ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2022 — CE v Committee of the Regions

(Case C-539/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary Staff - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Article 2(c) - Contract for an indefinite period - Early termination with notice - Article 47(c)(i) - Breakdown in relationship of trust - Terms implementing the notice - Manifest error of assessment and error of law - Omissions - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2022/C 472/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: CE (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Committee of the Regions (represented by: S. Bachotet and M. Espárrago Arzadun, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders CE to bear her costs and to pay those incurred by the Committee of the Regions.

(1) OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
1.

Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for a system of joint and several liability for a legal person’s value added tax (VAT) debts in the following circumstances: — the person held jointly and severally liable is a manager or member of an executive body of the legal person; — the person held jointly and severally liable made, in bad faith, payments from the legal person’s assets which could be characterised as a hidden distribution of profits or dividends, or transferred those assets free of charge or at a price significantly lower than the market price; — the acts carried out in bad faith had the effect of rendering the legal person unable to pay all or part of the VAT for which it is liable; — the joint and several liability is limited to the amount by which the legal person’s assets were depleted as a result of the acts carried out in bad faith; and — that joint and several liability is incurred only in the alternative, where it proves impossible to recover from the legal person the amounts of VAT payable.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 November 2022 — ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S, Danske Fragtmænd A/S v European Commission

(Case C-442/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Postal sector - Compensation for the discharge of a universal service obligation - Calculation - Net avoided cost methodology - Taking into account the intangible benefits of the universal service - Use of funds granted as compensation - Guarantee covering the redundancy costs of a certain category of employee in the event of insolvency of the universal service provider - Accounting allocation of common costs between universal service activities and non-universal service activities - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market)

(2023/C 7/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S, Danske Fragtmænd A/S (represented by L. Sandberg-Mørch, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by K. Blanck, J. Carpi Badía and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents), Jørgen Jensen Distribution A/S, Dansk Distribution A/S, Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by V. Pasternak Jørgensen and M. Søndahl Wolff, acting as Agents, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat, and subsequently by M. Søndahl Wolff, acting as Agent, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat)

Intervener in support of the European Commission: Post Danmark (represented by O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S and Danske Fragtmænd A/S to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Declares that the Kingdom of Denmark and Post Danmark are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — BT v Laudamotion GmbH

(Case C-111/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Montreal Convention - Article 17(1) - Liability of air carriers for death or bodily injuries sustained by passengers - Concept of ‘bodily injury’ - Post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by a passenger during the emergency evacuation of an aircraft)

(2022/C 472/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BT

Defendant: Laudamotion GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001,

must be interpreted as meaning that a psychological injury caused to a passenger by an ‘accident’, within the meaning of that provision, which is not linked to ‘bodily injury’, within the meaning of that provision, must be compensated in the same way as such a bodily injury, provided that the aggrieved passenger demonstrates the existence of an adverse effect on his or her psychological integrity of such gravity or intensity that it affects his or her general state of health and that it cannot be resolved without medical treatment.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 — Vincent Thunus and Others v European Investment Bank (EIB)

(Case C-91/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) - Remuneration - Annual salary adjustment - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2023/C 24/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Vincent Thunus, Jaime Barragán, Marc D’hooge, Alexandra Felten, Christophe Nègre, Patrick Vanhoudt (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (represented by: A. V. García Sanchez, T. Gilliams, J. Klein and E. Manoukian, acting as Agents, and by P.–E. Partsch, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Vincent Thunus, Mr Jaime Barragán, Mr Marc D’hooge, Ms Alexandra Felten, Mr Christophe Nègre and Mr Patrick Vanhoudt to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
2.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Articles 13 and 54 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 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 by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides for access, on the part of the national authorities competent to undertake criminal investigations, to lawfully retained traffic and location data, without guaranteeing that the persons whose data have been accessed by those national authorities are informed thereof to the extent provided for under EU law, and without those persons having any remedy against unlawful access to those data.
1.

The judgment of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus (C-421/14, EU:C:2017:60), must be interpreted as meaning that the criteria it establishes for assessing the unfairness of a contractual term, as provided for in Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular the significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract which that term causes to the detriment of the consumer, cannot be understood either as being cumulative or as being alternative, but must be understood as forming part of all the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the contract at issue, which the national court must examine in order to assess the unfairness of a contractual term, as provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — VZW Belgisch-Luxemburgse vereniging van de industrie van plantenbescherming (Belplant), formerly VZW Belgische Vereniging van de Industrie van Plantenbeschermingsmiddelen (PHYTOFAR) v Vlaams Gewest

(Case C-658/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Directive (EU) 2015/1535 - Concept of ‘technical regulation’ - Article 1(1) - National legislation prohibiting individuals from using pesticides containing glyphosate on land in private use - Article 5(1) - Obligation on Member States to communicate to the European Commission any draft technical regulation)

(2023/C 24/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VZW Belgisch-Luxemburgse vereniging van de industrie van plantenbescherming (Belplant), formerly VZW Belgische Vereniging van de Industrie van Plantenbeschermingsmiddelen (PHYTOFAR)

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, read in conjunction with Article 5 thereof

must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which prohibits persons who do not have a national authorisation intended for professionals from using pesticides containing glyphosate on land in private use is capable of constituting a ‘technical regulation’, within the meaning of Article 1(1)(d) and (f) of that directive, which must be communicated to the European Commission under Article 5 of that directive, in so far as the application of that national legislation may significantly influence the marketing of the products concerned, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.
1.

Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which the resident company has a shareholding enabling it to exercise a definite influence over the decisions of that non-resident company and to determine its activities, while at the same time granting a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the Member State in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreign-sourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the distribution. Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which the resident company holds at least 10 % of the voting rights, while granting a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the Member State in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreign-sourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the distribution. Article 56 EC is, furthermore, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, where that State levies corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which it holds less than 10 % of the voting rights, without granting the company receiving the dividends a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the State in which the latter is resident.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/14

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy)) — Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova v Euricom SpA

(Case C-505/06) (1)

(First paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Community Customs Code - Inward processing - Association Agreement - Prior export of rice to a non-member country bound by a preferential customs agreement - Article 216 of the Customs Code)

(2008/C 64/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy)

Parties

Applicant: Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova

Defendant: Euricom SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova Interpretation of Article 114, Article 115(1) and (3) and Article 216 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Rice exported under inward processing arrangements to a third country with which there is an agreement for preferential customs treatment

Operative part of the order

Article 216 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 is applicable to the inward processing operations referred to in Article 115(1)(b) of that regulation in which compensating products have been exported from the Community before importation of the import goods.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/30

Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-112/06) (1)

(2009/C 69/55)

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/30

Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Verias, Greece) — Georgios Diamantis v Fanco AE

(Case C-315/06) (1)

(2008/C 171/48)

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/30

Order of the Court of 19 October 2007 — Derya Beyatli v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-238/07 P) (1)

(Appeals - Staff cases - Open competition for citizens of the Republic of Cyprus - Notice of competition - Time-limits - Complaint - Letter addressed to the head of the Commission delegation in Cyprus)

(2008/C 51/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Derya Beyatli (represented by: A. Demetriades, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04 Beyatli and Candan v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an application seeking the annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/A/1/03 for the establishment of a reserve list of assistant administrators of Cypriot nationality not to admit the appellants to the oral tests in that competition — Period within which a complaint must be lodged pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Beyatli to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/39

Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-266/07) (1)

(2008/C 51/72)

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/24

Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-329/07) (1)

(2008/C 79/44)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/22

Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-123/07) (1)

(2008/C 142/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/27

Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-216/07) (1)

(2008/C 128/54)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 247/11

Order of the President of the Court of 30 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt — Austria) — A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt

(Case C-315/07) (1)

(2008/C 247/20)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
1.

The Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be interpreted as meaning that, under Article 2 of that Act, the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, in so far as they prohibit the use of the name ‘Tocai’ to designate and present certain Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at the end of a transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007, form an integral part of the acquis communautaire existing on 1 May 2004 and, after being reproduced in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation No 753/2002, continued to apply after that date.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/12

Order of the Court of 25 November 2008 — S.A.BA.R. SpA v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-501/07 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Time-limit for initiating proceedings - Starting point)

(2009/C 69/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: S.A.BA.R. SpA (represented by: E. Coffrini and F. Tesauro, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and G. Conte, Agents)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 September 2007 in Case T-176/07 S.A.BA.R. v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for annulment of the Commission decision of 5 June 2002 declaring incompatible with the common market the aid scheme (C-27/99 ex NN 69/98) provided for under Italian legislation in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. S.A.BA.R. SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/11

Order of the Court of 9 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Gerlach & Co. NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-477/07) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure - Community Customs Code - Concepts of ‘entry in the accounts’ and ‘communication’ of the amount of duty to the debtor - Prior entry in the accounts of the amount of the customs debt - Recovery of the customs debt)

(2008/C 313/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties

Applicant: Gerlach & Co. NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 217 and 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) (now Council Regulation 1150/2000 (EC, Euratom) of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2000/597/EC (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1)) — Concepts of ‘entry in the accounts’ and ‘communication’ of the amount of duty to the debtor — Prior entry in the accounts of the amount of the customs debt — Recovery of the debt

Operative part of the order

1. Article 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘entry in the accounts’ of the amount of the duty to be recovered referred to therein is the ‘entry in the accounts’ of that amount as defined in Article 217(1) of that regulation and that that entry in the accounts is to be distinguished from the recording of that duty in the accounts of the own resources referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources.

2. Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 is to be interpreted as meaning that the communication of the amount of duty to be recovered must have been preceded by the entry in the accounts of that amount by the customs authorities of the Member State and that, in the absence of due notification in accordance with that provision, that amount may not be recovered by those authorities. However, those authorities remain entitled to proceed with a new notification of that amount, in accordance with the conditions laid down by that provision and the limitation rules in force at the time the customs debt arose.

(1) OJ C 8 of 12.1.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/19

Order of the President of the Court of 25 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-193/07) (1)

2010/C 11/32

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/28

Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 2 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Brigitte Ruf, née Elsässer, Gertrud Elsässer, née Sommer v European Central Bank (ECB), Coop Himmelblau Prix, Dreibholz & Partner ZT GmbH; intervener: the City of Frankfurt am Main

(Case C-408/07) (1)

2009/C 113/52

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.