ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought on 6 June 2022 by Planistat Europe and Mr Hervé-Patrick Charlot against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 April 2022 in Case T-735/20, Planistat Europe and Charlot v Commission

(Case C-363/22 P)

(2022/C 303/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Planistat Europe, Mr Hervé-Patrick Charlot (represented by: F. Martin Laprade, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:

— Confirm the judgment of the General Court in that it declared admissible in part the action with regard to the compensation for the damage suffered by the appellants as a result of making false accusations;

— Annul the judgment of the General Court in that it found the action of the appellants in part time-barred and in that it dismissed the action for non-contractual liability as a result;

— Find that the Commission incurred non-contractual liability;

— Order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 150 000 for the non-material damage suffered by Mr Hervé-Patrick Charlot;

— Order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 11 600 000 for the non-material damage suffered by the appellants;

— Order the Commission to recognise publicly its error so that the image and reputation of the appellants is restored;

— Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on three grounds.

The first ground alleges an error of law committed by the General Court that misconstrued the event giving rise to the damage relied upon by the appellants, while failing to mention the fact that the non-material damage resulted also from the media coverage of the complaints brought before the criminal authorities, and stating that the material damage resulted exclusively from the termination of the contracts concluded with the Commission.

That error led the General Court to infer, mistakenly, that the claims brought by the appellants were in part time-barred.

The General Court also failed to apply correctly the rule of law concerning the procedure for calculating the limitation period.

The second ground also alleges that the General Court erred in law in the assessment of the unlawfulness of the defamatory behaviour. The first part of that ground alleges infringement of the fundamental principle of the right to respect for private life; the second part alleges infringement of the right to sound administration.

The third and final ground alleges an error of law on the part of the General Court as regards assessing the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 3 January 2022 by Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 October 2021 in Case T-22/21, Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission

(Case C-3/22 P)

(2022/C 303/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL (represented by: D. Luff, avocat, and by R. Sciaudone, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 27 June 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and that Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior SL shall bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 17 March 2022 — Lineas — Concessões de Transportes SGPS, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-207/22)

(2022/C 318/28)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lineas — Concessões de Transportes SGPS, S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

May a holding company which has as its sole object the management of shareholdings in other companies, as an indirect means of pursuing economic activities, and which, in that context, acquires and holds on a long-term basis such shareholdings, which, in general, are at least 10 % of the share capital of the companies in which it has a shareholding, where the activity of those companies comes within the category of transport infrastructure management, including the design, construction and management of roads and/or motorways, be regarded as a ‘financial institution’ within the meaning of Directive 2013/36/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 575/2013? (2)

(1) Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).
2.

Does Article 17 of Directive 2016/680 (1) comply with Articles 47 and 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, in that it obliges the supervisory authority — which exercises the rights of the data subject vis-à-vis the controller — only to inform the data subject ‘that all necessary verifications or a review by the supervisory authority have taken place’ and ‘of his or her right to seek a judicial remedy’, when such information does not enable any a posteriori review to be conducted as regards the action taken and assessment made by the supervisory authority in the light of the data of the data subject and the obligations of the controller?
Action brought on 3 June 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-360/22)

(2022/C 318/42)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by approving and maintaining in force Articles 85(1)(b) and 87(2)(f) of the Pensioenwet (Law on Pensions), read in conjunction with Article 19b(2) of the Wet op de loonbelasting (Law on Wages Tax), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 45, 56 and 63 TFEU and Articles 28, 36 and 40 EEA;

— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the opinion that the Netherlands legislation concerning the transfer of pension capital accumulated in the so-called ‘second pillar’, the supplementary pension accumulation via the employer, is incompatible with the free of movement of workers, services and capital, since in a cross-border situation an outgoing transfer of pension capital without being taxed is possible only if the possibilities of redeeming the pension as a capital sum are the same as, or more limited than, in the Netherlands. In a number of Member States, pensions can be wholly or partially redeemed in the form of a lump-sum payment whereby mobile workers transferring their pension capital to one of those Member States are taxed. Similar transfers of pension capital within the Netherlands are not taxed.
II.

Must the second sentence of Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/858, according to which information is to be presented ‘in an easily accessible manner in the form of machine-readable and electronically processable datasets’, and the second subparagraph of Article 61(2), according to which, for independent operators other than repairers, ‘the information shall also be given in a machine-readable format that is capable of being electronically processed with commonly available information technology tools and software and which allows independent operators to carry out the task associated with their business in the aftermarket supply chain’, be interpreted as meaning that the vehicle manufacturer fulfils its obligations in that regard only by 1. making the information accessible via the internet by means of a machine-controlled query via a database interface, which provides the possibility to download the results, or is it sufficient that the vehicle manufacturer enables only a manual search by a human user on-screen on a website and limits the result of the query to the visible content of the pages displayed on-screen? and 2. making it possible for all information in the database linked to the vehicle manufacturer’s vehicle identification numbers (VINs) to be searched for on the basis of those VINs, which are to be provided by it in a separate list, and, independently of that possibility, — also on the basis of other vehicle identification characteristics in accordance with the third subparagraph of point 6.1 of Annex X to the regulation — and on the basis of the terms that the vehicle manufacturer otherwise uses for categories (such as categories of components, spare parts, repair and maintenance instructions and technical illustrations) and other database entries in any combination or is it sufficient that the manufacturer offers the search exclusively as an individual query based on the VIN of a single, specific vehicle without at the same time providing an up-to-date list of all its vehicles’ VINs? and 3. providing those datasets in files in a format which is intended to make the datasets contained therein directly amenable to (further) electronic processing, the description of the dataset concerned being specified (in the case of texts and tables), or is the possibility to export mere screenshots in any conventional file format, such as a PDF file, sufficient for that purpose?
Action brought on 7 July 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-449/22)

(2022/C 326/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Caro de Sousa, U. Małecka, L. Malferrari and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC), by 21 December 2020, or, in any event, has failed to communicate those rules to the Commission, thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under Article 124(1) of that directive;

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay a fixed daily amount of EUR 5 181,3 from 22 December 2020 until the Portuguese Republic has fulfilled its obligation or the date of delivery of the judgment in terms of Article 260(3) TFEU, for an amount of at least EUR 1 286 000;

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay a daily penalty payment of EUR 23 307,3 from the date of delivery of the judgment until the Portuguese Republic fulfils its obligation;

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive (EU) 2018/1972 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishes the European Electronic Communications Code (‘the EECC’). That directive ought to have been transposed into the Portuguese legal order by 21 December 2020, and the Portuguese Republic ought to have communicated to the Commission the transposition measures adopted.

On 3 February 2021, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Portuguese Republic and, subsequently, a reasoned opinion on 23 September 2021. The Portuguese Republic has still not adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2018/1972 or, in any event, informed the Commission of the adoption of those rules.

(1) OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36.
3.

If the answer to the second question is in the negative, does Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora also require an assessment to be carried out for plans and projects (activities) which are not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the special area of conservation but which are likely to have a significant effect on conservation areas of European importance (Natura 2000), but which are nevertheless undertaken in accordance with national legislation in order to satisfy forest fire protection and firefighting requirements?
2.

Is the national court entitled to maintain — autonomously and without submitting a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU — the effects, as regards the past, of a national provision held to be contrary to the VAT Directive, on the basis of a general reference to ‘important considerations of legal certainty affecting all the interests involved, both public and private’ and an alleged ‘practical impossibility of refunding unduly collected VAT to the recipients of the supplies or services provided by the taxable person or of claiming payment from them in the event of an erroneous failure to charge them, particularly where a large number of unidentified persons is involved, or where the taxable persons do not have an accounting system that enables them subsequently to identify the supplies or services in question and their value’ when the taxable persons have not even been given the possibility of demonstrating that such a ‘practical impossibility’ does not exist?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 June 2022 — LR v Ministero dell’Istruzione, Ufficio scolastico regionale Lombardia, Ufficio scolastico regionale Friuli Venezia Giulia

(Case C-377/22)

(2022/C 359/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LR

Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione, Ufficio scolastico regionale Lombardia, Ufficio scolastico regionale Friuli Venezia Giulia

Question referred

Without prejudice to the possibility of considering the years of service completed by the applicant in the United Kingdom under EU law, notwithstanding the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, must Article 45(1) and (2) TFEU and Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1) be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that laid down in Article 1(6) of decreto legge n. 126/2019 (Decree-Law No 126/2019), converted, with amendments, by legge n. 159/2019 (Law No 159/2019), according to which, in order to take part in the extraordinary competition for the recruitment of permanent teaching staff at Italian secondary schools, only the years of service completed by candidates on fixed-term contracts at Italian State secondary schools are considered valid, and not the years of service at peer institutions in other European countries, given that the procedure in question is specifically intended to counter the phenomenon of precarious employment in Italy? If the Court of Justice does not hold the Italian legislation to be contrary, in abstract terms, to the European regulatory framework, can the measures envisaged by that legislation be regarded as proportionate, in concrete terms, in view of the abovementioned public-interest objective?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).
C)

Can the national legislation be considered to include measures that are a sufficient deterrent against public administrative authorities and public sector bodies in respect of the use of successive contracts or renewals of temporary contracts contrary to clause 5 of the Framework Agreement, which are aimed at ‘preventing and penalising the misuse of contracts of indefinite duration’ by an employer in relation to other and future workers, which fulfil the conditions established by the case-law of the CJEU in its judgments of 7 March 2018 in Case C-494/16, Santoro, and of 8 May 2019 in Case C-494/17, Rossato, where those measures consist of legal provisions introduced with effect from 2017 (34th additional provision of Ley 3/2017 de Presupuestos Generales del Estado para el año 2017 (Law 3/2017 on General State Budgets for 2017) () of 27 June 2017; 43rd additional provision of Ley 6/2018 de Presupuestos Generales del Estado para el año 2018 (Law 6/2018 on General State Budgets for 2018) of 3 July 2018; and Real Decreto-ley 14/2021 (Royal Decree-Law 14/2021) of 6 July 2021) which state that liability will be established for ‘unlawful actions’ without specifying that liability other than by a general reference to legislation which does not specify [it] and without any specific instance of the establishment of liability existing in the context of thousands of judgments which have ruled that workers have non-permanent contracts of indefinite duration on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions on temporary contracts?
Appeal brought on 6 July 2022 by the Republic of Slovenia against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 April 2022 in Case T-392/20, Petra Flašker v European Commission

(Case C-447/22 P)

(2022/C 359/55)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: B. Jovin Hrastnik)

Other parties to the proceedings: Petra Flašker, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court;

— dismiss the action brought at first instance; and

— order the applicant at first instance to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

In the event that the Court should find that the state of proceedings does not permit final judgment to be given, the appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court; and

— refer the case back to the General Court for judgment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The General Court misapplied the law, by misinterpreting Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU and Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) by misconstruing the scope of the obligations on the Commission at the stage of the preliminary examination of a notified measure, and ruling incorrectly as regards the existence of serious difficulties which the Commission faced in examining the measures in question, that is to say the assets under management received by the public pharmacies Lekarna Ljubljana p.o. and Lekarna Ljubljana after 1979

2. The General Court misapplied the law, by making an incorrect legal classification of the facts and wrongly finding that the Commission, by reference to the assets granted under management to Lekarna Ljubljana p.o. in 1979 and transferred to Lekarna Ljubljana in 1997, had faced serious difficulties, as a result of which it had to begin in this case the investigation procedure provided for under Article 108(2) TFEU.

3. The General Court misapplied the law in so far as its judgment is vitiated by failure to provide adequate reasons.

4. The General Court infringed the procedural rules by, on the one hand, taking into consideration general assertions put forward in the application by the applicant and, on the other hand, failing to take into consideration certain allegations put forward by the Commission in its defence. As such, it infringed the Commission’s right to an effective remedy and a fair hearing, which also adversely affected the interests of the appellant in the current case.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9)
1.

Does a power of attorney by which the agent makes a disposal of assets on behalf of the payer by means of a payment order constitute a payment instrument within the meaning of Article 4(23) of [Directive 2007/64/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC]?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts München (Germany) lodged on 12 July 2022 — DP v BMW Bank GmbH

(Case C-463/22)

(2022/C 380/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgerichts München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DP

Defendant: BMW Bank GmbH

Questions referred

1. Does a distance contract within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/65/EC (1) and point 7 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU (2) exist where the only personal contact during contractual negotiations was with a credit intermediary who initiates transactions with consumers for and on behalf of the trader but does not personally have any power of representation to conclude the contracts in question?

2. Does an off-premises contract within the meaning of points 8 and 9 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83 exist where the contractual negotiations take place on the premises of a credit intermediary who initiates transactions with consumers for and on behalf of the trader but does not personally have any power of representation to conclude the contracts in question?

3. Do mileage-based motor vehicle leasing agreements concluded with a consumer constitute contracts for financial services within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/65/EC, now incorporated in point 12 of Article 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU?

(1) Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).

(2) 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).
3.

If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the negative: Must Directive 92/13, and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 1(1) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the competence of a national review body to review decisions of contracting entities must cover all contracting entities located in the Member State of the review body, or must the competence be determined on the basis of whether the dominant influence over the contracting entity (for the purposes of Article 3(4)(c) and Article 4(2) of Directive 2014/25) is exercised by a federal, regional or local authority or by a body governed by public law which is to be attributed to the Member State of the review body?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 July 2022 — EM v Roompot Service B.V.

(Case C-497/22)

(2022/C 389/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: EM

Defendant and respondent: Roompot Service B.V.

Question referred

Must the first sentence of Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a contract which is concluded between a private individual and a commercial lessor of holiday homes in relation to the short-term letting of a bungalow in a holiday park operated by the lessor, and which provides for cleaning at the end of the stay and the provision of bed linen as further services in addition to the mere letting of the bungalow, is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State in which the rented property is situated, irrespective of whether the holiday bungalow is owned by the lessor or by a third party?

(1) 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 (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).