ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought on 18 February 2022 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2021 in Case T-595/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)

(Case C-121/22 P)

(2022/C 294/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (represented by: V. Marsland, Solicitor, and C. Milbradt, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Fontana Food AB

By order of 15 June 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi should bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 18 February 2022 — Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie v W. Sp. z o.o.

(Case C-114/22)

(2022/C 284/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

Respondent: W. Sp. z o.o.

Question referred

Must the provisions of Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a) and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) (1) and the principles of neutrality and proportionality be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as Article 88(3a)(4)(c) of the Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów i usług (Law of 11 March 2004 on the Tax on Goods and Services, Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2011, No 177, item 1054, as amended), which deprives a taxable person of the right to deduct VAT on the acquisition of a right (asset) deemed to have been made under false pretences within the meaning of the provisions of national civil law, irrespective of whether the result sought was a tax advantage, the granting of which would be contrary to one or more of the objectives of the directive and whether it constituted the principal aim of the contractual approach adopted?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, do Article 167 of Directive 2006/112, the general principle of VAT neutrality and the general principle that any restriction of the right to deduct VAT must be proportional preclude a provision of national law such as Article 30(4) of Law No 724 of 1994, under which the right to deduct input VAT paid on purchases or to be reimbursed such VAT or to use such VAT in a subsequent tax period may be refused where, in three consecutive tax periods, the relevant transactions for VAT purposes carried out are of a value which is not deemed commensurate — in that it is too low — with what may, according to criteria pre-determined by law, reasonably be expected from the available assets for three consecutive years and the taxable person concerned is unable to demonstrate, as justification for that fact, the existence of objective circumstances which have caused that result?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-683/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-153/22 P)

(2022/C 303/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Rieker Schuh AG

By order of 22 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) refused to allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 20 April 2022 — Global Roads Investimentos SGPS, Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-267/22)

(2022/C 318/29)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Global Roads Investimentos SGPS, Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Is a holding company established in Portugal and governed by the provisions of Decree-law No 495/88 of 30 December 1988, which has as its sole object the management of shareholdings in other companies, as an indirect means of pursuing economic activities, and which, in that context, acquires and holds on a long-term basis such shareholdings, which, in general, amount to at least 10 % of the share capital of the companies in which it has a shareholding, where those companies do not operate in the insurance or financial sectors, covered by the definition of ‘financial institution’ within the meaning of point 22 of Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU (1) and point 26 of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013? (2)

(1) Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 6 January 2022 by QC against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 11 November 2021 in Case T-77/21, QC v Commission

(Case C-14/22 P)

(2022/C 311/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: QC (represented by: F. Moyse, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 30 June 2022, the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
1.

Must Council Directive 2009/133/EC (1) of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States (‘the Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that compatibility with recital 2 and Article 1(a) thereof is maintained by national legislation (or a provision of national law), or the interpretation and application in practice of such national legislation (or such a provision of national law), pursuant to which the Directive is held not to apply to intra-State business conversions but only to international and cross-border business conversions, in circumstances in which the provisions of the Directive were transposed by the a társasági adóról és osztalékadóról szóló 1996. évi LXXXI. törvény (Law LXXXI of 1996 on corporation tax and tax on dividends; ‘the Law on corporation tax’) in such a way that, although [EU] law does not directly govern that matter, the national legislature provided in Article 31(1)(a) of that Law that the purpose of the latter was to align the legislation so enacted with acts of EU law, including the Directive?
Action brought on 8 July 2022 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-455/22)

(2022/C 318/45)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Escobar Gómez, E.A. Stamate and C. Valero, Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, until 3 October 2020, Romania failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU; (1)

— order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It is submitted that, from 2014 until 3 October 2020, S.C. CET Govora nr. 2, S.C. Electrocentrale Deva (Mintia) nr. 2 and S.C. Electrocentrale Deva (Mintia) nr. 3 were operated without a valid environmental permit according to the requirements laid down in Directive 2010/75. The Romanian authorities acknowledged that the three installations continued to be operated without a valid environmental permit until 3 October 2020, but argued that the installations were operated sporadically in order to ensure the safety of the national energy system.

Since Romania failed to take the measures necessary to ensure that S.C. CET Govora nr. 2, S.C. Electrocentrale Deva (Mintia) nr. 2 and S.C. Electrocentrale Deva (Mintia) nr. 3 were operated on the basis of a valid environmental permit, it infringed Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/75.

As regards the argument relating to the sporadic operation of the installations in order to ensure the safety of the national energy system, Directive 2010/75 does not contain such a possibility for a general exemption from the obligation to hold an environmental permit laid down in Article 4(1) of that directive. In addition, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, Member States are responsible for an infringement of obligations under EU law regardless of the State body in question responsible and they may not rely on provisions, practices or circumstances existing in the domestic legal order in order to justify the failure to comply with obligations provided for by [EU] directives. In that regard, Romania cannot rely on purely internal situations such as the operators’ insolvency or disputes relating to the suspension of the installations’ activities in order justify the failure to fulfil obligations under the directive.

(1) Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17).
1.

Must the second sentence of Article 29(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (‘Regulation [EU] No 1305/2013’) be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as Article 11(5) (formerly Article 11(4)) of Naredba No 4 ot 24.02.2015 za prilagane na myarka 11 ‘Biologichno zemedelie’ ot Programata za razvitie na selskite rayoni za perioda 2014-2020 (Ordinance No 4 of 24 February 2015 on the application of measure 11 ‘Organic farming’ of the Rural Development Programme for the period 2014-2020), under which the possibility of receiving financial support for organic production during conversion is limited to a period not exceeding the minimum conversion periods under Article 36(1), Article 37(1) and Article 38 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (2) of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control?
(d)

the provision of a special platform, website or application whereby users may reserve a particular connector and view their transaction and payment history, and of the option to use an ‘e-wallet’ to pay the balance due for individual recharging sessions — constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) or a supply of services within the meaning of Article 24(1) thereof?
4.

Are the examination of grounds preventing removal and the examination as to the granting of subsidiary protection status comparable where, in the examination of grounds preventing removal, it was necessary cumulatively to examine whether, in the country to which the applicant concerned is to be removed, he or she faces (a) a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) a risk of being subjected to the death penalty or execution; (c) a risk of being the subject of an infringement of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights — ECHR); or (d) a real and significant threat to his or her life and limb or freedom; or whether he or she (e) is exposed, as a member of the civilian population, to a significant individual threat to life or limb in the context of an international or internal armed conflict?
3.

Must Article 2, Article 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a court has been abolished by the adopted amendment to the Zakon za sadebnata vlast (Law on the Judiciary) (DV No 32/26 April 2022, the implementation of which has been postponed until 27 July 2022) but the judges must continue to hear the cases assigned to them up to that date and must also continue, after that date, to hear cases of that institution in which they have held preliminary hearings, the independence of that court is impaired, given that the abolition of the court is justified on the ground that the constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary and the protection of the constitutional rights of citizens is thereby safeguarded and the facts leading to the conclusion that those principles have been infringed are not duly set out?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 12 May 2022 — E. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-322/22)

(2022/C 359/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: E.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

Question referred

Do the principles of effectiveness, sincere cooperation and equivalence expressed in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union …, or any other relevant principle laid down in EU law, preclude a provision of national law such as Article 78 § 5(1) and (2) of the ustawa z 29 sierpnia 1997 r. Ordynacja podatkowa (Law of 29 August 1997 establishing the Tax Code) (consolidated text: Dz. U. of 2012, item 749, as amended), which provides that interest on overpaid tax which is collected by a paying agent in a manner not consistent with EU law is not due to the taxable person for the period after the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication in the Official Journal of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union declaring that the collection of the tax is incompatible with EU law, where the request for a declaration of that overpayment was submitted by the taxable person after that time limit and the provisions of national law relating to the collection of the tax continue to be incompatible with EU law despite the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 April 2014, [E. … (C-190/12, EU:C:2014:249)]?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

(Case C-396/22)

(2022/C 359/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Questions referred

1. Must proceedings for the subsequent determination of a cumulative sentence still also be considered to fall within the scope of Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, (2) where the decision is taken by way of a judgment following a hearing, but, in that judgment, the finding of guilt cannot be reviewed and the sentence imposed in respect of the individual offence cannot be amended?

2. Is it compatible with the primacy of EU law for the German legislature to have configured the case of conviction in absentia as an absolute impediment to surrender in Paragraph 83(1)(3) of the Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters), even though Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, provides only for an optional ground for refusal in that regard?

(1) Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

(2) Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24).
3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative: is the competent national authority permitted to apply a general national rule on disclosure by virtue of which information is not disclosed if disclosure would be outweighed by the interests concerned with, for example, relations with other States and international organisations, with inspection, control and monitoring by administrative authorities, with respect for privacy and with preventing natural and legal persons from being disproportionately advantaged and disadvantaged?
1.

Can Decision 2014/512/CFSP, (1) in particular Articles 5 and 7 thereof, in the light of the principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege, be interpreted as permitting (by way of a civil penalty) a national measure authorising the confiscation of the entire proceeds of a transaction, such as the one referred to in Article 2(2)(a) of Decision 2014/512/CFSP, in the event that an act categorised by domestic law as a summary offence is found to have been committed?
—

declare that by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that water intended for human consumption meets the minimum requirement of the parametric value for Trihalomethanes — Total set out in Annex I, Part B of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (1) (the ‘Directive’) in 21 public water supply zones and in 9 private group water schemes, and that the necessary remedial action is taken as soon as possible to restore the quality of the water intended for human consumption in the aforementioned public water supply zones and private group water schemes and failing to give priority to its enforcement action, having regard inter alia to the extent to which the relevant parametric value has been exceeded and to the potential danger to human health, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I Part B, and Article 8(2) of the Directive; and
4.

In particular, as regards the third question, must the assessment be made solely on the basis of the circumstances known at the time when the provisional measure was obtained, or is it permissible to take into account, for example, the fact that the intellectual property right on whose alleged infringement the provisional measure was based was subsequently, after that measure was obtained, found to be invalid ab initio and, if so, what significance is to be attached to that circumstance?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsialisiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 July 2022 — Criminal proceedings against VB

(Case C-468/22)

(2022/C 408/43)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsialisiran nakazatelen sad

Accused person

VB

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 9 of Directive 2016/343 (1) and the principle of effectiveness for a national provision such as Article 423(3) of the NPK to oblige a person who makes a request for a new trial, because he or she had been absent from the first trial and neither of the cases in Article 8(2) [of that directive] applied, to appear before the court in person in order to have that request examined on the merits?

(1) Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 18 January 2022 by Ramón Baides Fernández and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-659/21, Baides Fernández v Commission

(Case C-40/22 P)

(2022/C 408/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Ramón Baides Fernández, Alberto Baranda Álvarez, José Luis Bermúdez Cuetos, Juan Carlos Campos Menéndez, María Gloria Díaz Blanco, José Vicente Galán Soto, María José González Delgado, María Rosario López Rodríguez, Erundina Prieto Álvarez, Mónica Regueira Álvarez, Patricia Sánchez Caballero (represented by: B. González González, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 6 September 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 August 2022 — J.M.P. v AP Assistenzprofis GmbH

(Case C-518/22)

(2022/C 424/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: J.M.P.

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: AP Assistenzprofis GmbH

Question referred

Can Article 4(1), Article 6(1), Article 7 and/or Article 2(5) of Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) read in the light of the requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, direct discrimination on grounds of age can be justified?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire

(Case C-501/22)

(2022/C 424/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel)

Defendant: Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire

Question referred

Must Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (1) be interpreted as authorising the extension of inter-trade agreements which establish more stringent standards than those laid down in Union rules not only in the case of ‘production rules’, mentioned in point (b) of Article 164(4), but also in all of the cases mentioned in points (a) and (c) to (n) thereof, in relation to which Article 164 provides that the extension of an inter-trade agreement may be requested and, in particular, whether that Article 164 authorises, where EU rules lay down marketing rules for a given class of fruit or vegetables, the adoption of more stringent rules, in the form of an inter-trade agreement, and their extension to all operators?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).