ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought on 6 April 2021 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-9/19, ClientEarth v EIB

(Case C-223/21 P)

(2021/C 217/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Blanc and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: ClientEarth, European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— order ClientEarth to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises three grounds of appeal.

Errors in law in applying the principle of consistent interpretation as regards the Aarhus convention and in interpreting Articles 2 and 9 of the Aarhus convention (this first ground concerns paragraphs 107 and 125-126 of the judgment under appeal).

Error in law in interpreting Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation (1) on the notion of ‘administrative act’; this ground is divided in three parts:

— error in law in interpreting the notion of ‘legislation’ provided for in Article 2(1)(f) of the Aarhus Regulation (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 121-124 of the judgment under appeal);

— error in law in interpreting the notion of ‘measure of individual scope’ under Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 126-142 of the judgment under appeal);

— error in law in the interpretation of the words ‘legally binding and external effect’, laid down in the same provision (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 149-173 of the judgment under appeal).

Breach of Article 271, letter c), TFEU (this ground of appeal concerns paragraphs 89-92, 150-152 and 169-171 of the judgment under appeal).

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006, L 264, p. 13).
2.

Does the actual receipt of the amount claimed by a farmer equate to a positive decision by the paying agency on the application for activation of payment entitlements or does the non-receipt of funds in the case of publicly notified payments for the measure concerned constitute a refusal of the claimed payment entitlements where the person has not been notified of the continuation of the procedure by way of new checks?
Appeal brought on 6 January 2021 by Deutsche Post AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 November 2020 in Case T-25/20, Deutsche Post v EUIPO — Pošta Slovenije (Representation of a stylised horn)

(Case C-5/21 P)

(2021/C 242/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Post AG (represented by: M. Viefhues, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Pošta Slovenije d.o.o.

By order of 5 May 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Deutsche Post AG should bear its own costs.
1.

Is it compatible with European Union law, in particular Annex IV to the [Sixth] VAT Directive, (1) for point 2.27 of List I annexed to the VAT Code to be applied in such a way that it is taken to mean that it includes the repair and maintenance of lifts carried out by the undertaking to which the facts … above relate and that it results in the application of the reduced rate of VAT?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 1 February 2021 by Embutidos Monells, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2020 in Case T-639/19, Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo v EUIPO — Embutidos Monells (5MS MMMMM)

(Case C-59/21 P)

(2021/C 252/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Embutidos Monells, SA (represented by: L. Broschat García and L. Polo Flores, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, S. A. U., European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 18 May 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Embutidos Monells, SA to bear its own costs.
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Where a payment service provider remits electronic money from a customer’s account to the payment account of a gaming operator held with the same payment service provider and the involvement of the payment service provider in payments to the gaming operator might be perceived as being tortious in nature, is the place where the harmful event occurred within the meaning of Article 7, point 2, of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 to be found in:
1.

Is Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (‘Professional Qualifications Directive’), as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, to be interpreted as meaning that a regulated profession is to be regarded as a profession for which, on the one hand, the qualification requirements are laid down in a regulation adopted by the Minister for Education of a Member State and the content of the pedagogical competence required of a nursery school teacher is regulated in a professional standard and the Member State has had the profession of nursery school teacher entered in the database of regulated professions set up at the Commission, but for which, on the other hand, according to the wording of the regulation concerning the qualification requirements of that profession, the employer is granted discretion in assessing whether the qualification requirements are met, in particular as regards the requirement of pedagogical competence, and the nature of the evidence regarding the existence of pedagogical competence is not regulated either in the regulation in question or in any other laws, regulations or administrative provisions?
4.

If the third question is answered in the affirmative, must it be held that the appropriate legal basis for assessing the action of a trader, consisting in the use of unintelligible and unclear standard contract in relation to a consumer, will be Directive 93/13, (2) and consequently must the requirement that contractual terms be drafted in plain, intelligible language, laid down in Article 5 of Directive 93/13, be interpreted as meaning that in unit-linked assurance contracts concluded with consumers this requirement is met by a non-individually negotiated contractual term which does expressly define the scale of the investment risk during the term of the assurance contract and merely provides information about the possibility of the loss of part of the first premium paid and on-going premiums in the event of withdrawal from the assurance before the end of the liability period?
1.

Is paragraph 20.309(h) of Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union (1) to be interpreted as meaning that regulation by which government competent in the field of education: — approves curricula, — determines both the structure of education and priority and specific duties, institutes monitoring of the conditions for pupil enrolment and exclusion, decisions of class councils and financial participation, arranges for schools to be grouped into structured networks and requires educational, teaching and institutional plans to be drawn up and activity reports to be delivered, — organises checks and inspections relating specifically to subjects taught, academic level and implementation of the language laws, but excluding teaching methods, and — imposes a minimum number of pupils per class, stream, level or other subdivision, unless an exemption is granted by a minister, must be regarded as ‘excessive’ within the meaning of that provision, to the extent that it effectively dictates or binds the general policy or programme of units working in the activity concerned?
2.

Must Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013, read in conjunction with Article 18(1)(a) or with Articles 18(2)(b), (c) and (d) and with Article 20(5) of the Dublin III Regulation, be interpreted as identifying different subjects of appeal, different complaints to be raised in judicial proceedings and different aspects of infringement of the obligations to provide information and conduct a personal interview under Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013? If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, must Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 be interpreted as meaning that the guarantees relating to information, provided for therein, are enjoyed only in the scenario set out in Article 18(1)(a) and not also in the take back procedure, or must they be interpreted as meaning that in that procedure the obligations to provide information are enjoyed at least in relation to the cessation of responsibilities referred to in Article 19 or the systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants which result in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union referred to in Article 3(2)?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 10 May 2021 — État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines v Navitours SARL

(Case C-294/21)

(2021/C 297/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines

Respondent: Navitours SARL

Questions referred

Does (do) Article 2(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, (1) which provides that “the following shall be subject to value added tax: 1. the supply of goods or services effected for consideration within the territory of the country by a taxable person acting as such

and/or Article 9(2)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, which provides that “the place where transport services are supplied shall be the place where the transport takes place, having regard to the distances covered

apply and entail the levying of VAT in Luxembourg on the passenger transport services carried out by a service provider established in Luxembourg, where those services are performed within a condominium, as that condominium is defined in the Treaty between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany on the demarcation of the common border between those two States and the exchange of letters, signed in Luxembourg on 19 December 1984, as being a joint territory under the joint sovereignty of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany and in relation to which there is no agreement relating to the collection of VAT on supplies of transport services between those two States, such as provided for in Article 5(1) of the Treaty between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany on the demarcation of the common border between those two States of 19 December 1984, pursuant to which ‘the Contracting States shall settle matters concerning the law applicable in the joint territory under joint sovereignty by means of an additional agreement’?

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
1.

Must Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180[, p. 31]) be interpreted as meaning that a current transfer time limit, as referred to in Article 29(1) and (2), restarts at the point at which the foreign national, after having obstructed the transfer by a Member State by absconding, lodges a fresh application for international protection in another (in this case, a third) Member State?
Appeal brought on 17 May 2021 by Aquind Ltd, Aquind Energy Sàrl, Aquind SAS against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2021 in Case T-885/19, Aquind and Others v Commission

(Case C-310/21 P)

(2021/C 320/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Aquind Ltd, Aquind Energy Sàrl, Aquind SAS (represented by: S. Goldberg, E. White, C. Davis, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the Order under appeal;

— decide that the Application at first instance is well-founded and annul the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/389 (1) insofar as it applies to the Appellants; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants claim that the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/389 should have been considered a definitive act on the day it was adopted and not on the day of its entry into force, which was subject to absence of Parliament’s or Council’s objections. As such, this regulation was open to challenge even before the date of its publication. The appellants therefore consider that the General Court wrongly applied the Court’s case law concerning acts that are not open to challenge.

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/389 of 31 October 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Union list of projects of common interest (OJ 2020, L 74, p. 1).
3.

If the first question is answered in the negative, is the principle of accountability under Article 5(2) and Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, read in conjunction with recital 74 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that, in legal proceedings under Article 82(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the controller bears the burden of proving that the technical and organisational measures implemented are appropriate pursuant to Article 32 of that regulation? Can the obtaining of an expert’s report be regarded as a necessary and sufficient means of proof to establish whether the technical and organisational measures implemented by the controller were appropriate in a case such as the present one, where the unauthorised access to, and disclosure of, personal data are the result of a ‘hacking attack’?
a)

If an internet user merely visits websites or apps to which the criteria of Article 9(1) of the GDPR relate, such as flirting apps, gay dating sites, political party websites or health-related websites, or also enters information into them, for example when registering or when placing orders, and another undertaking, such as Facebook Ireland, uses interfaces integrated into those websites and apps, such as ‘Facebook Business Tools’, or cookies or similar storage technologies placed on the internet user’s computer or mobile device, to collect data about those visits to the websites and apps and the information entered by the user, and links those data with the data from the user’s Facebook.com account and uses them, does this collection and/or linking and/or use involve the processing of sensitive data for the purpose of that provision?
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative and VAT is payable by the issuer of an invoice under Article 203 of the VAT Directive: a. Can the correction of invoices in respect of the recipients of services be precluded if, on the one hand, a risk of loss of tax revenue is excluded and, on the other, the correction of invoices is effectively impossible? b. Does the fact that final consumers have borne the tax as part of the consideration, thereby enriching the taxable person by correcting the VAT, preclude the correction of the VAT?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 June 2021 — Criminal proceedings against Spetsializirana prokuratura

(Case C-350/21)

(2021/C 338/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Spetsializirana prokuratura

Questions referred

Is national legislation (Article 251b(1) of the Zakon za elektronnite saobshtenia (Law on electronic communications)) providing for the general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic data (traffic data and location data of users of electronic means of communication) for a period of 6 months in order to fight serious crime compatible with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, (1) read in combination with Article 5(1) and recital 11 thereof, provided that the national legislation contains certain safeguards?

Is national legislation (Article 159a of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure)) which does not limit access to traffic data to what is strictly necessary and does not grant the persons whose traffic data are accessed by the law enforcement authorities the right to be notified thereof, provided that that does not impede criminal proceedings, or the right to a legal remedy against unlawful access compatible with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, read in combination with Article 5(1) and recital 11 thereof?

(1) Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37, Special edition in Bulgarian: Chapter 13 Volume 036 P. 63).
5.

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted as meaning that it allows tasks of project management assistance and legal and environmental services to be entrusted, without a prior call for competition, to a contracting authority, in this case an inter-municipal cooperative society, where those tasks form part of a cooperation between two other contracting authorities, in this case a municipality and a public service housing company, where it is not disputed that the municipality exercises ‘joint in-house’ control over the inter-municipal cooperative society and where the municipality and the public service housing company are members of the inter-municipal cooperative society in the ‘consultancy and management and central purchasing’ sector of its object, which is specifically concerned with the tasks they wish to entrust to it, which tasks correspond to activities carried out on the market by consultancy and management firms specialising in the design, execution and implementation of projects?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v GE

(Case C-173/21)

(2021/C 382/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: GE

The case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2021.
(a)

In accordance with the principle of the primacy of EU law within the sphere of its applicability, and in particular within the context of the regulation of consumer credit and agreements with consumers, must the national court assess ‘of its own motion’ the compatibility with EU law of the case-law established by the Spanish Supreme Court (being the highest court [in Spain]), with respect to the interpretation and application of the Ley de 23 de julio de 1908, sobre nulidad de los contratos de préstamos usurarios (Law of 23 July 1908 on the nullity of predatory loan agreements), being a national provision, in so far as that case-law applies not only to the invalidity of the agreement concluded, but also to the definition of the ‘main subject matter’ of the consumer credit agreement, in the form of a ‘revolving’ credit facility, and to the adequacy of the ‘quality/price’ ratio of the service provided? Or is it the case, by contrast, as the Spanish Supreme Court states, that that duty to assess compatibility with EU law and EU directives remains conditional upon, or subordinate to, the ‘relief sought’ by the applicant (principle of party disposition), with the result that if the declaration that the consumer credit agreement is void on the ground that it is ‘of a predatory nature’ is sought as the ‘sole or main action’, that action being derived from a provision of national law, the view must be taken that the primacy of EU law and its harmonising effects ‘do not come into play’, even though the case-law established by the Spanish Supreme Court with respect to the interpretation and application of the aforementioned Law on predatory lending applies to the definition of the main subject matter and the adequacy of the quality/price ratio of the consumer credit agreement forming the subject of the case that falls to be disposed of by the national court?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 15 March 2021 — PJ v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-167/21)

(2021/C 391/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PJ

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

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

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2021.

(1) Regulation 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).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v NB

(Case C-108/21)

(2021/C 391/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: NB

Question referred

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

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 17 June 2021.

(1) Regulation 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).
3.

Is legislation which permits the same owners of individual units in a building to be treated differently (in relation to the status of ‘consumer’), depending on whether they have entered into an individual contract for the management and maintenance of the communal areas of the building or not (the management body being the general meeting of the property owners in the latter case), compatible with Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011?