ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

Does the trader meet his obligation to provide the information in the general terms and conditions if he provides the consumer with — in addition to a document containing the general terms and conditions — a list of prices and services also drawn up by the trader in a separate document containing the information pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Directive?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 28 May 2019 — E.M., M.S. v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-414/19)

(2019/C 295/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Erding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: E.M., M.S.

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Question referred

In the case of an air route consisting of several segments, are flights that carry connecting passengers and have not been affected by a disruption to the connecting flight also to be taken into account when determining the distance pursuant to Article 7(1) 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).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v WS

(Case C-302/19)

(2019/C 288/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

Respondent and cross-appellant: WS

Question referred

Should Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 (1) and the principle of equal treatment for holders of single permits to reside and work and national citizens be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation under which, unlike the provisions laid down for nationals of the Member State, the family members of a worker with a single permit from a third country are excluded when determining the members of the family unit, for the purpose of calculating the family unit allowance, where those family members live in the third country of origin?

(1) Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 1).
Appeal brought on 14 June 2019 by Amador Rodriguez Prieto against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 4 April 2019 in Case T-61/18, Rodriguez Prieto v Commission

(Case C-457/19 P)

(2019/C 312/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Amador Rodriguez Prieto (represented by: S. Orlandi, T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 in Case T-61/18 in so far as it dismisses the claim for compensation in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the appellant;

— order the Commission to compensate the appellant for the non-material damage suffered by paying him compensation fixed at a flat rate of EUR 100 000;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law regarding the unlawfulness of the Commission’s conduct towards him during the criminal proceedings, particularly in the light of his status as the whistle-blower that gave rise to the ‘Eurostat case’.
1.

Is EU law to be interpreted as precluding a natural person acting on behalf of a company subject to tax who has failed to fulfil the obligations linked to the excise duty levied on ice-cream products from being sentenced to a criminal penalty for those failures if a tax exemption for activities of other undertakings relating to similar products were to be regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2019 — R (on the application of Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and another) v The Food Standards Agency

(Case C-579/19)

(2019/C 328/36)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: R (on the application of Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and another)

Respondent: The Food Standards Agency

Questions referred

1. Do Regulations (EC) Nos 854 (1) and 882 (2) preclude a procedure whereby pursuant to section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990 a Justice of the Peace decides on the merits of the case and on the basis of the evidence of experts called by each side whether a carcass fails to comply with food safety requirements?

2. Does Regulation (EC) No 882 mandate a right of appeal in relation to a decision of an Official Veterinarian under article 5.2 of Regulation (EC) No 854 that the meat of a carcass was unfit for human consumption and, if it does, what approach should be applied in reviewing the merits of the decision taken by the Official Veterinarian on an appeal in such a case?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ 2004, L 139, p. 206).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004, L 165, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 2 July 2019 by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Irinvestship Ltd and IRISL Europe GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2019 in Case T-434/15: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines e.a. v Council

(Case C-506/19 P)

(2019/C 319/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Irinvestship Ltd and IRISL Europe GmbH (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court;

— hold that the Council committed a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals by way of the Designation of the Appellants;

— remit the case to the General Court to determine the contingent application for measures of inquiry contained in the application, and then (subsequently) to determine the issues of causation and quantum; and

— order the Council to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court so far.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court committed five errors of law on the basis of which the judgment should be set aside:

1. error in the application of the conclusion that the Council had no discretion;

2. error in the application of the reasoning in the IRISL Annulment Judgment [2013] to the test for sufficiently serious breach;

3. no basis in law for the ‘no evidence’/‘inadequate evidence’ distinction, which was inapplicable in any event;

4. error in law in purporting to rely on evidence not before the Court; and
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Entoma SAS v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

(Case C-526/19)

(2019/C 328/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Entoma SAS

Defendants: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

Question referred

Is Article 1(2)(e) of the Regulation of 27 January 1997 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope foods consisting of whole animals intended to be consumed as such or does it apply only to food ingredients isolated from insects?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 1).
(a)

Does Article 30 of Directive (EU) 2017/1132 preclude a national provision under which, when applying for a branch of a limited liability company with registered office in another Member State to be entered in the commercial register, the managing director of the company has to provide an assurance that there is no barrier to his personal appointment under national law in the form of a prohibition, ordered by a court or public authority, on practising his profession or trade, corresponding in whole or in part with the object of the company, or in the form of a final conviction for certain criminal offences and that, in this respect, he has been instructed of his unrestricted duty to provide information to the court by a notary, a representative of a comparable legal advisory profession or a consular officer?
Appeal brought on 21 August 2019 by Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. against the judgment delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-64/18 Alfamicro v Commission

(Case C-623/19P)

(2019/C 348/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, advogados, and M. Stock da Cunha, advogada estagiária)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-64/18, (1)

— Annul Commission Decision C (2017) 8839 final, of 13 December 2017,

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the event giving rise to a contractual debt is the contract itself. Consequently, if the Commission, in the declarative action, can make its claims, but does not do so, it cannot, following the judgment, issue enforcement instruments for the amount of the overdraft.

The Commission misused its powers.

In the declarative judgment (T-831/14), (2) the General Court ruled on the Commission’s claim arising out of the grant agreement, and not on the ineligible costs relating to the period covered by the audit, as it erroneously does now.

The operative part of the judgment handed down in the declarative action (T-831/14) does not lay down any limitation, either in relation to the debt, the period or the costs.

A single enforcement instrument corresponds to a single obligation, being the debt under the grant agreement.

It does not make any sense for the General Court to determine definitively a debt and then for the creditor ultimately to claim that not all of the amounts were calculated.

The applicant submits that, from the moment there is a declarative action to determine a contractual debt owed to the European Union, it is forbidden for the Commission to issue enforcement instruments without taking the General Court’s judgment as its reference.

If the declarative action concerns the contractual debt owed by the debtor to the Commission, the jurisdiction of the General Court to determine the debt precludes the Commission’s power to issue enforcement instruments which override the judgment.

(1) EU:T:2019:453

(2) See Case C-14/18 P
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 June 2019 — W.Ż.

(Case C-487/19)

(2019/C 337/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: W.Ż.

Intervening party: Prokurator Prokuratury Krajowej Bożena Górecka

Question referred

Should Articles 2, 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) [TEU], in conjunction with Article 47 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights] and Article 267 [TFEU], be interpreted as meaning that a court composed of a single person who has been appointed to the position of judge in flagrant breach of the laws of a Member State applicable to judicial appointments — which breach included, in particular, the appointment of that person to the position of judge despite a prior appeal to the competent national court (the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court, Poland)) against the resolution of a national body (the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council for the Judiciary, Poland)), which included a motion for the appointment of that person to the position of judge, notwithstanding the fact that the implementation of that resolution had been stayed in accordance with national law and that proceedings before the competent national court (Supreme Administrative Court) had not been concluded before the delivery of the appointment letter — is not an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law within the meaning of EU law?
(2)

Where factual and legal elements exist which determine the unfairness of a term in a consumer contract and the party against whom enforcement is sought fails to rely on that unfairness in the application objecting to enforcement laid down for that purpose by the Law, can that party, following the resolution of that application, make a further preliminary application aimed at determining whether one or more other terms is/are unfair when that party could have relied on those terms at the outset in the ordinary procedural step provided for in the Law? In short, is a time-barring effect created which prevents the consumer from raising again the issue of unfairness of another term in the same enforcement proceedings, and even in subsequent declaratory proceedings?
4.

Having regard to Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, is Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly the principle of pluralism of the media, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national provision such as that described in Questions 1, 2 and 3?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 16 April 2019 by ND (*1), OE (*1) against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2019 in Case T-581/18, ND (*1) e OE (*1) v Commission

(Case C-317/19 P)

(2019/C 357/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: ND (*1), OE (*1) (represented by: A. Bove, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 3 September 2019, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

(*1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2019 — Fototre Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

(Case C-595/19)

(2019/C 357/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fototre Srl

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA

Questions 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 s.p.a, 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 Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 2 September 2019 — JP v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-651/19)

(2019/C 372/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: JP

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Question referred

Must Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (1) (recast), by virtue of which applicants must be given a right to an effective remedy against decisions ‘taken on their application for international protection’, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a rule of national procedure, such as Article 39/57 of the Law of 15 December 1980 on entry to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreign nationals, read in conjunction with Article 51/2, 5o of the first subparagraph of Article 57/6(3) and Article 57/6/2(1) of that law, establishing a time limit of 10 ‘calendar’ days, starting from the notification of the administrative decision, for bringing an action against a decision declaring a subsequent application for international protection lodged by a third-country national inadmissible, in particular where that notification was made to the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons where the applicant is ‘deemed’ by law to have elected a domicile?

(1) OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Nules (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Investcapital Ltd v FE

(Case C-524/19)

(2019/C 363/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Nules

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Investcapital Ltd

Defendant: FE

Question referred

Must Article 7 of Regulation No 1896/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 be interpreted as meaning that, in European order for payment proceedings brought thereunder, it does not preclude courts from reviewing of their own motion any unfair terms in the contract under which the debt has arisen in accordance with Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, particularly if the national court needs to carry out a prior examination of the contract in order to conduct that review?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, do collective management organisations, when receiving remuneration from performance organisers for the right to perform musical works for a public audience, act as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 28 of the VAT Directive, and are they required to issue invoices including VAT to the respective performance organisers, and, when remuneration is paid to authors and other holders of copyright in musical works, are the latter, in turn, required to issue invoices including VAT to the collective management organisation?
Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 23 July 2019 — Impresa Pizzarotti & C SPA Italia Sucursala Cluj v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-558/19)

(2019/C 372/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Impresa Pizzarotti & C SPA Italia Sucursala Cluj

Defendant: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Question referred

Do Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the present case (Articles 11(2) and 29(3) of Legea nr. 571/2003 privind Codul fiscal (Law No 571/2003 establishing the Romanian Tax Code)), which provides that a bank transfer of money from a company branch resident in one Member State to the parent company resident in another Member State may be reclassified as a revenue-generating transaction, with the consequent obligation to apply the rules on transfer pricing, whereas, if the same transaction had been effected between a company branch and a parent company, both of which were resident in the same Member State, that transaction could not have been reclassified in the same way and the rules on transfer pricing would not have been applied?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 27 May 2019 by Xianhao Pan against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2019 in Case T-777/17: Pan v EUIPO - Entertainment One UK (TOBBIA)

(Case C-412/19 P)

(2019/C 383/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Xianhao Pan (represented by: M. Oliva, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Entertainment One UK Ltd

By order of 12 July 2019 of the Vice-President the Court of Justice held that the appeal is dismissed as inadmissible.
Does Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives permit a substance to be classified as a by-product within the meaning of the concept of waste under EU law if, for process-related reasons, other substances which would otherwise have to be regarded as waste are added to that substance in a small proportion, if this has no effect on the composition of the substance as a whole and provides a significant benefit to the environment?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 30 April 2019 by Bruno Gollnisch against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2019 in Case T-375/18, Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case C- 351/19 P)

(2019/C 399/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bruno Gollnisch (represented by B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 3 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.
1.

In so far as it provides that the container and packaging of cosmetic products should bear in indelible, easily legible and visible lettering information as to the function of the cosmetic product, unless it is clear from its presentation, should Article 19(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) be interpreted as referring to the essential functions of cosmetic products within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the Regulation, that is, cleaning (keeping clean), nurturing and protecting (keeping in good condition), perfuming and beautifying (changing appearance), or should more detailed functions be stated, enabling the properties of the cosmetic product in question to be determined?