV, DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH

Question referred

Must Article 5(1) 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 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the disclosure of relevant evidence refers exclusively to existing documents in the control of the defendant or a third party or, in contrast, can Article 5(1) also include the disclosure of documents that must be created ex novo by the party to whom the request for information is made by compiling or classifying information, knowledge or data held by it?

(1) OJ 2014 L 349, p. 1.
2.

Is the concept of ‘liberalisation of the market in electricity’ to be interpreted as meaning that liberalisation must be deemed to have already occurred where certain aspects of free trade exist, such as, for example, contracts concluded by a public operator with suppliers from other Member States? Can liberalisation of the market in electricity be deemed to begin when the law grants some electricity users (for example, electricity users connected to the transport network or non-domestic electricity users connected to the distribution network) the right to change electricity distributor? What effect do developments in the regulation of the electricity market in Latvia have on the assessment of aid granted to electricity producers in the light of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (for the purposes of the answer to question 1, in particular, the situation prior to 2007?
3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Does this also apply if, prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, a court had dismissed an application by the asylum seeker pursuant to Article 27(3)(c) of the Dublin III Regulation for implementation of the transfer decision to be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings?
3.

Is Article 219a of Directive 2006/112/EC (as amended by Directive 2010/45/EU and the Corrigendum (3)) to be interpreted as meaning that the rules on invoicing to be applied are those of the Member State whose provisions would be applicable if a ‘customer’ has not (yet) been designated on the invoice as the person liable for payment of VAT; or are the rules to be applied those of the Member State whose provisions would be applicable if the designation of the ‘customer’ as the person liable for payment of VAT is accepted as valid?
1.

Must Article 8(3) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, (1) read in conjunction with Article 3(5) and Article 1(3) and (4) of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks (2) be interpreted as precluding a national regulatory authority from imposing on an operator which owns physical infrastructure and is at the same time a provider of publicly available electronic communications services or networks, but has not been designated as having significant market power, the obligation to apply the conditions for access to that operator’s physical infrastructure determined ex ante by that authority, including the rules and procedures for entering into contracts and the applicable access fees, irrespective of the existence of a dispute over access to that operator’s physical infrastructure and the existence of effective competition in the market? Alternatively (version II):
2.

Does a judgment ordering a party to make a penalty payment, although enforceable in the country of origin, fall within the meaning of ‘judgment’ in Article 4 of Regulation No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order where there has been no final determination of the amount in accordance with Article 55 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 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? (2)
4.

Must the rule in Article 2(83) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which establishes that undertakings that can exert a decisive influence upon the entity submitting the project proposal, in the quality of, for example, shareholders or members, may not enjoy preferential access to the results generated by that entity, be interpreted as meaning that the members or shareholders of the said entity may be either natural or legal persons with a profit motive (including through the provision of educational services in return for payment) or not-for-profit entities (such as an association or foundation)?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bottrop (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Fuhrmann-2-GmbH v B.

(Case C-249/21)

(2021/C 297/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bottrop

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fuhrmann-2-GmbH

Defendant: B.

Question referred

Is the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the question whether a button or a similar function — the activation of which forms part of the ordering process of a distance contract to be concluded by electronic means within the meaning of the first subparagraph of that provision and which is not labelled with the words ‘order with obligation to pay’ — is labelled with a corresponding unambiguous formulation within the meaning of that provision, indicating that placing the order entails an obligation to pay the trader, is to be answered solely by reference to the labelling of the button or of the similar function?

(1) Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).
1.

a) Must the term ‘requesting Member State’ within the meaning of Article 29(2) 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 (OJ 2013 L 180[, p. 31]) be interpreted as referring to the Member State (in this case, the third Member State, namely the Netherlands) which was the last to submit a take back or take charge request to another Member State? b) If the answer is in the negative: does the fact that a claim agreement has previously been concluded between two Member States (in this case, Germany and Italy) still have consequences for the legal obligations of the third Member State (in this case, the Netherlands) under the Dublin Regulation towards the foreign national or the Member States concerned by that earlier claim agreement, and if so, what are those consequences?
Is under the legislation of the Netherlands — as the Member State which is competent under Title II of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004] (1) — a child-raising period taken into account within the meaning of Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) by virtue of the fact that the period of child-raising in the Netherlands, as a pure period of residence, gives rise to a pension entitlement?

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
1.

For the purposes of the Community rules prohibiting excessive advertising, and given the general relevance under [EU] law of the concept of the group or single economic entity, which may be gleaned from numerous sources of anti-trust law (and, in so far as is relevant here, from recital 43 of Directive 2018/1808/EU (1) and from the new wording of Article 23 of Directive 2010/13/[EU]), (2) and notwithstanding the differences which exist under Italian domestic law between the licences [provided for by] Article 5(1)(b) of Legislative Decree No 177/[2005] for television broadcasters and radio broadcasters, is it consistent with Community law to interpret national law on broadcasting in the sense that Article 1(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 177/[2005], as amended, in the current wording of 30 March 2010 (implementing Directive 2007/65/EC), (3) implies that the process of convergence of the various forms of communication (electronic communications, publishing, including electronic publishing, and the Internet, in all its applications) is all the more applicable among suppliers of television and radio media, especially when they are already integrated into a connected group of undertakings, and applies generally, with the resulting consequences for the interpretation of Article 38(6) of the abovementioned [legislative decree], such that the ‘broadcaster’ may also be the group, as a single economic entity, or on the contrary, in accordance with the abovementioned Community principles and given the independence of the matter of the prohibition on excessive advertising from general anti-trust law, is it not permissible to ascribe relevance, prior to 2018, to the group or to the abovementioned process of convergence and so-called cross-mediality, such that, for the purposes of calculating the limits on advertising broadcasting time, regard is to be had solely to the individual broadcaster, even if it is part of a group (for the reason that such relevance is mentioned only in the consolidated wording of Article 23 of Directive 2010/13/[EU] resulting from Directive 2018/1808/EU)?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 9 April 2021 by Germann Avocats LLC against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2021 in Case T-352/18, Germann Avocats LLC v European Commission

(Case C-233/21 P)

(2021/C 320/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Germann Avocats LLC (represented by: N. Scandamis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— confirm points 24 to 48 of the contested order fully rejecting the Commission's objection of inadmissibility;

— for the rest, fully set aside the contested order;

— annul pursuant to Article 263 TFEU the Commission’s decision contained in an undated letter received on 2 April 2018 rejecting the joint tender submitted by the Appellant for a follow-up study on trade union practices on non-discrimination and diversity in the workplace (call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042; OJ/S S215 — 09/11/2017 — 2017/S 215-446067);

— order the Commission to pay damages in the amount of EUR 1;

— alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court; and in any event

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant advances the following pleas in support of its appeal:

First, manifest distortion of facts and errors of law in relation to the misuse of powers, as well as violation of the principles of equality of arms and the right to be heard.

Second, infringement of the duty to state reasons and manifest errors of assessment.

Third, misuse of powers by infringement of the principles of equal treatment, legal certainty, sound administration and good faith.

Fourth, misuse of powers by infringement of the principle of transparency and protection of legitimate expectations regarding competition.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu (Romania) lodged on 16 April 2021 — C.I. I. v Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu

(Case C-244/21)

(2021/C 349/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Giurgiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C.I.I.

Defendant: Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu

By order of 1 July 2021, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunalul Giurgiu (Romania) by decision of 9 April 2021.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2021 — Tilman SA v Unilever Supply Chain Company AG

(Case C-358/21)

(2021/C 338/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Tilman SA

Respondent in cassation: Unilever Supply Chain Company AG

Question referred

Are the requirements under Article 23(1)(a) and (2) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed in Lugano on 30 October 2007, satisfied where a clause conferring jurisdiction is contained in general terms and conditions to which a contract concluded in writing refers by providing the hypertext link to a website, access to which allows those general terms and conditions to be viewed, downloaded and printed, without the party against whom that clause is enforced having been asked to accept those general terms and conditions by ticking a box on that website?
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the national court required to refuse to issue a court decision ordering immediate payment altogether where only part of the claim made is based on a likely unfair contractual term giving rise to the amount of the claim, including in cases where, in proceedings to which the debtor is not party until the issuance of a court order for immediate payment, it is not possible to determine the specific amount of all the elements of the claims based on terms which are not suspected of being unfair?
2.

If the Court of Justice of the European Union answers the first question in the affirmative, must the provisions of the VAT Directive, in the light of the general principles thereof, in particular the principles of effectiveness, fiscal neutrality and non-discrimination, be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which, in the situation described in the previous question, the addressee of the invoice is absolutely prohibited from contacting the national tax authority directly in order to request a refund of the VAT or is permitted to do so only if it is impossible or excessively difficult to claim the amount of VAT in question by using another procedure under civil law, particularly where the issuer of the invoice has gone into liquidation in the meantime?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 23 June 2021 — A v B

(Case C-388/21)

(2021/C 382/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Erfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: B

Questions referred

1. Are Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Articles 4, 5 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, (2) also intended to protect the interests of individual purchasers of motor vehicles and their assets? Does this also include the interest of an individual purchaser of a vehicle in not purchasing a vehicle which does not comply with the requirements of EU law, and in particular in not purchasing a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

2. Does EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness, European fundamental rights and the inherent rights of nature, require that the purchaser of a vehicle have a civil claim for damages against the vehicle manufacturer in the event of any culpable — negligent or intentional — act on the part of the vehicle manufacturer in relation to the placing on the market of a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

(1) Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).
—

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law by considering that the Commission did not address all concerns as to the compatibility of the catchment area with the internal market. In so doing, the General Court failed to appreciate that, when taking a decision to close the preliminary investigation procedure, the Commission must decide on the basis of the information available to it at that time, and that the Commission had no reason to raise concerns when examining the compatibility of the catchment area with the criteria of the Guidelines on aid in the aviation sector.
3.

Can the new restriction whereby the right of residence of Turkish nationals may be terminated even after 20 years on grounds of public policy be justified by reference to the changed social perceptions which gave rise to that new restriction? Is it sufficient that the new restriction serves the public policy objective, or is it also required that the restriction be suitable for achieving that objective and not go beyond what is necessary to attain it? Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association adopted by the Association Council
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 6 July 2021 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2021 in Case T-322/19, El-Qaddafi v Council

(Case C-413/21 P)

(2021/C 382/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux, M. Bishop, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Aisha Muammer Mohamed El-Qaddafi

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested judgment of the General Court;

— give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and to dismiss the applicant’s action; and

— order the applicant to pay the costs arising from the present appeal and from Case T-322/19.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council submits that the General Court erred in the contested judgment in case T-322/19 on the following points:

— first ground of appeal: violation of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 36, read in conjunction with Article 53, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice and misinterpretation of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1);

— second ground of appeal: misinterpretation of Articles 8(1) and 9(1) of Council Decision 2015/1333 and Article 6(1) of Council Regulation 2016/44 (2);

— third ground of appeal: the General Court distorted the arguments of the Council, violated the principle that pleadings are to be construed in accordance with their actual terms, misinterpreted Council Decision 2015/1333 and Council Regulation 2016/44 and violated Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;

— fourth ground of appeal: the General Court distorted the evidence, violated the principle that documents and pleadings are to be construed in accordance with their actual terms, violated Article 36, read in conjunction with Article 53, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and violated Article 263 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2015, L 206, p. 34).

(2) Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (OJ 2016, L 12, p. 1).
Appeal brought on 14 July 2021 by Biogen Netherlands BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 May 2021 in Case T-611/18, Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA

(Case C-439/21 P)

(2021/C 391/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Biogen Netherlands BV (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma S.A., European Medicines Agency, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— grant the appeal;

— set aside the judgment under the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: the General Court misapplied Article 277 TFEU by failing to recognize that the plea of illegality raised against the Commission’s decision of 30 January 2014 granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera was inadmissible because that decision could have been challenged directly by Polpharma since it is a regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures and was of direct concern to Polpharma.

Second ground of appeal: in its assessment of the plea of illegality, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the concept of the global marketing authorisation laid down in Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1).

Third ground of appeal: the General Court misinterpreted the legal requirements for the authorisation of combination medicinal products in 1994 and failed to recognize the renewal of the Fumaderm authorisation in 2013 in its consideration of the issue.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of mutual recognition of assessments and decisions adopted by national authorities by concluding that, in the case at hand, this principle did not apply to the EMA and Commission.

Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court misapplied the applicable standard of judicial review in relation to scientific assessments and scientific evidence by making its own assessment of the scientific data in the file.

(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).