ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 August 2022 — Criminal proceedings against CI, VF, DY

(Case C-574/22)

(2022/C 424/42)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

CI,

VF,

DY

Question referred

Do the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, (1) which supplement the blanket provision of Article 354a of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code, Bulgaria) in conjunction with Article 3(4) of the Zakon za kontrol varhu narkotichnite veshtestva i prekursorite (Law on the control of narcotic substances and drug precursors), allow a person to be found guilty of possession of a category 3 substance as per Annex I, namely hydrochloric acid (hydrogen chloride) in a quantity of 585 millilitres (0,585 litres)?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1).
5.

Must Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as the present one, in which there is a final act of the European Commission imposing a financial correction on a Member State for an irregularity in the expenditure of European Union funds in three separate procurement procedures, a national court is bound by the findings and conclusions of the European Commission where it is called upon to rule on an action against the imposition of a financial correction by the competent national authority in connection with one of those procurement procedures, or does it follow from that legal provision that the court must, in the context of a full judicial procedure and using all the means provided for by law, establish and examine the legally relevant facts and circumstances of the dispute, thereby providing the appropriate legal solution?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 25 August 2022 by YT, YU against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 June 2022 in Case T-532/16, YT and YU v Commission

(Case C-568/22 P)

(2022/C 441/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: YT, YU (represented by: L. Levi, J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 June 2022 in Case T-532/16, YT and YU v Commission;

— refer the present case to the Court of Justice for a ruling that the appellants’ action at first instance is well founded;

— order the defendant at first instance to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on two grounds:

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 45 TFEU, infringement by the General Court of its obligation to state reasons, error of legal characterisation and distortion of the contents of the file;

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of the purpose of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and breach of the general principle of proportionality.
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does EU law, specifically Article 25(3) of Directive 2014/17/EU, contain guidelines for the calculation of the income which the creditor receives from its reinvestment of a consumer loan relating to immovable property which has been repaid early — income to be taken into account in the context of loss of profit — and if so, what are those guidelines? In particular: (a) Must the national rules for that calculation be linked to the manner in which the creditor actually uses the amount which was repaid early? (b) May a national rule allow the creditor to calculate the compensation for early repayment on the basis of a notional reinvestment in safe capital market securities with maturities corresponding to the term of the credit agreement (‘asset/liability method’)?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 28 February 2022 by FT and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-224/20, FT and Others v Commission

(Case C-168/22 P)

(2022/C 441/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: FT and Others (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 5 October 2022, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Appeal brought on 5 July 2022 by Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-237/21, Fidelity National Information Services v EUIPO — IFIS (FIS)

(Case C-446/22 P)

(2022/C 463/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (represented by: P. Wilhelm, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 20 October 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., should bear its own costs.
Action brought on 17 October 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-651/22)

(2022/C 463/27)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Tricot and B. Rechena, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt, by 6 February 2018 at the latest, the measures necessary to comply in full with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom (1) of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom, and by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106 of that directive.

— order the Portuguese Republic pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 should have been transposed by 6 February 2018, and the Member States had to notify the Commission of the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopted in the field covered by that directive.

The deadline for transposition of the directive has already expired and, to date, the Commission has not been notified of its transposition in full, nor does it have any other information to enable it to conclude that the Portuguese Republic complied with the obligation to apply the necessary measures. In particular, the Portuguese Republic has still not established a national action plan concerning the long-term risks from radon exposures in dwellings, buildings with public access and workplaces for any source of radon ingress, whether from soil, building materials or water.

The Commission maintains that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply in full with Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013, transposing it into national law, and by not notifying the Commission of those provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106 of that directive.

(1) OJ 2014 L 13, p. 1.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 17 June 2022 by Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. (Mandelay Kft.) against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 6 April 2022 in Case T-516/20, Mandelay v EUIPO — Qx World

(Case C-405/22 P)

(2022/C 482/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. (Mandelay Kft.) (represented by: V. Luszcz, C. Sár and E. Ulviczki, ügyvédek)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 8 November 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Mandelay Kft. should bear its own costs.
Appeal brought on 23 September 2022 by HV and HW against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2022 in Case T-864/19, AI and Others v ECDC

(Case C-615/22 P)

(2022/C 482/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: HV and HW (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, avocates)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control,

AI and HY

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment under appeal.

— Declare the appeal brought before the General Court to be well-founded insofar as it requested the annulment of the decision dated 11 February 2019 rejecting the appellants’ request for compensation of 11 October 2018, annul, if need be, the decision dated 10 September 2019 rejecting the appellants’ complaint of 10 May 2019 and award the appellants the payment of financial compensation for the material and moral prejudice they sustained.

— Award the reimbursement of the appellants’ incurred legal costs for both proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Breach of the principle of the duty of assistance as defined by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union read or not in conjunction with the Manual for ECDC Confidential Counsellors. Error in law when defining the scope of such duty in the absence of a formal request for assistance. Breach of the duty to ensure healthy, safe and dignified working conditions.

Error in the legal characterisation of the facts by deciding that the elements of the file did not entail an obligation for the Defendant to provide assistance. Distortion of the facts and evidence.
14.

If the answer to any of Questions 1 to 4, 5 to 8, and 9 to 12, and especially the answer to Question 13, is in the affirmative, must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU (principle of effective legal protection), in conjunction with Article 2 TEU, in particular in conjunction with the principle of respect for the rule of law, as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice (judgment of 21 December 2021 in Joined Cases C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19, [Euro Box Promotion and Others], EU:C:2021:1034), and the principle of judicial independence established in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice (judgment of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117), be interpreted as meaning that those principles, in view of the possibility of pressure being exerted indirectly on judges and the possibility of the Public Prosecutor General issuing binding instructions in this regard to lower-ranking public prosecutors, preclude national legislation stating that the prosecutor’s office is to be dependent on an executive authority, such as the Minister for Justice, and also preclude the existence of national rules which limit the independence of the courts and the independence of the public prosecutor in the application of European Union law, in particular: (a) Article 130(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca 2001 roku o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 27 July 2001 on the system of the ordinary courts), which permits the Minister for Justice — in connection with the public prosecutor’s obligation to report a situation in which a court gives judgment applying European Union law — to order the immediate suspension of a judge’s service activities pending a decision by the disciplinary court, for no longer than one month, when, on account of the nature of the offence committed by the judge and given effect in the direct application of European Union law, the Minister for Justice considers that the authority of the court and the essential interests of the service so require; (b) Articles 1(2), 3(1)(1) and (3), 7(1) to (6) and (8), and 13(1) and (2) of the Ustawa z dnia 28 stycznia 2016 roku Prawo o prokuraturze (Law of 28 January 2016 on the Public Prosecutor’s Office), the content of which, considered in conjunction with one another, indicates that the Minister for Justice, who is also the Public Prosecutor General and the highest authority of the public prosecutor’s office, may issue instructions which are binding on lower-ranking public prosecutors also to the extent that they restrict or impede the direct application of European Union law?
1.

May Directive 2010/75/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), in particular recitals 4, 18, 34, 28 and 29 and Articles 3(2), 11, 12 and 23 thereof, together with the precautionary principle and the principle of the protection of human health referred to in Article 191 TFEU and Article 174 of the [EC] Treaty, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, on the basis of a national law, provide that the Assessment of Adverse Effects on Health (AAEH) is an act falling outside the scope of the procedure for the grant and review of the Integrated Environmental Permit (IEP) — in this instance [the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers (DPCM) of] 2017 — and that the drawing up of an AAEH need not have any automatic consequences in terms of its timely and proper consideration by the competent authority in the context of an IEP/DPCM review procedure, especially where the AAEH indicates an unacceptable health risk for a significant population affected by the polluting emissions, or may that directive rather be interpreted as meaning that: (i) the tolerable risk to human health may be assessed by means of a scientific, epidemiological analysis; (ii) the AAEH must be an act coming within the scope of the IEP/DPCM grant and review procedure, and indeed a necessary prerequisite of that procedure and one demanding mandatory, proper and timely consideration by the authority having competence to grant and review the IEP?
4.

Does Article 1(2) of Directive (EU) 2018/822 infringe the right to respect for private life as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in that the new Article 8ab(5) which it inserted in Directive 2011/16/EU, provides that, where a Member State takes the necessary measures to give intermediaries the right to a waiver from filing information on a reportable cross-border arrangement where the reporting obligation would breach legal professional privilege under the national law of that Member State, that Member State is obliged to require the intermediaries to notify, without delay, any other intermediary or, if there is no such intermediary, the relevant taxpayer, of their reporting obligations, in so far as the effect of that obligation is to oblige an intermediary bound by legal professional privilege subject to criminal sanctions under the national law of that Member State to share with another intermediary, not being his client, information which he obtains in the course of the essential activities of his profession?
Appeal brought on 23 September 2022 by Tigercat International Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2022 in Case T-251/21, Tigercat International Inc. v EUIPO

(Case C-612/22 P)

(2023/C 24/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Tigercat International Inc. (represented by: B. Führmeyer, Rechtsanwalt, E. B. Matthes, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Caterpillar Inc.

By order of 05 December 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Tigercat International Inc. should bear its own costs.
Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order made on 30 November 2022 — Ntinos Ramon v European Commission

(Case C-742/22 SA)

(2023/C 35/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ntinos Ramon (represented by: Achilleas Dimitriadis, Charalampos Pogiatzis and Alexandros Dimitriadis, lawyers, and Pavlos Eleftheriadis, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order waiver of the immunity of the European Commission under Article 1 of the Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union and authorise service and enforcement of the garnishee order nisi dated 23 June 2022 issued by the Eparchiako Dikastirio Ammochostou (District Court, Famagusta, Cyprus) against the European Commission subject to the waiver of its immunity, concerning the claims made by Mr Ramon against Türkiye in the amount of EUR 622 114,52 awarded to him in 2010 by the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) on the ground of the violation of his rights on account of the unlawful occupation of his property by the Turkish authorities;

— order any remedy which it considers appropriate and equitable in the circumstances of the case;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, plus VAT.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Türkiye has claims against the European Union that are certain, payable and liquid under the following financing agreements concluded between the EU and Türkiye:

(a) the 2018 financing agreement ‘Annual action plan in favour of Turkey — 2018’ of 6 November 2019, for a maximum amount of EUR 98,4 million;

(b) the 2019 financing agreement ‘Annual action plan in favour of Turkey — 2019’, of 4 June 2020, for a maximum amount of EUR 157,7 million;

(c) the 2020 financing agreement ‘Annual action plan in favour of Turkey — 2020’ of 26 March 2021, for a maximum amount of EUR 122 million.

The purpose of the pre-accession aid from the European Union is, inter alia, to support Türkiye in carrying out reforms to bring it closer to the European acquis, including respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights.

The garnishee order sought by the applicant concerns the enforcement of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 October 2010, Ramon v. Turkey (CE:ECHR:2010:1026JUD002909295), and is a measure to promote, protect and respect human rights.

The garnishee order against the debts of fixed amount payable to Türkiye by the EU, in the amount owed by Türkiye to Mr Ramon, will not hinder the smooth functioning of the European Union or restrict its independence. On the contrary, it will contribute to the achievement of one of the main objectives of the pre-accession aid granted to Turkey, namely respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights by the candidate country for accession to the European Union.
5.

Legal consequences of obtaining evidence in a manner contrary to EU law (a) In the case where evidence is obtained by means of an EIO which is contrary to EU law, can a prohibition on the use of evidence arise directly from the principle of effectiveness under EU law? (b) In the case where evidence is obtained by means of an EIO which is contrary to EU law, does the principle of equivalence under EU law lead to a prohibition on the use of evidence where the measure underlying the gathering of evidence in the executing State should not have been ordered in a similar domestic case in the issuing State and the evidence obtained by means of such an unlawful domestic measure could not be used under the law of the issuing State? (c) Is it contrary to EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, if the use in criminal proceedings of evidence, the obtaining of which was contrary to EU law precisely because there was no suspicion of an offence, is justified in a balancing of interests by the seriousness of the offences which first became known through the analysis of the evidence? (d) In the alternative: does it follow from EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, that infringements of EU law in the obtaining of evidence in national criminal proceedings cannot remain completely without consequence, even in the case of serious criminal offences, and must therefore be taken into account in favour of the accused person at least when assessing evidence or determining the sentence?
1.

Is it compatible with EU law if, under national law, in the case of a credit agreement linked to a contract of sale, following the effective exercise of the consumer’s right of withdrawal under Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC, (1) (a) a consumer’s claim against the creditor for repayment of the loan instalments paid does not arise until the consumer has, for his part, returned the object purchased to the creditor or provided proof that he has dispatched it to the creditor? (b) in accordance with the first sentence of Paragraph 358(4), read in conjunction with the first sentence, first option, of Paragraph 357(4), of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code; ‘the BGB’), the consumer is required to return the vehicle to the creditor at the latter’s place of business? (c) there is no default of acceptance of the vehicle on the part of the creditor if the latter is willing to obtain the vehicle by way of advance performance but contests the substantive conditions for a valid withdrawal? (d) an action brought by the consumer for repayment of the loan instalments paid by the consumer after having returned the financed vehicle is to be dismissed as currently unfounded if the creditor has not unduly delayed in accepting the object purchased?
Appeal brought on 18 August 2022 by Compass Tex Ltd against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2022 in Case T-704/21, Compass Tex Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-550/22 P)

(2023/C 45/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Compass Tex Ltd (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 7 December 2022, 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2008 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-442/04) (1)

(Fisheries - Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 - Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004 - Management of the fishing effort - Fixing of the maximum annual fishing effort - Reference period - Community fishing areas and resources - Biologically sensitive areas - Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties - Plea of illegality - Admissibility - Principle of non-discrimination - Misuse of powers)

(2008/C 171/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Braquehais Conesa and A. Sampol Pucurull, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

Intervener: Commission of the European Communities (represented by T. van Rijn and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Articles 1 to 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004 of 19 July 2004 fixing the maximum annual fishing effort for certain fishing areas and fisheries (OJ 2004 L 258, p. 1) — Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination — Misuse of powers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.