ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 26 November 2020 — VT v Centre public d’action sociale de Liège (CPAS)

(Case C-641/20)

(2021/C 44/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VT

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Liège (CPAS)

Question referred

Where a Member State decides to withdraw from a refugee his status as such, pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2011/95, (1) and then to withdraw his [right of] residence and order him to leave the national territory, are Articles 7 and 13 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[,] (2) read in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that the person concerned retains a provisional right of residence and his social rights while the judicial remedy brought against the decision to end his residence and to return him is being examined?

(1) 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 (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

(2) OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2020 — Interporto di Trieste SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

(Case C-608/20)

(2021/C 53/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Interporto di Trieste SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Question referred

Does EU law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as that in Article 26(2) and (3) of Decree-Law No 91/2014, as converted by Law No 116/2014, which significantly reduces or delays the payment of incentives already granted by law and defined on the basis of corresponding agreements concluded by undertakings generating electrical energy by means of photovoltaic conversion with Gestore dei servizi energetici SpA, a public company responsible for that process?

In particular, is that provision of national law compatible with the general principles of EU law relating to legitimate expectation, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and effectiveness, with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and with the rules governing support schemes laid down in that directive, and with Article 216(2) TFEU, in particular in relation to the European Energy Charter Treaty?

(1) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2020 — W.J. v L.J. and J.J. represented by their legal representative A.P.

(Case C-644/20)

(2021/C 53/34)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: W.J.

Defendants: L.J. and J.J. represented by their legal representative A.P.

Question referred

Must Article 3(1) and (2) of the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/941/EC of 30 November 2009 (OJ 2009 L 331, p. 17), (1) be interpreted as meaning that a creditor who is a child may acquire a new habitual residence in the State in which he or she was wrongfully retained if a court orders the return of the creditor to the State in which he or she habitually resided immediately prior to the wrongful retention?

(1) OJ 2009 L 331, p. 17.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH

(Case C-633/20)

(2021/C 62/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH

Question referred

Is an undertaking which maintains, as the policyholder, foreign travel medical insurance and insurance covering foreign and domestic repatriation costs as a group insurance policy for its customers with an insurance undertaking, distributes to consumers memberships entitling them to claim insurance benefits in the event of illness or accident abroad and receives a fee from recruited members for the insurance cover purchased an insurance intermediary within the meaning of Article 2(3) and (5) of Directive 2002/92/EC (1) and Article 2(1)(1), (3) and (8) of Directive (EU) 2016/97? (2)

(1) Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (OJ 2003 L 9, p. 3).

(2) Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution (recast) (OJ 2016 L 26, p. 19).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-636/20)

(2021/C 62/18)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tolnatext Bt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Must Article 22(6) and Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (1) be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to procedures carried out by a customs authority which is not acting in a judicial capacity, that authority must grant a right to be heard in procedures undertaken ex officio as well as in those undertaken on application?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).
1.

In cases other than those involving corporate control, what are the relevant criteria for establishing whether contractual coordination among formally autonomous and independent economic operators results in the creation of a single economic entity for the purposes of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU? Specifically, can the existence of a certain level of interference in the commercial decisions of another undertaking, which is typical of cooperative commercial relationships between producers and distribution intermediaries, be deemed sufficient reason to classify those undertakings as part of the same economic unit? Is it necessary for a ‘hierarchical’ link to exist between the two undertakings, identified by the existence of a contract under which several autonomous undertakings ‘submit’ to management and coordination by one of their number, thus making it necessary for the Authority to prove that there is a systemic and consistent range of guidelines likely to influence the undertaking’s management decisions, namely strategic and operational decisions of a financial, industrial and commercial nature?
2.

May a carrier that sells tickets through its own website for flights operated under the code of another airline be considered an operating air carrier for the purposes of Article 5(5) of Regulation No 261/2004 in respect of the specific flights it sells that are operated by another company where the company that operates a flight is part of the corporate group of the company that sells tickets for that flight?
Appeal brought on 10 November 2020 by Ms Anne-Marie Klose against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2020 in Case T-81/20, Anne-Marie Klose v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-600/20 P)

(2021/C 98/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Anne-Marie Klose (represented by: I. Seher, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 11 February 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided not to allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 25 August 2020 by Brands Up OÜ against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-651/19 Brands Up OÜ v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-404/20 P)

(2021/C 88/15)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Appellant: Brands Up OÜ (represented by: M. Welin, asianajaja and J. Kaulo, luvan saanut oikeudenkäyntiavustaja)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 17 December 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) refused to grant leave to appeal and to order Brands Up OÜ to bear its own costs.
1.

Should Article 3(1)(a) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, be interpreted as meaning that passengers are entitled to financial compensation from a non-Community air carrier when they arrive at their final destination with a delay of more than three hours as a result of a delay of the last flight, the place of departure and the place of arrival of which are both situated in the territory of a third country, without a stopover in the territory of a Member State, in a series of connecting flights commencing at an airport situated in the territory of a Member State, all of which have been physically operated by that non-Community air carrier and all of which have been reserved in a single booking by the passengers with a Community air carrier which has not physically operated any of those flights?
2.

Does the second sentence of paragraph 53 suggest a test different to that identified in paragraph 51 of the Amoena Decision, and derived from the HS explanatory note to heading 8473, by requiring that the brassieres (i.e. the potential accessory) must allow the breast forms to perform a function other than that for which ‘they’ (presumably, the breast forms) are designed, or instead only intend to apply the test identified in paragraph 51, which requires the brassieres to perform a service relative to the main function of the breast form?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 31 December 2020 by Ultrasun AG against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2020 in Case T-805/19, Ultrasun AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-722/20 P)

(2021/C 182/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Ultrasun AG (represented by: A. Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 25 March 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
1.

Is Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (1) (‘the European Insolvency Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that a debtor company the statutory seat of which is situated in a Member State does not have the centre of its main interests in a second Member State in which the place of its central administration is situated, as can be determined on the basis of objective factors ascertainable by third parties, in the case where, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the debtor company has moved that place of central administration from a third Member State to the second Member State at a time when a request to have the main insolvency proceedings opened in respect of its assets has been lodged in the third Member State and a decision on that request has not yet been delivered?
Appeal brought on 16 December 2020 by Eleanor Sharpston against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2020 in Case T-180/20, Sharpston v Council and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

(Case C-684/20 P)

(2021/C 310/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Eleanor Sharpston (represented by: N. Forwood, Barrister-at-Law, J. Robb, Barrister, J. Flynn QC and H. Mercer QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

By order of 16 June 2021, the Court of Justice (First Chamber) decided that the appeal is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 16 December 2020 by smart things solutions GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2020 in Case T-48/19, smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things)

(Case C-681/20 P)

(2021/C 228/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: smart things solutions GmbH (represented by: R. Dissmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Samsung Electronics GmbH

By order of 24 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that smart things solutions GmbH should bear its own costs.
Appeal brought on 27 January 2021 by European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-735/18, Aquind v ACER

(Case C-46/21 P)

(2021/C 98/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: P. Martinet, E. Tremmel, Agents, B. Creve, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Aquind Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part;

— if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, dismiss the action at first instance as unfounded;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

— order Aquind Ltd to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court upheld the applicant's fourth plea and ninth plea and, on that basis, annulled Decision A-001-2018 of the Board of Appeal of ACER, dismissed the remainder of the application, and ordered ACER to pay the costs. In the present appeal, ACER submits that the General Court committed the following errors of law:

1. The General Court erred in law with regard to the intensity of the review undertaken by the Board of Appeal of ACER, in general and in the case at hand, with regard to errors in complex technical and economic assessments.

2. The General Court erred in law with regard to the interpretation of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation 714/2009. (1)

(1) Règlement (CE) no 714/2009 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 13 juillet 2009 sur les conditions d’accès au réseau pour les échanges transfrontaliers d’électricité et abrogeant le règlement (CE) no 1228/2003 (OJ 2009, L 211, p. 15).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL v État belge — SPF Finances

(Case C-53/21)

(2021/C 128/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL

Respondent: État belge — SPF Finances

Question referred

Is Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding legislation, or a national practice, under which companies established in one Member State which use services of companies established in another Member State are required, in order to avoid a corporation tax levy of 100 % or 50 % of the sums invoiced by the latter, to complete and submit to the tax authorities individual fee forms and summary statements relating to those expenses whereas, if they use the services of resident companies, they are under no such obligation in order to avoid that levy?
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative and Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation does not provide a basis for an effective remedy, must Article 47 of the Charter — read in conjunction with the fundamental right to family unity and the best interests of the child (as laid down in Articles 8 to 10 and recital 19 of the Dublin Regulation) — be interpreted as requiring the requested Member State to provide the applicant residing in the requesting Member State and seeking transfer pursuant to Articles 8 to 10 of the Dublin Regulation or the member of the applicant’s family referred to in Articles 8 to 10 of the Dublin Regulation, with an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against the refusal of the request to take charge?
2.

Is Directive 2012/34 binding for České dráhy, a.s., as the State in the broader sense of the word, pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? Can individuals rely on the direct effect of an incorrectly transposed or untransposed directive against České dráhy, a.s.?
—

rule that the Republic of Poland: — by allowing the extension by 6 years of the development consent for the extraction of lignite without conducting an environmental impact assessment, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2011/92 (1) in conjunction with Article 4(4) to (6), Article 5(1) and (2) and Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9 of that directive; — by allowing the exclusion of the public concerned from the procedure for the grant of development consent for extraction activity, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) to (7), Article 7(5), Article 8, Article 9 and Article 11(1) of Directive 2011/92; — by declaring the EIA decision to be immediately enforceable, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1) of Directive 2011/92; — by failing to include in the EIA decision a potential procedure to be followed in the case where exemptions are not granted for the bodies of water concerned under Article 4(5) of Directive 2000/60, (2) has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1)(a)(ii) and 4(1)(b)(ii) of Directive 2000/60; — by failing to allow the intervention of the public concerned and of the Czech Republic in the procedure for the grant of the mining development consent until 2026, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) to (7), Article 7(1), (2) and (5) and Article 8 of Directive 2011/92; — by failing to publish the mining development consent granted until 2026 and failing to provide it to the Czech Republic in a comprehensible form, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2011/92; — by failing to enable judicial review of the mining development consent granted until 2026, has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 11(1) of Directive 2011/92; — by failing to publish the mining development consent granted until 2026, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of Directive 2003/4; (3) — by failing to provide complete information in connection with the procedure for the grant of the mining development consent until 2026, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principle of sincere cooperation within the meaning of Article 4(3) TEU; — by failing, in the mining development consent granted until 2026, to have sufficient regard to the EIA decision, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92 in conjunction with Article 4(1) thereof; — by failing to set sufficient environmental conditions in the mining development consent granted until 2026, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8a(1)(b) of Directive 2011/92
1.

Would it be in conformity with Article 6 of the Charter — read in conjunction with Article 5(4), (2) and (1)(c) ECHR — and with Article 47 of the Charter, the right to freedom of movement, the principle of equality and the principle of mutual trust if the issuing judicial authority, according to Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, were to make no effort whatsoever to inform the requested person, while he or she is in the territory of the executing Member State, of the factual and legal bases for his or her arrest and of the right to challenge the arrest warrant?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 4 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v GD and WT

(Case C-135/21)

(2021/C 182/59)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendants: GD, WT

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees which is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
1.

If the applicant establishes that its exclusive supply contract under a brand name (on a commission basis or an executed sale basis with a discounted reference resale price) with REPSOL falls within the territorial and temporal scope examined by the national competition authority, must the contractual relationship be found to be covered by the decision of the Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia (Competition Court, Spain) of 11 July 2001 (case 490/00 REPSOL) and/or by the decision of the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (National Competition Commission, Spain) of 30 July 2009 (case 652/07 REPSOL/CEPSA/BP), the conditions laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) regarding the burden of proof of the infringement being deemed to be satisfied pursuant to those decisions?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 March 2021 — RW v Österreichische Post AG

(Case C-154/21)

(2021/C 217/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RW

Defendant: Österreichische Post AG

Question referred

Is Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the right of access is limited to information concerning categories of recipient where specific recipients have not yet been determined in the case of planned disclosures, but that right must necessarily also cover recipients of those disclosures in cases where data has already been disclosed?

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).