ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 6 May 2020 by Dekoback GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2020 in Case T-80/19, Dekoback GmbH v EUIPO

(Case C-193/20 P)

(2020/C 287/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Dekoback GmbH (represented by: V. von Moers, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 9 July 2020, the Court of Justice (Vice-President) decided that the appeal should be dismissed as inadmissible and ordered Dekoback GmbH to bear its own costs.
3.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: (3a) Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national provision according to which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, a fine must be imposed per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total fine imposed? (3b) Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for the mandatory imposition of a minimum penalty of EUR 3 000 per gaming machine? (3c) Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for a custodial sentence in the event of non-payment per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total number of custodial sentences imposed? (3d) Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, in the event of a penalty being imposed for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, requires the payment of a contribution to the costs of criminal proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed?
3.

Must Article 23 of Directive 2009/73/EC, in particular the concept of ‘new industrial customer’, be interpreted as meaning that that article lays down an obligation for Member States to adopt a regulatory framework permitting only a non-household final customer (that is to say, only an industrial customer) who has not previously been connected to the distribution network to connect to the natural gas transmission network?
2.

Is the requirement, pursuant to Regulation 4(3)(b) of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (that Comprehensive Sickness Insurance cover in the United Kingdom is only satisfied for a student or self-sufficient person, with regard to Regulation 16(2)(b)(ii) of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, if such cover extends to both that person and all their relevant family members), illegal under EU law in light of Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38 (1) and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in paragraph 70 of Teixeira C-480/08?
2.

Alternatively, if the first question is answered in the negative: Is non-payment within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive to be assumed if the taxable person, when providing his service, agrees that the service is to be paid for in five annual instalments and the national law relating to cases of subsequent payment provides for an adjustment by which the previous reduction in the taxable amount is cancelled again in accordance with that article?
1.

For the purposes of determining the minimum limit of 30 % participation by the private partner in a future semi-public company — the limit deemed appropriate by the Italian legislature in implementation of the principles of EU law set in relation to European case-law — is it compatible with EU law and the correct interpretation of recitals 14 and 32 and Articles 12 and 18 of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) and of Article 30 of Directive 2014/23/EU, (2) with reference also to Article 107 TFEU, for consideration to be given solely to the legal form/on-paper composition of that partner or may — or in fact must — the authority launching the tender also consider its own indirect participation in the private partner submitting a bid?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2020 — UW v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-346/20)

(2020/C 320/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UW

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a long delay of a flight can also be ‘caused’ by extraordinary circumstances where those circumstances occurred the previous day on an earlier flight made by the scheduled aircraft?

By decision of the Court of Justice of 6 August 2020, the case was removed from the Court’s register.

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
First ground of appeal: distortion of the facts (paragraphs 64 to 71 of the contested decision)

According to settled case-law, there exists a distortion of the facts subject to review by the Court where the assessment of the existing evidence is manifestly incorrect. Such distortion must be obvious from the documents before the Court

In the first part of the ground, the Commission claims that the General Court’s finding that the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE) set UG too short a timeframe within which to remedy professional incompetence is contradicted by the evidence in the file. The AECE did not require UG to meet all the objectives fixed in the 2015 appraisal and to restore a relationship of trust with all his work colleagues within a period of three months.

According to the second part of the ground, the General Court erroneously focused its consideration on the issue of unjustified absences and failed to take into account the recurrence of several aspects of professional incompetence noted in the decision of 17 October 2016 and the letter of 8 September 2016.
Appeal brought on 11 September 2020 by Christoph Klein against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) made on 2 July 2020 in Case T-562/19, Christoph Klein v European Commission

(Case C-430/20 P)

(2020/C 371/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Christoph Klein (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 in Case T-562/19;

— declare the action admissible and that the European Commission breached its obligations under the Treaty by failing to act in the safeguard procedure initiated by the Federal Republic of Germany on 7 January 1998 concerning the CE-marked medical device ‘Inhaler Broncho-Air’ and not issuing a decision in accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 93/42/EEC (1);

— in the alternative, set aside the order of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court distorted facts and evidence, erred in its classification of the facts and infringed EU law, namely Article 265 TFEU and the right to a fair hearing, in so far as it found that the action was brought out of time and that the appellant did not have standing to bring proceedings in his own right.

In addition, the General Court misinterpreted EU law and infringed Article 8(2) of Directive 93/42.

Finally, the order of the General Court under appeal is vitiated by a failure to state reasons.

(1) Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medicinal devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1).
5.

Are Articles 4(3) and 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the present case, in which the passenger books an indirect flight with the tour organiser as part of a package tour, and the first segment, which is operated by the defendant airline, is carried out as scheduled but passengers are then denied boarding on the connecting flight, which is also operated by the defendant airline, pursuant to Article 2(j) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, with reference being made to the lack of a ‘cover booking’ by the tour organiser, the amount of compensation is based on the distance of the entire route, from the first point of departure to the final destination, and not only on the distance of the disrupted second segment?
1.

Does point 9 of Appendix 3 to Subpart A of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) allow hours of training completed on an FNPT II flight simulator (instrument ground time) in excess of the number of 15 hours of MCC referred to in point 9(e)(2) and in excess of the maximum of 40 hours of instrument flight instruction in an FNPT II, referred to in point 9(e)(3)(ii), that is to say more than 55 hours of instrument ground time, to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the 115 hours of instrument time referred to in point 9(e)?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) of 3 September 2020 — Viasat UK Ltd, Viasat Inc. v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT), État belge, Inmarsat Ventures SE

(Case C-417/20)

(2020/C 414/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring Court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Viasat UK Ltd, Viasat Inc.

Defendants: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT), État belge, Inmarsat Ventures SE

By order of 8 October 2020, the President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
2.

If the reply is in the negative, meaning that such arrangements are possible, must Article 49 TFEU and Articles 76 and 77 of the Procurement Directive (as read with Article 74 and Annex 14 thereof) be interpreted as permitting contracting authorities to make use of agreements with private non-profit organisations (not solely voluntary associations) to provide all manner of social services to the person in return for reimbursement of costs without following the procedures in the directive and irrespective of the estimated value, simply by classifying the arrangements in question as non-contractual, where, moreover, the national legislation in question does not expressly include the requirements established in Article 77 of the directive, but refers to subsequent implementation through regulations without expressly stipulating, among the requirements to be satisfied by the implementing regulations, that they must explicitly include the conditions laid down in Article 77 of the directive?
through single-member companies owned by the directors concerned, which hold preference shares with preferential rights to dividends in that fund manager

remain subject to the remuneration policies of investment fund managers?
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Can the ‘initial place of infringement’ for the purposes of the CJEU judgments in Cases C-24/16, C-25/16, Nintendo, (2) regarding the determination of the law applicable to subsequent claims under Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’) (3) also lie in the Member State where the consumers to whom internet advertising is addressed are located and where goods infringing designs are put on the market within the meaning of Article 19 of the Community Designs Regulation, in so far as only the offering and the putting on the market in that Member State are challenged, even if the internet offers on which the offering and the putting on the market are based were launched in another Member State?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 2 October 2020 — Philips Orăștie S.R.L. v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-487/20)

(2020/C 433/42)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Philips Orăștie S.R.L.

Defendant: Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Question referred

May the provisions of [the first paragraph of] Article 179 and [the first paragraph of] Article 183 of Directive 112/2006/EC (1), regard being had to the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and neutrality, be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practices in accordance with which the amount of VAT to be refunded is reduced by including in the calculation of the VAT due amounts representing additional liabilities established in a notice of assessment that has been annulled by a judgment that is not yet final, where such additional liabilities are guaranteed by a bank guarantee and the national tax procedure rules recognise that such a guarantee has the effect of staying enforcement in the case of other taxes and duties?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Silistra (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 October 2020 — DB, LY v Nachalnik na Rayonno upravlenie Silistra pri Oblastna direktsiya na Ministerstvoto na vatreshnite raboti

(Case C-520/20)

(2020/C 433/49)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Silistra

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DB, LY

Defendant: Nachalnik na Rayonno upravlenie Silistra pri Oblastna direktsiya na Ministerstvoto na vatreshnite raboti

Question referred

Must Article 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), and in particular Article 39(3) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that it allows national rules and administrative practices under which, if the competent executing authority has valid reason to conclude that the alert entered in the SIS is not covered by the objectives for which it has been registered, and in particular the objectives laid down in Article 38(1), that authority can and must refuse to execute it?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 29 September 2020 — XXXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-483/20)

(2021/C 9/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: XXXX

Respondent: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Question referred

Does EU law, essentially Articles 18 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 2, 20, 23 and 31 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (1), and Article 25(6) 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 (2), preclude a Member State, when applying the powers conferred by Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible because of protection already granted by another Member State, where the applicant is the father of an unaccompanied child who has been granted protection in the first Member State, he is the sole parent of the nuclear family present by the child’s side, he lives with the child and has been conferred parental responsibility for the child by that Member State? Do the principle of family unity and that requiring compliance with the best interests of the child not require, on the contrary, protection to be granted to that parent by the State where his child has been granted protection?

(1) OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.

(2) OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.
1.

Do a decision ‘authorising the disturbance of animals and degradation of the areas of habitat of those species for the working of a quarry’ and the decision authorising or refusing that working (single permit) form a single development consent (within the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment) (1) relating to a single project (within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of that directive) where, first, that working cannot take place without the first of those decisions and, secondly, the authority responsible for issuing single permits retains the ability to determine the environmental effects of that working more strictly having regard to the parameters set by the body that issued the first decision?
The first plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality, provided for in Article 5(4) TEU

Romania submits that the measure governed by Article 1(3), concerning the obligation to return the vehicle to the operational centre in the Member State of establishment within eight weeks, is not necessary to consolidate the real and effective presence of the company in that Member State and is manifestly inappropriate to achieve the stated objective.

It represents an economically unjustified obligation which is burdensome for operators, which will generate pointless operational costs, and increase the number of empty runs as well as CO2 emissions.

Romania further submits that the measure governed by Article 2(4)(a), (b) and (c), providing for the additional restriction of cabotage operations, is manifestly inappropriate to achieve the stated objectives and is not necessary to resolve the problems identified concerning the failure to comply with the cabotage rules.

It represents a regression as compared to the current level of market liberalisation and is capable of creating imbalances in the organisation of the logistics chains of transport companies and of increasing the periods of inactivity and the number of empty runs. The new provisions introduced make it difficult to apply the regulations on cabotage and make the control mechanisms more complicated, adding pointless administrative burdens for operators.

Both measures are disproportionate in terms of the negative impact on transport undertakings in the EU Member States, especially those situated on the geographical periphery of the European Union.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 29 October 2020 — DS v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-565/20)

(2021/C 19/45)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DS

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) [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).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division made on 16 November 2020 — SS v MCP

(Case C-603/20)

(2021/C 28/48)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SS

Defendant: MCP

Question referred

Does Article 10 of Brussels 2 (1) retain jurisdiction, without limit of time, in a member state if a child habitually resident in that member state was wrongfully removed to (or retained in) a non-member state where she, following such removal (or retention), in due course became habitually resident?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003, L 338, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 21 October 2020 — Upfield Hungary Kft. v Somogy Megyei Kormányhivatal

(Case C-533/20)

(2021/C 28/33)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Upfield Hungary Kft.

Defendant: Somogy Megyei Kormányhivatal

Question referred

Must the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (1) on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, and specifically Article 18(2) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, where vitamins are added to foods, the list of the ingredients of the food must include not only the names of the vitamins, but also their designation in accordance with the vitamin formulations which may be added to foods?

(1) OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18.
—

The applicants request the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with and for the purposes laid down in Article 1 of Protocol 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 202, 07.06.2016, p. 268), to grant them authorisation to seize all the funds allocated, and/or to be allocated, by the European Commission to the Republic of Serbia until the debt owed to them is discharged in full.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Portugal) lodged on 16 July 2020 — VO and Others v SATA International — Azores Airlines SA

(Case C-316/20)

(2021/C 35/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: VO, ZO, ML, NB, KE, JE, PI, VY

Defendant: SATA International — Azores Airlines SA

Question referred

Does the concept of travel at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public cover passengers who paid part of their fare, the remainder being borne by the airline, in the context of sponsorship of a sports competition?

By order of 26 November 2020, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held:

Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation does not apply to passengers travelling on tickets issued at a preferential fare by an air carrier in the context of an event sponsorship transaction, the benefit of which is restricted to certain specific persons and the issuing of which presupposes prior individual authorisation on the part of the air carrier.

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.