ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 16 August 2019 – M.S., M.W., G.S. v Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-616/19)

(2019/C 357/32)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M.S., M.W., G.S.

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Questions referred

1. Does the reference to ‘the Member State concerned’ in art. 25(2)(d) and (e) of directive 2005/85 (1) mean (a) a first member state which has granted protection equivalent to asylum to an applicant for international protection or (b) a second member state to which a subsequent application for international protection is made or (c) either of those member states?

2. Where a third country national has been granted international protection in the form of subsidiary protection in a first member state, and moves to the territory of a second member state, does the making of a further application for international protection in the second member state constitute an abuse of rights such that the second member state is permitted to adopt a measure providing that such a subsequent application is inadmissible?

3. Is art. 25 of directive 2005/85 to be interpreted so as to preclude a member state which is not bound by directive 2011/95 (2) but is bound by regulation 604/2013 (3), from adopting legislation such as that at issue in the present case which deems inadmissible an application for asylum by a third country national who has previously been granted subsidiary protection by another member state?

(1) Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005, L 326, p. 13).

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

(3) Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013, L 180, p. 31).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by Iceland Foods Ltd against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-267/18: Iceland Foods v EUIPO - Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)

(Case C-162/19 P)

(2019/C 357/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Iceland Foods Ltd (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, J. Hertzog, C. Hill and J. Warner, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 5 September 2019 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded and that Iceland Foods Ltd shall bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2019 — RQ v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

(Case C-533/19)

(2019/C 372/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RQ

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

Question referred

Is an interpretation such as that set out in judgments of the Spanish Supreme Court No 191/2019 of 19 February 2019, appeal in cassation 5607/2017 (ECLI:ES:TS:2019:580), and No 257/2019 of 27 February 2019, appeal in cassation 5809/2017 (ECLI:ES:TS:2019:663), according to which, through an interpretation of Directive 2001/40/EC, (1) it is possible to come to the conclusion that any third-country national holding a long-term residence permit who has committed an offence punishable by a sentence of at least one year in duration can and should be ‘automatically’ removed, that is to say, [without] needing to give any consideration to his personal, family, social or employment circumstances, compatible with Article 12 of Council [Directive] 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, (2) and with — inter alia — the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 7 December 2017 (Case C-636/16 (3)) and of 8 December 2011 (Case C-371/08 (4))?

(1) Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals (OJ 2001 L 149, p. 34).

(2) OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44.

(3) Judgment of 7 December 2017, López Pastuzano (C-636/16, EU:C:2017:949).

(4) Judgment of 8 December 2011, Ziebell (C-371/08, EU:C:2011:809).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by Camomilla Srl against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2018 in Case T-44/17 Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)

(Case C-68/19 P)

(2019/C 363/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Camomilla Srl (represented by: M. Mussi, H.G. Chiappetta, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl

By order of 11 September 2019, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded, and ordered Camomilla Srl to bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2019 — PO v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

(Case C-531/19)

(2019/C 372/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PO

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

Question referred

Is an interpretation such as that set out in judgments of the Spanish Supreme Court No 191/2019 of 19 February 2019, appeal in cassation 5607/2017 (ECLI:ES:TS:2019:580), and No 257/2019 of 27 February 2019, appeal in cassation 5809/2017 (ECLI:ES:TS:2019:663), according to which, through an interpretation of Directive 2001/40/EC, (1) it is possible to come to the conclusion that any third-country national holding a long-term residence permit who has committed an offence punishable by a sentence of at least one year in duration can and should be ‘automatically’ removed, that is to say, [without] needing to give any consideration to his personal, family, social or employment circumstances, compatible with Article 12 of Council [Directive] 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, (2) and with — inter alia — the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 7 December 2017 (Case C-636/16 (3)) and of 8 December 2011 (Case C-371/08 (4))?

(1) Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals (OJ 2001 L 149, p. 34).

(2) OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44.

(3) Judgment of 7 December 2017, López Pastuzano (C-636/16, EU:C:2017:949).

(4) Judgment of 8 December 2011, Ziebell (C-371/08, EU:C:2011:809).
1.

Is Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that periods of stand-by time during which an employee is subject to the obligation to reach the city boundary of his place of employment in uniform with the operational vehicle within twenty minutes are to be regarded as working time, even though the employer has not prescribed a place for the employee to stay, but the employee is nevertheless significantly restricted in his choice of location and in the opportunities to devote himself to his personal and social interests?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 29 July 2019 — PL v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-574/19)

(2019/C 383/46)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PL

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

The case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice by Order of the President of the Court of 23 September 2019.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2019 — XW v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-541/19)

(2019/C 383/44)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XW

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Questions referred

Is the total flight distance to be used as a basis for calculating the entitlement to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also in the case where the arrival of a passenger at the final destination is delayed by three hours or more solely as a result of a delay/cancellation of the connecting flight, but the feeder flight was on time, the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the flights were booked together?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 18 September 2019 — Ryanair Ltd v PJ

(Case C-687/19)

(2019/C 399/38)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

Defendant: PJ

Question referred

Must Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents, (1) and therefore Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999 for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, be interpreted as precluding the payment of compensation for a psychological injury, such as post-traumatic stress, on the basis of those provisions?

(1) OJ 2002 L 140, p. 2.
Appeal brought on 9 September 2019 by BP against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-838/16: BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

(Case C-669/19 P)

(2019/C 383/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BP (represented by: E. Lazar, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal; and consequently

— grant the appellant adequate compensation for the non-material and material damage caused;

— grant the appellant adequate compensation related to the consequences of FRA’s defamatory statements against her and damage to her professional and personal reputation;

— order FRA to pay the costs in the first instance and appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1) First plea in law, alleging error of law and manifest error of assessment of the admissibility of the new plea in law and of the evidences submitted under Article 85 of the Rules of Procedure; violation of the right to be heard; absence of a fair trial; infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection laid down in Article 47 of the EU Charter; limitation of rights; and breach of Article 52 EU Charter.

2) Second plea in law, alleging error of law and manifest error in the assessment of paragraphs 112, 115 to 117, 126, 140 to 142 of appellant’s action for damages related to alleged breach of article 2(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1), breach of Article 8 ECHR and violation of paragraphs 63-65 of the Bavarian Lager Judgement (2); violation of the duty to state reasons in relation to initial partial disclosure erga omnes and subsequent full disclosure of appellant’s personal data; breach of the legal equilibrium established by the EU legislator between Regulation 1049/2001 and Regulation 45/2001 (3); and violation of the Bavarian Lager Judgement.

3) Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 134 and 135 of the Rules of Procedure and violation of the duty to state reasons; violation of case law regarding costs; limitation of rights; and breach of Article 52 EU Charter.

4) Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 66 of the Rules of Procedure; refusal to allow the application for omission of certain sensitive information from the judgement T-838/16; subsequent excessive redaction of judgement; as well as absence of a lawful composition of the 5th Chamber with no possibility to act in extended composition or to vote effectively.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43).

(2) Judgment of 29 June 2010, Commission/Bavarian Lager (C-28/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:378).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001, L 8, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Pilatus Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2019 in Case T-687/18: Pilatus Bank v European Central Bank (ECB)

(Case C-701/19 P)

(2019/C 406/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Pilatus Bank plc (represented by: O.H. Behrends, M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested order of the General Court;

— declare that the application for annulment is admissible;

— refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and

— order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court distorted Maltese law by assuming that all powers of the appellant and its board were transferred to the competent person.

Second plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal violated the guarantee of an effective remedy under European law.

Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in assuming that the contested decision is a mere preparatory measure.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court distorted the content of the contested decision as well as more generally the facts of the case.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal cannot be upheld based on the alternative ground of a possible consultation of the competent person with the directors.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal cannot be upheld based on the alternative ground of an involvement of a lawyer in the case.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal cannot be upheld based on the alternative ground of the contested decision being contained in a mere email.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the application has not become devoid of purpose.
Action brought on 3 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-730/19)

(2019/C 399/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Y. Marinova and E. Manhaeve)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, (1) in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive, by systematically and continuously exceeding in zone BG0006 (South-East): (i) the hourly limit values for SO2 as from 2007; (ii) the daily limit values for SO2 as from 2007, with the exception of 2010 and 2012;

— declare that, as from 11 June 2010, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular its obligation in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) to ensure as short as possible a period in which the abovementioned limit values for SO2 in zone BG0006 (South-East) are exceeded;

— order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the Commission claims that Bulgaria has infringed the provisions of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive, in so far as it has systematically and continuously exceeded, in zone BG0006 (South-East), the hourly and daily limit values for SO2.

Secondly, the Commission maintains that Bulgaria has infringed the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, in so far as, as from 11 June 2010, it has not included in its air quality plans any appropriate measures intended to ensure that the period during which the limit values are exceeded is as short as possible.

(1) Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1)
1.

Is Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 of 16 February 2017 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 925/2009 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of slightly modified certain aluminium foil (1) invalid because it infringes Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, (2) in that it extended to aluminium converter foil the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed in respect of aluminium household foil pursuant to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 of 17 December 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium foils originating in the People’s Republic of China and terminating the proceeding for imports of certain aluminium foils originating in Brazil following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (3) and provides for exemption for aluminium converter foil from anti-dumping duty only under the conditions of Article 1(4) of Implementing Regulation 2017/271?
1.

Is a member state precluded from exercising the option to be found in Article 5 of Directive 77/249/EEC (1) of 22 March 1977, as amended, which permits a member state to impose a requirement on a lawyer who is engaged in the activity of representing a client in legal proceedings ‘to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question’, in all circumstances where the party whom the visiting lawyer wishes to represent in such proceedings would be entitled to self-represent?
1.

Is it possible to conclude, in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) that the facts as investigated and established in a decision given by a national competition authority of an EU Member State — where that authority acts in accordance with Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU within the remit granted to it pursuant to that regulation, the Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States, and the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities (OJ 2004 C 101, p. 3) of 27 April 2004 — which is subsequently upheld by a higher court and becomes final, have the probative force of full proof and have a constraining or prejudicial effect on the adjudication by another court in subsequent proceedings relating to the same facts?
1.

In accordance with the case-law established by the Court of Justice, in its judgments of 20 April 2010 (Case C-265/08, Federutility) (1) and of 7 September 2016 (Case C-121/15, ANODE) (2) amongst others, is national legislation — such as that established in Article 45(4) of Ley 24/2013, de 26 de diciembre (Law No 24 of 26 December 2013) and subsequently implemented by Articles 2 and 3 of Real Decreto 968/2014, de 21 de noviembre (Royal Decree No 968 of 21 November 2014) – under which the financing of the ‘bono social’ [regulated discount for electricity for certain vulnerable consumers; ‘the regulated discount’] falls on certain actors in the electricity system, namely the parent companies of company groups or, where applicable, companies that simultaneously carry on electricity production, distribution and retail activities, compatible with the requirements laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, (3) where some of those actors carry very little weight in the sector as a whole, and where, by contrast, other entities or company groups that may be in a better position to bear that cost, either due to their turnover, relative size in a business sector or because they carry on two of those activities simultaneously on an integrated basis, are exempted from that burden?
Action brought on 29 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-796/19)

(2019/C 432/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Walter Mölls, Cécile Vrignon)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should,

— declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(a) of Directive 2007/59/EC, (1) in that it designated as the competent authority for the purposes of that directive a different authority than the safety authority referred to in Article 16 of Directive 2004/49/EC; (2)

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that Article 3(a) of Directive 2007/59 defines the competent authority for the purposes of that directive as ‘the safety authority referred to in Article 16 of Directive 2004/49/EC’.

However, the Austrian legislature chose a different authority.

Instead of designating the competent authority for the purposes of Directive 2004/49 (the Federal Minister for Transport, Innovation and Technology), it designated Schieneninfrastruktur-Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH as the competent authority for a set of tasks covered by Directive 2007/59. According to the Commission, that is incompatible with the latter directive.

(1) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 51).

(2) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44).
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Can the family member of the Turkish worker in the situation described then continue to rely on the rights under Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 if he has lost the nationality of the host Member State because he has reacquired his previous nationality?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 24 May 2019 by Hochmann Marketing GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 22 March 2019 in Case T-673/18, Hochmann Marketing GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-409/19 P)

(2020/C 10/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (represented by: J. Jennings, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 31 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.