ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Article 32(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1307/2013, in particular the words ‘any area which gave a right to payments in 2008 under the single payment scheme or the single area payment scheme laid down, respectively, in Titles III and IVA of Regulation [(EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008]’, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an application for activation of set-aside entitlements for a wooded area under that provision, the area concerned must have been subject, in 2008, to an application for aid in accordance with Article 22 of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Regulation No 479/2008, followed by an administrative check of eligibility in accordance with Article 23 of that regulation, and, where appropriate, an on-the-spot check under Article 25 of that regulation. All the other conditions required under Titles III and IVA of that regulation for obtaining a direct payment must also have been fulfilled.
2.

Article 28 of Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2010/88, must be interpreted as meaning that a collective management organisation which collects, in its own name but on behalf of holders of copyright in musical works, royalties due to them in consideration for the authorisation for the public performance of their protected works, acts as a ‘taxable person’ within the meaning of that provision and is therefore deemed to have received the services in question from those rights holders before providing them to the end user itself. In such a case, that organisation is required to issue invoices in its own name to the end user containing the royalties collected from the latter, including value added tax (VAT). The copyright holders are, in turn, required to issue to the collective management organisation invoices including VAT for the services supplied in respect of the royalties received.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 January 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-63/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Articles 4 and 19 - Regional law adopted by the autonomous region of a Member State - Contribution towards the purchase of petrol and diesel subject to excise duties - Article 6(c) - Exemption from or reduction of excise duty - Concept of ‘refunding all or part of’ the amount of taxation - No evidence of a link between that contribution and excise duties)

(2021/C 72/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by G.M. De Socio, avvocato dello Stato)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Jiménez García and J. Rodríguez de la Rúa, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Azienda Agricola Ambrosi Nicola Giuseppe and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Ministero delle Politiche agricole e forestali

(Case C-640/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Milk quotas - Surplus levies - Milk used to produce cheeses with a protected designation of origin (PDO) intended for export to non-EU countries - Exclusion - Article 32(a), Article 39(1) and (2)(a), Article 40(2) and Article 41(b) TFEU - Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination - Validity)

(2021/C 110/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Azienda Agricola Ambrosi Nicola Giuseppe, Azienda Agricola Castagna Giovanni, Azienda Agricola Castellani Enio Nereo e Giuliano Ss, Azienda Agricola De Fanti Maria Teresa, Azienda Agricola Giacomazzi Vilmare, Azienda Agricola Iseo di Lunardi Giampaolo e Silvano Ss, Azienda Agricola Mastrolat di Mastrotto Franco e Luca Ss, Azienda Agricola Righetti Michele e Damiano, Azienda Agricola Scandola Stefano e Gianni, Azienda Agricola Tadiello Roberto, Azienda Agricola Turazza Mario, Azienda Agricola Zuin Tiziano, 2 B Società Agricola Srl, Azienda Agricola Fracasso Claudio, Azienda Agricola Pozzan Mirko

Defendants: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Ministero delle Politiche agricole e forestali

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 55, 65 and 78 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 of 17 March 2008, must be interpreted as not excluding the quantities of milk used for the production of cheeses with a protected designation of origin intended for export to countries outside the European Union from the calculation of national quotas for the production of milk and other milk products and of surplus levies.

2. Examination of the third question referred has not revealed any factors of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 55, 65 and 78 of Regulation No 1234/2007 as amended by Regulation No 248/2008.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
2.

The third sentence of Article 128(1) TFEU, the third sentence of the first paragraph of Article 16 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and the second sentence of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the possibility of discharging a statutorily imposed payment obligation in banknotes denominated in euro, provided (i) that that legislation does not have the object or effect of establishing legal rules governing the status of legal tender of such banknotes; (ii) that it does not lead, in law or in fact, to abolition of those banknotes, in particular by calling into question the possibility, as a general rule, of discharging a payment obligation in cash; (iii) that it has been adopted for reasons of public interest; (iv) that the limitation on payments in cash which the legislation entails is appropriate for attaining the public interest objective pursued; and (v) that it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective, in that other lawful means of discharging the payment obligation are available.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 — Carmen Liaño Reig v Single Resolution Board (SRB)

(Case C-947/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure - Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Article 24 - Sale of business tool - Article 21 - Write-down and conversion of capital instruments - Tier 2 instruments - Action for annulment - Partial annulment - Not severable - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 163/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Carmen Liaño Reig (represented by: F. López Antón, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: A. Valavanidou, S. Branca and J. King, Agents, and by B. Meyring and T. Klupsch, Rechtsanwälte, and F.B. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Carmen Liaño Reig to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — BU v Markt24 GmbH

(Case C-804/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in respect of individual contracts of employment - Provisions of Section 5 of Chapter II - Applicability - Contract entered into in a Member State for employment with a company established in another Member State - No work performed throughout the duration of the contract - Exclusion of the application of national rules of jurisdiction - Article 21(1)(b)(i) - Concept of the ‘place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work’ - Contract of employment - Place of performance of the contract - Obligations of the employee towards his or her employer)

(2021/C 138/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BU

Defendant: Markt24 GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1. The provisions set out in Section 5 of Chapter II 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, under the heading ‘Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment’, must be interpreted as applying to a legal action brought by an employee domiciled in a Member State against an employer domiciled in another Member State in the case where the contract of employment was negotiated and entered into in the Member State in which the employee is domiciled and provided that the place of performance of the work was located in the Member State of the employer, even though that work was not performed for a reason attributable to that employer;

2. The provisions set out in Section 5 of Chapter II of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as precluding the application of national rules of jurisdiction in respect of an action such as that referred to in point 1 of the operative part of the present judgment, irrespective of whether those rules are more beneficial to the employee;

3. Article 21(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an action such as that referred to in point 1 of the operative part of the present judgment may be brought before the court of the place where or from where the employee was required, pursuant to the contract of employment, to discharge the essential part of his or her obligations towards his or her employer, without prejudice to point 5 of Article 7 of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Danske Bank A/S, Danmark, Sverige Filial v Skatteverket

(Case C-812/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9 - Taxable person - Concept - Article 11 - VAT group - Principal establishment and branch of a company situated in two different Member States - Principal establishment forming part of a VAT group to which the branch does not belong - Principal establishment providing services to the branch and imputing to it the costs of those services)

(2021/C 182/21)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Danske Bank A/S, Danmark, Sverige Filial

Defendant: Skatteverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) and Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, for value added tax (VAT) purposes, the principal establishment of a company, situated in a Member State and forming part of a VAT group formed on the basis of Article 11, and the branch of that company, established in another Member State, must be regarded as separate taxable persons where that principal establishment provides that branch with services and imputes the costs thereof to the branch.

(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — VK v An Bord Pleanála

(Case C-739/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Lawyers’ freedom to provide services - Directive 77/249/EEC - Article 5 - Obligation for a visiting lawyer representing a client in domestic legal proceedings to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question - Limits)

(2021/C 182/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VK

Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

Interested parties: The General Council of the Bar of Ireland, The Law Society of Ireland and the Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as meaning that:

— it does not preclude, as such, in the light of the objective of the proper administration of justice, a lawyer, provider of representation services in respect of his or her client, from being required to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question and who would be responsible, if necessary, towards that judicial authority, under a system placing lawyers under ethical and procedural obligations such as that of submitting to the judicial authority in question any legal element, whether legislative or case-law-based, for the purposes of the proper course of the procedure, from which the litigant is exempt if he or she decides to conduct his or her own defence;

— it does not preclude, as such, in the light of the objective of the proper administration of justice, a lawyer, provider of representation services in respect of his or her client, from being required to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question and who would be responsible, if necessary, towards that judicial authority, under a system placing lawyers under ethical and procedural obligations such as that of submitting to the judicial authority in question any legal element, whether legislative or case-law-based, for the purposes of the proper course of the procedure, from which the litigant is exempt if he or she decides to conduct his or her own defence;

— a general obligation to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question not allowing account to be taken of the experience of the visiting lawyer would go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective of the proper administration of justice.

(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Armando Carvalho and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-565/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment and for damages - Environment - 2030 climate and energy package - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Lack of individual concern)

(2021/C 206/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Armando Carvalho, Diogo Carvalho, Ildebrando Conceição, Alfredo Sendim, Joaquim Caxeiro, Renaud Feschet, Guylaine Feschet, Gabriel Feschet, Maurice Feschet, Geneviève Gassin, Roba Waku Guya, Fadhe Hussein Tache, Sado Guyo, Issa Guyo, Jibril Guyo, Adanoor Guyo, Mohammed Guyo, Petru Vlad, Ana Tricu, Petru Arin Vlad, Maria Ioana Vlad, Andrei Nicolae Vlad, Giorgio Davide Elter, Sara Burland, Soulail Elter, Alice Elter, Rosa Elter, Maria Elter, Maike Recktenwald, Michael Recktenwald, Lueke Recktenwald, Petero Qaloibau, Melania Cironiceva, Katarina Dimoto, Petero Jnr Qaloibau, Elisabeta Tokalau and Sáminuorra (represented by: G. Winter, Professor, H. Leith, Barrister, and by R. Verheyen, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Peternel, C. Ionescu Dima and A. Tamás, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: European Commission (represented by: A.C. Becker and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Armando Carvalho and 36 other appellants whose names are set out in the annex to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2021 — Pometon SpA v European Commission

(Case C-440/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European steel abrasives market - Participation in bilateral and multilateral contacts with the aim of coordinating prices throughout the European Economic Area (EEA) - ‘Hybrid’ procedure having led successively to the adoption of a settlement decision and a decision made under the ordinary procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41 - Principle of impartiality of the European Commission - Article 48 - Presumption of innocence - Obligation to state reasons - Single and continuous infringement - Duration of the infringement - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2021/C 182/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Pometon SpA (represented by: E. Fabrizi, V. Veneziano and A. Molinaro, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Rossi and T. Vecchi, and subsequently by P. Rossi and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside paragraphs 2 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 March 2019, Pometon v Commission (T-433/16, EU:T:2019:201);

2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Pometon SpA in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 3121 final of 25 May 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39792 — Steel Abrasives) at EUR 2 633 895;

4. Orders Pometon SpA and the European Commission to bear their own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance.

(1) OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
1.

Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/04 of the European Parliament and 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a flight is diverted to an airport serving the same town as the airport for which the booking was made, the bearing of the cost of transferring the passenger between the two airports, provided for in that provision, is not subject to the condition that the first airport be situated in the territory of the same town, of the same city or of the region as the second airport.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ZS ‘Plaukti’

(Case C-736/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Third subparagraph of Article 16(5) - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Articles 4 and 6 - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Support for rural development - Agri-environmental payments - Aid for the maintenance of grassland biodiversity - Non-compliance with the conditions for granting those payments - Early mowing - Reduction and exclusion of those payments - Mandatory standards - Statutory management requirements - Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions - Commitments that exceed mandatory standards, minimum requirements and other appropriate mandatory requirements established by national legislation)

(2021/C 217/13)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

ZS ‘Plaukti’

Intervening party: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Operative part of the judgment

1. The third subparagraph of Article 16(5) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable where an aid applicant has not complied with the agri-environmental commitments relating to mowing requirements, where no change in the crop group has been found;

2. Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, read in conjunction with Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the same requirement can be both a minimum requirement for good agricultural and environmental condition and a requirement going beyond those minimum requirements, namely a requirement for the grant of agri-environmental payments.

(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 April 2021 — Achemos Grupė UAB, Achema AB v European Commission, Republic of Lithuania, Klaipėdos Nafta AB

(Case C-847/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Decision not to raise any objections - Article 108 TFUE - Rights of the interested parties - Principle of sound administration - Diligent and impartial investigation - Scope of the review by the General Court - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 278/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Achemos Grupė UAB, Achema AB (represented by: R. Martens and V. Ostrovskis, advokatas)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by É. Gippini Fournier, N. Kuplewatzky and L. Armati, acting as Agents, and subsequently by E. Gippini Fournier, A. Bouchagiar and L. Armati, acting as Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Dzikovič and K. Dieninis, acting as Agents), Klaipėdos Nafta AB (represented by: K. Kačerauskas, and V. Vaitkutė Pavan, advokatai)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal;

2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the cross-appeal;

3. Orders Achemos Grupė UAB and Achema AB to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in respect of the main appeal;

4. Orders Achemos Grupė UAB, Achema AB and the European Commission to bear their own costs in respect of the cross-appeal;

5. Orders the Republic of Lithuania and Klaipėdos Nafta AB to bear their own costs in respect of both the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.