ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

Can entitlements to a further free allocation of emission allowances for the third trading period be met after the end of the third trading period with entitlements for the fourth trading period where the existence of the allowance entitlement is established by a court only after expiry of the third trading period, or do allowance entitlements that have not yet been met lapse on expiry of the third trading period?
1.

In the light of Articles 3(1), 4(1) and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and its recitals, pursuant to which contracts must be drafted in plain and intelligible language and doubts must be interpreted in the consumer’s favour, must a contractual term setting out the buying and selling rates of a foreign currency in a loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency be worded unequivocally, that is to say, in a manner that enables the borrower/consumer to determine that rate himself on any given day, or, in the light of the type of contract as referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13, the long-term nature (spanning several decades) of the contract and the fact that the amount in foreign currency is subject to constant changes (may change at any time), is it possible to formulate a more general wording of the contractual term, that is to say, one that refers to the market value of the foreign currency, in a manner which prevents a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive?
5.

Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC be interpreted as creating an inequality between a national of a Member State whose right to drive is only restored after the completion of the reintegration tests, and a national on whom reintegration tests were also imposed, but who in the meantime acquires a foreign driving licence, whether or not he fails to comply with the residence requirement, or by means of an exchange on the basis of a driving licence which had ceased to be valid in the Member State of issue?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 15 June 2020 — FN v Universiteit Antwerpen, Vlaamse Autonome Hogeschool Hogere Zeevaartschool, PB, ZK, NG, ZN, UM

(Case C-265/20)

(2020/C 313/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FN

Defendants: Universiteit Antwerpen, Vlaamse Autonome Hogeschool Hogere Zeevaartschool, PB, ZK, NG, ZN, UM

Questions referred

Must Clause 4.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, as set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, (1) and Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work set out in the Annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, (2) be interpreted as precluding a university, on the basis of national legislation (Article 91 of the Decree concerning universities) under which independent academic staff with full-time positions are appointed on a permanent basis, and staff with part-time positions may either be appointed, or employed on a temporary basis for renewable periods of a maximum of six years, from being permitted to:

1. employ a professor, using the justification of ‘freedom of policy’, over a period of twenty years on the basis of some twenty consecutive, short-term and part-time employment contracts and statutory appointments of between one and three years, without any limit on the total number of renewals, while other colleagues with similar duties were appointed on a permanent and full-time basis?

2. stipulate in its staff regulations only a general minimum limit of an appointment percentage at 50 percent in order to be eligible for a permanent appointment, but not lay down a single criterion on the basis of which the part-time staff appointed at 50 percent or greater can be appointed on a permanent or temporary basis?

3. award appointment percentages to a part-time professor, using the justification of unlimited ‘freedom of policy’, without laying down objective criteria, and without applying any objective workload measurement?

4. deny a temporary and part-time professor, when his employment is not renewed, using the justification of the university’s ‘freedom of policy’, the right to invoke the allegedly abusive nature of the past employment conditions, because he had, so to speak, always accepted those conditions by carrying out the allocated work, with the result that he forfeits the protection afforded by EU law?

(1) OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.

(2) OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.
1.

Must Directive 93/13 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, in conjunction with the interpretation contained in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-96/16 and C-94/17 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:643), be interpreted as precluding legislation such as the protective framework provision contained in Paragraph 54(1) of the Občiansky zákonník (Civil Code), which does not allow the consumer’s position to be worsened by contractual terms in comparison to the statutory provision which provides for the following rights of the creditor in the event of a consumer defaulting on loan repayment: — the creditor’s right to default interest at a rate limited by a government regulation; — the creditor’s right to other penalties which the creditor may impose on the consumer and which, together with default interest, are limited to the amount of the loan principal outstanding; — the creditor’s right to compensation where the damage suffered by the creditor is higher than the default interest, that is, the creditor’s right to unlimited compensation according to the actual damage.
1.

Must Article 101 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation according to which neither the 5-year limitation period established in Article 10 of Directive 2014/104/EU nor Article 17 thereof, concerning judicial estimation of harm, is retroactively applicable, and which establishes retroactive effect by reference to the date of the penalty rather than the date on which the action is brought?
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does the interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law permit and require the national court and administrative authority to supplement — in the absence of new legislation at national level — the domestic penal provisions applicable in the present proceedings with the criteria of the requirement of proportionality laid down in the orders of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (C-645/18, EU:C:2019:1108) and Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (C-140/19, C-141/19, C-492/19, C-493/19 and C-494/19, EU:2019:1103)?
3.

If the reply to the second question referred is in the affirmative, is a provision of domestic law on the selection of projects, which establishes that no further clarification of project applications may be made once the application has been submitted, compatible with the principles of non-discrimination and transparency established in Article 125(3)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006? (2)
1.

Do Article 12(2)(a) and (d) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (1) and Article 23(2)(g) and (h) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse, (2) which replaced the that directive from 3 July 2016, read in the light of recital 65 of that regulation, not imply that, account being taken of the covert nature of the information exchanged and the fact that the potential subjects of investigation are members of the general public, the national legislature must be able to require electronic communications operators to retain connection data on a temporary but general basis in order to enable the administrative authority referred to in Article 11 of the directive and Article 22 of the regulation, in the event of the emergence of grounds for suspecting certain persons of being involved in insider dealing or market manipulation, to require the operator to surrender existing records of traffic data in cases where there are grounds to suspect that the records so linked to the subject matter of the investigation may prove relevant to the production of evidence of the actual commission of the breach, to the extent, in particular, that they offer a means of tracing the contacts established by the persons concerned before the suspicions emerged?
2.

Does the principle of legal certainty inherent in the European Union legal order preclude the complete deletion of the contents of a contractual term, on the grounds that that term is unfair, in cases in which, at the time when the contract was concluded and the term was stipulated, no criterion existed for defining what was unfair in relation to the subject matter of the term because no legal provision or case-law of the courts existed in that regard? If the answer is affirmative, must the effect be that only the part of the term concerned which is considered to be unfair is deleted?
2.

If the Court answers Question 1 in the negative: What qualitative and/or quantitative requirements must stays in the territory of the Community for a period of 12 consecutive months satisfy in order to preclude loss of the status of long-term resident third-country national? Do stays during a period of 12 consecutive months in the territory of the Community preclude loss of the status of long-term resident third-country national only if the third-country nationals concerned had their habitual residence or centre of interests in the territory of the Community during that period?
2.

Must the requirement of equal treatment for men and women (pursuant to Article 157 TFEU in conjunction with Article 5 of Directive 2006/54/EC) be interpreted as meaning that indirect discrimination such as that which — in some cases — results from the rules, at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the 2018 pension adjustment, even in the light of similar measures adopted previously and the considerable loss caused by the cumulative effect of those measures as compared with an adjustment of the actual value of pensions to take into account inflation (in this instance, a loss of 25 %), is justified in particular — in order to avoid a ‘divide’ between higher and lower pensions (caused by periodic adjustment at a single rate), even though this would be purely nominal and would leave the differential between the two unchanged, — in order to put in place a general ‘social component’ in the form of steps to increase the purchasing power of those on lower pensions, even though (a) that objective could be attained even without limiting the adjustment of higher pensions and (b) the legislature does not also provide for the same type of measure to increase purchasing power when it comes to adjusting for inflation the salaries of lower-paid civil servants (to the detriment of the adjustment applied to the salaries of higher-paid civil servants), and has also not laid down rules for a comparable intervention in the adjustment applied to the value of pensions under other occupational social security schemes (in which the State does not participate) in order to increase the purchasing power of lower pensions (to the detriment of the adjustment of higher pensions), — in order to maintain and finance ‘the scheme’, even though civil service pensions are payable not by an insurer-operated scheme organised in the form of insurance and financed from contributions, but by the Federal Government as employer of retired civil servants and in consideration for work performed, so that the maintenance or financing of a scheme is not decisive, the only relevant considerations, ultimately, being budgetary, — because the fact that the statistically much higher representation of men among recipients of higher pensions is to be regarded as the consequence of the lack of equal opportunities for women in matters of employment and occupation that was typical in the past in particular, constitutes an independent ground of justification or (upstream of that) rules out from the outset any assumption of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex, within the meaning of Directive 2006/54/EC, to the detriment of men, or — because the scheme is permissible as positive action for the purposes of Article 157(4) TFEU.
1.

Must Article 13(2), in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b), of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by a person who, in return for services provided to a party directly injured in a road accident in connection with the damage caused, has acquired a claim for compensation, but does not carry out the professional activity of recovering insurance indemnity claims against insurance companies and who brought an action, in the court for the place where he is established, against the third-party liability insurer of the party responsible for that accident, which insurer has its seat in another Member State?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2020 — F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg

(Case C-419/20)

(2020/C 414/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG, represented by its general partner Verwaltungsgesellschaft F. Reyher Nchfg. mbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Question referred

Is there an infringement of EU law, which is a condition for entitlement to interest under EU law as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, where a Member State authority imposes a duty pursuant to EU law but a Member State court subsequently finds that the factual conditions for the imposition of the duty have not been met?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2020 — S v Familienkasse Niedersachsen-Bremen der Bundesagentur für Arbeit

(Case C-411/20)

(2020/C 423/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S

Defendant: Familienkasse Niedersachsen-Bremen der Bundesagentur für Arbeit

Question referred

Must Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a national of another Member State, who establishes a permanent residence or habitual residence in the Member State concerned and does not prove that he has national income from agriculture and forestry, business, employment or self-employment, has no entitlement to family benefits within the meaning of Article 3(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, in conjunction with Article 1(z) thereof, for the first three months of establishing a permanent residence or habitual residence, whilst a national of the Member State concerned, who is in the same situation, does have an entitlement to family benefits within the meaning of Article 3(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, in conjunction with Article 1(z) thereof, without proving national income from agriculture and forestry, business, employment or self-employment?

(1) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).
1.

Where, in the course of a procedure for the resolution of a financial institution, all of the shares into which the share capital was divided have been redeemed, must Articles 34(1)(a), 53(1) and (3) and 60(2)(b) and (e) of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 (1) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude persons having acquired their shares a number of months prior to the start of the resolution procedure, on the occasion of a capital increase with a public offer to subscribe, from bringing claims for compensation or claims having equivalent effect which are based on defective information in the issue prospectus against the issuing institution or against the institution emerging from a subsequent merger by acquisition?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

(Case C-443/20)

(2020/C 433/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flightright GmbH

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Questions referred

1. Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

2. Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier?

3. Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union?

(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 Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — Flightright GmbH v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

(Case C-442/20)

(2020/C 433/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flightright GmbH

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Questions referred

1. Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

2. Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier?

3. Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union?

(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).
3.

(a) In assessing whether there is a relationship of dependency as referred to in I. above, is the decisive factor whether or not the third-country national parent, prior to the application or prior to the decision refusing a right of residence, or prior to the time when a (national) court has to make a decision in legal proceedings brought because of that refusal, was responsible for the day-to-day care of the minor Union citizen, and whether there are others who were responsible for such care in the past and/or can (continue to) be responsible for it? (b) In that connection, can the minor Union citizen, in order to be able to exercise his Union rights effectively, be required to settle on Union territory with his other parent, who is a citizen of the Union, who may no longer have parental responsibility for the minor? (c) If so, does it make a difference whether or not that parent has or had parental responsibility and/or whether the minor is or was legally, financially or emotionally dependent on that parent and whether or not that parent is willing to take on those responsibilities and/or the care of the minor? (d) If it were to be established that the third-country national parent has sole parental responsibility for the minor Union citizen, does that then mean that less weight should be attached to the question of the legal, financial and/or emotional dependence?
1.

Does the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties allow national legislation which provides for both administrative and criminal liability for the same act, namely driving a motor vehicle that is not duly registered, in the absence of any criteria enabling the objective assessment of the degree of danger to society?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 29 September 2020 — XXXX v HR Rail, SA

(Case C-485/20)

(2021/C 9/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XXXX

Opposing party: HR Rail, SA

Question referred

Is Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an employer has an obligation, in relation to a person who, due to his disability, is no longer capable of performing the essential functions of the post to which he was assigned, to assign him to another post, for which he has the requisite skills, capabilities and availability, where such a measure would not impose a disproportionate burden on the employer?

(1) OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.