ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure the organisational independence of the investigating body from the manager of the railway infrastructure controlled by the Minister for Transport, Information Technology and Communications and the independence of that body from that manager as regards access to the resources necessary for the performance of its tasks, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive);
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — WM v Stadt Frankfurt am Main

(Case C-18/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Conditions of detention - Article 16(1) - Detention in prison accommodation for the purpose of removal - Third-country national who poses a serious threat to public policy or public security)

(2020/C 279/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WM

Defendant: Stadt Frankfurt am Main

Operative part of the judgment

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 not precluding national legislation which allows an illegally staying third-country national to be detained in prison accommodation for the purpose of removal, separated from ordinary prisoners, on the ground that he poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or the internal or external security of the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — ‘KOB’ SIA v Madonas novada pašvaldības Administratīvo aktu strīdu komisija

(Case C-206/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 63 TFEU - Freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital - Directive 2006/123/EC - Acquisition of agricultural land in Latvia for the purpose of use - System of prior authorisation for legal persons - Specific conditions applying only to legal persons controlled or represented by nationals of another Member State - Requirements for residence and knowledge of the official language of the Republic of Latvia - Direct discrimination on grounds of nationality)

(2020/C 271/20)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘KOB’ SIA

Defendant: Madonas novada pašvaldības Administratīvo aktu strīdu komisija

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 9, 10 and 14 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the right for a legal person to acquire agricultural land located in the territory of that Member State –– in cases where the member or members who together represent more than half of the voting rights in the company, and all persons who are entitled to represent that company, are nationals of other Member States –– conditional upon, first, submitting a certificate of registration of those members or representatives as residents of that Member State and, second, a document demonstrating that they have a knowledge of the official language of that Member State corresponding to a level which enables them to at least converse on everyday subjects and on professional matters.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Cabinet de avocat UR v Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice prin Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice, MJ, NK

(Case C-424/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Article 9(1) - Concept of ‘taxable person’ - Person practising the profession of lawyer - Final judicial decision - Principle of res judicata - Scope of that principle if that decision is incompatible with EU law)

(2020/C 297/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cabinet de avocat UR

Defendants: Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice prin Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice, MJ, NK

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a person practising the profession of a lawyer must be regarded as a ‘taxable person’ within the meaning of that provision;

2. EU law precludes a national court, in a dispute relating to value added tax (VAT), from applying the principle of res judicata where that dispute does not relate to a tax period identical to the one which was at issue in the dispute which gave rise to the judicial decision having the authority of res judicata, does not have the same subject matter as that dispute, and where the application of that principle would prevent that court from taking into account EU legislation on VAT.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
1.

Declares that, by failing to provide for an investigative body which is independent in its organisation and decision-making of any party whose interests could conflict with the task entrusted to that investigative body, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 8(1) of Directive 2009/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Council Directive 1999/35/EC and Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;
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 is to be interpreted as meaning that an action for interim relief brought before a court of a Member State in which an international organisation invokes its immunity from execution in order to obtain both the lifting of an interim garnishee order executed in a Member State other than that of the forum and a prohibition on levying such an order in the future on the same grounds, brought in parallel with substantive proceedings concerning a claim arising from alleged non-payment for fuel supplied for the purposes of a peacekeeping operation carried out by that organisation, is covered by the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, in so far as that action is not pursued under public powers, within the meaning of EU law, which is a matter for the assessment of the referring court.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 — European Commission v Danilo Di Bernardo

(Case C-114/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Open competition - Non-admission to tests - Possible for the administration to supplement before the Court the statement of reasons for the decision not to admit - Conditions - Exceptional cases - Concept of ‘absence of a statement of reasons’)

(2020/C 329/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Danilo Di Bernardo (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Ehab Makhlouf v Council of the European Union

(Case C-157/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria - List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Action for annulment)

(2020/C 399/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ehab Makhlouf (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Ehab Makhlouf to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Hamas v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-386/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Fight against terrorism - Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(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 - Competent authority equivalent to a judicial authority - Sentencing decision - Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 390/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and S. Van Overmiere, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Baumgart, J. Roberti di Sarsina, C. Zadra and A. Tizzano, subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Baumgart and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Hamas shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — Impresa Pizzarotti & C SPA Italia Sucursala Cluj v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-558/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 63 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Calculation of the taxable income of companies - Persons having a relationship of interdependence - Unusual advantage granted by a resident branch to a non-resident company - Correction of the taxable income of the branch of a non-resident company - No correction of taxable income in the event of an identical advantage granted by a branch to a resident company - Principle of free competition - Restriction on freedom of establishment - Justification - Balanced allocation of the power to tax between Member States - Proportionality)

(2020/C 414/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Impresa Pizzarotti & C SPA Italia Sucursala Cluj

Defendant: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, legislation of a Member State under which a transfer of money from a resident branch to its parent company established in another Member State may be reclassified as a ‘revenue-generating transaction’, with the consequent obligation to apply the rules on transfer pricing, whereas, if the same transaction had been effected between a company branch and a parent company, both of which were established in the same Member State, that transaction would not have been classified in the same way and the rules on transfer pricing would not have been applied.

(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X

(Case C-331/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services - Annex III, point 1 - Definitions of ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ and ‘products normally used to supplement foodstuffs or as a substitute for foodstuffs’ - Aphrodisiac products)

(2020/C 399/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: X

Operative part of the judgment

The concepts of ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ and ‘products normally used to supplement foodstuffs or as a substitute for foodstuffs’, set out in point 1 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that they refer to all products containing nutrients which serve as building blocks, generate energy and regulate its functions, which are necessary to keep the human body alive and enable it to function and develop, and which are consumed in order to provide it with those nutrients.

(1) OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Sappi Austria Produktions-GmbH & Co. KG, Wasserverband ‘Region Gratkorn-Gratwein’ v Landeshauptmann von Steiermark

(Case C-629/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 2008/98/EC - Article 2(2)(a), point 1 of Article 3 and Article 6(1) - Waste water - Sewage sludge - Scope - Concept of ‘waste’ - Cessation of waste status - Recovery or recycling operation)

(2020/C 423/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sappi Austria Produktions-GmbH & Co. KG, Wasserverband ‘Region Gratkorn-Gratwein’

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Steiermark

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a), point 1 of Article 3 and Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives must be interpreted as meaning that sewage sludge generated during the joint treatment of industrial and residential or municipal waste water in a sewage treatment plant, which is incinerated in a waste incineration plant for the purposes of energy recovery by generating steam, must be regarded as not being waste if the conditions in Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98 are already met before its incineration. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
1.

Declares that, by designating as ‘competent authority’, for the purposes of Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community, an authority other than the safety authority referred to in Article 16 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(a) of Directive 2007/59;
1.

Articles 3 and 6 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking, the Member State of establishment of which intends to grant it de minimis aid that, because of existing previous aid, would raise the total amount of aid granted to that undertaking to a level above the EUR 200 000 ceiling over a period of three fiscal years laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1407/2013, may opt, until such aid is granted, to reduce the funding required or to forgo, in full or in part, previous financial assistance already received, so as not to exceed that ceiling.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against AZ

(Case C-510/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(2) - Concept of ‘executing judicial authority’ - Article 27(2) - Rule of speciality - Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4) - Derogation - Prosecution for an ‘offence other’ than that for which surrendered - Consent of the executing judicial authority - Consent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the executing Member State)

(2021/C 35/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main criminal proceedings

AZ

Interveners: Openbaar Ministerie, YU, ZV

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘executing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, constitutes an autonomous concept of EU law which must be interpreted to the effect that it covers the authorities of a Member State which, without necessarily being judges or courts, participate in the administration of criminal justice in that Member State, acting independently in the exercise of the responsibilities inherent in the execution of a European arrest warrant and which exercise their responsibilities under a procedure which complies with the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection;

2. Article 6(2) and Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the public prosecutor of a Member State who, although he or she participates in the administration of justice, may receive in exercising his or her decision-making power an instruction in a specific case from the executive, does not constitute an ‘executing judicial authority’ within the meaning of those provisions.

(1) OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
1.

Declares that, by rejecting applications for a value added tax (VAT) refund which were submitted before 30 September of the calendar year following the refund period but which did not include copies of the invoices or importation documents required by the legislation of the Member State of refund under Article 10 of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008, laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State, without first inviting applicants to complete their applications by submitting, if necessary after that date, such copies or by providing appropriate information making it possible to process said applications, the Federal Republic of Germany has, by infringing the principle of neutrality of VAT and failing to ensure the practical effect of the right to a VAT refund of taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund, failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 170 and 171 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 5 of Directive 2008/9;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v D.-H. T. acting as insolvency administrator in relation to the assets of J & S Service UG

(Case C-620/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 23 - Restrictions to the data subject’s rights - Significant financial interest - Enforcement of civil law claims - National legislation referring to the provisions of EU law - Tax data concerning a legal entity - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2021/C 44/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Defendant: D.-H. T. acting as insolvency administrator in relation to the assets of J & S Service UG

Interested party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions raised by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany) in its decision of 4 July 2019.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 December 2020 — Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v European Commission

(Case C-352/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 - Renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate - Article 263 TFEU - Standing to bring proceedings of a regional body - Whether directly concerned)

(2021/C 35/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (represented by: A. Bailleux, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, F. Castillo de la Torre, I. Naglis and F. Castilla Contreras, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.