ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Prima banka Slovensko a.s. v HD

(Case C-192/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Scope - Article 1(2) - Mandatory national legislative provisions - Early termination of the loan agreement - Accumulation of loan interest and default interest)

(2021/C 297/12)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Prima banka Slovensko a.s.

Respondent: HD

Operative part of the judgment

Subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not being applicable to national provisions under which a consumer who has concluded a loan agreement with a seller or supplier cannot be required, on the basis of the terms of that agreement, in the event of early termination of the term of the loan, to pay to the seller or supplier ordinary interest for the period from the time at which that loan was declared immediately due and payable until the capital borrowed has actually been repaid, since the payment of default interest and of the other contractual penalties due under the terms of that agreement provides compensation for the actual harm suffered by the seller or supplier.

(1) OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — TP v Institut des Experts en Automobiles

(Case C-502/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Article 5(2) - Automotive expert established in one Member State who moves to the territory of the host Member State in order to pursue, on a temporary and occasional basis, his profession - Refusal of the professional body of the host Member State, in which he was previously established, to enter him in the register of temporary and occasional service providers - Concept of ‘temporary and occasional provision of services’)

(2021/C 462/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TP

Respondent: Institut des Experts en Automobiles

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of the host Member State, within the meaning of that provision, which, as interpreted by the competent authorities of that Member State, does not allow a professional established in another Member State to pursue, on a temporary and occasional basis, his or her profession in the territory of the host Member State, on the grounds that that professional has had, in the past, an establishment in that Member State, that the services that he or she provides are to a certain degree recurrent or that he or she has equipped him or herself, in that Member State, with infrastructure, such as an office.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-169/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 110 TFEU - Internal taxation - Discriminatory taxation - Prohibition - Second-hand vehicles imported from other Member States - Component of the registration tax calculated on the basis of carbon dioxide emissions - Failure to take into account the depreciation of the vehicle)

(2021/C 462/18)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: initially, M. França and C. Perrin, and, subsequently, G. Braga da Cruz and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, N. Vitorino, A. Pimenta, P. Barros da Costa and S. Jaulino, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by excluding the depreciation of the environmental component in the calculation of the applicable value of second-hand vehicles put into circulation in the Portuguese territory and purchased in another Member State when calculating the vehicle tax as provided for by the Código do imposto sobre veículos (code covering vehicle tax), as amended by the lei 71/2018 (Law No 71/2018), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 110 TFEU;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 3 July 2020, Tognoli and Others v Parliament (T-395/19, T-396/19, T-405/19, T-408/19, T-419/19, T-423/19, T-424/19, T-428/19, T-433/19, T-437/19, T-443/19, T-455/19, T-458/19 to T-462/19, T-464/19, T-469/19 and T-477/19, not published, EU:T:2020:302), in so far as it rejected the claims made by Mr Carlo Tognoli and Others for annulment of the notes of 11 April 2019 drawn up by the Head of the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance and concerning the adjustment of the amount of the pensions they receive following the entry into force, on 1 January 2019, of Decision No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Italy) and of the decisions of the European Parliament set out in the letters of 20 June (Case T-396/19), of 8 July (Cases T-405/19, T-408/19, T-443/19 and T-464/19), of 15 July (Cases T-419/19, T-433/19, T-455/19, T-458/19 to T-462/19, T-469/19 and T-477/19) and of 23 July 2019 (Cases T-395/19, T-423/19, T-424/19 and T-428/19);
1.

The provisions of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country and the principles of European Union law, in particular the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as not precluding an application for a refund of value added tax (VAT) from being rejected where the taxable person has not, within the time limits laid down, submitted to the competent tax authority, even at the latter’s request, all the documents and information required to prove his or her right to a refund of VAT, irrespective of the fact that those documents and information were submitted by that taxable person, on his or her own initiative, in the context of the complaint or the judicial review of the decision rejecting such a right to a refund, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are complied with, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Varchev Finans’ EOOD v Komisia za finansov nadzor

(Case C-95/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/65/EU - Markets in financial instruments - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 - Investment firms - Article 56 - Assessment of appropriateness and related record-keeping obligations - Article 72 - Retention of records - Methods of retention - Information concerning client categorisation - Information on costs and associated charges relating to investment services)

(2022/C 2/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Varchev Finans’ EOOD

Defendant: Komisia za finansov nadzor

Intervener: Okrazhna prokuratura — Varna

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56(2) and Article 72(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive, read in conjunction with Annex I to that delegated regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that investment firms are not required to record the suitability and appropriateness assessments undertaken for each client with respect to investment products and services and the information provided to each client on the costs and charges relating to the investment services in separate single registers, in the form, in particular, of a database, and the manner in which those records are kept may be freely chosen, provided, however, that it meets all of the requirements laid down in Article 72(1) of that delegated regulation.

(1) OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Biofa AG v Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG

(Case C-29/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (UE) No 528/2012 - Article 3(1)(a) and (c) - Definitions of ‘biocidal product’ and ‘active substance’ - Conditions - Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action - Article 9(1)(a) - Approval of an active substance - Scope of approval)

(2021/C 502/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Biofa AG

Defendant: Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 334/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(c) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that a product intended to destroy, deter or render harmless harmful organisms, which contains an active substance approved under an implementing regulation of the Commission, in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) of that regulation, does not, solely because of that approval, come under the definition of ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of the first indent of Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation, with the result that it falls to the competent national court to ascertain whether that product satisfies all the conditions laid down by that provision in order to come under that definition. However, where the composition of that product is identical to the composition of the biocidal product presented as representative at the time of the application for approval of that active substance, that court is required to consider that that product comes under that definition.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
1.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement between a supplier and a distributor under which the distributor who was first to register the potential transaction with the end user enjoys ‘priority in progressing the sale process’ for 6 months from the registration of that transaction, unless that user objects, cannot be classified as an agreement which has ‘as [its] object’ the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, within the meaning of that provision, unless that agreement, in the light of its wording, its objectives and its context, can be regarded as posing a sufficient degree of harm to competition to be classified thus. If such an agreement does not constitute a restriction of competition ‘by object’ for the purposes of Article 101(1) TFEU, the national court must examine whether, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, namely, in particular, the economic and legal context in which the undertakings concerned operate, the nature of the goods or services affected, and the real conditions of the functioning and structure of the market in question, that agreement could be regarded as restricting competition in a sufficiently appreciable manner by reason of its actual or potential effects.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG

(Case C-388/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 - Provision of food information to consumers - Article 9(1)(l) - Nutrition declaration - Second subparagraph of Article 31(3) - Calculation of the energy value and of the amounts of nutrients - Possibility of providing that information for the food after preparation - Conditions - Second subparagraph of Article 33(2) - Expression on a per portion basis or per consumption unit)

(2022/C 11/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Respondent: Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 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 must be interpreted as applying only to foods for which preparation is necessary and the method of preparation is predetermined.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Vítkovice Steel a.s. v Ministerstvo životního prostředí

(Case C-524/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 11(3) - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 3(b) and Article 10(2)(a) - Product benchmark sub-installation - Decision 2013/448/EU - Validity - Installation using a basic oxygen furnace - Hot metal - Input from a third-party installation - Refusal to allocate emission allowances - Admissibility - Failure by the applicant in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment)

(2022/C 84/22)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vítkovice Steel a.s.

Defendant: Ministerstvo životního prostředí

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and the third subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as not permitting the free allocation to the installation at issue in the main proceedings of allowances based on the ‘hot metal’ product benchmark, on the basis of a new application from the Czech Republic, even if double counting of emissions and double allocation of allowances are excluded.

(1) OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani — Slovenia) — Proceedings brought by NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH

(Case C-25/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Articles 4 and 28 - Article 32(2) - Time limit for the lodging of claims in insolvency proceedings - Lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings ongoing in a Member State, of claims by the liquidator in the main proceedings pending in another Member State - Compulsory time limit laid down by the law of the State in which secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened)

(2022/C 51/07)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Ljubljani

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NK, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Alpine BAU GmbH

Intervening parties: Alpine BAU GmbH, Salzburg — Celje Branch, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 28 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the lodging, in secondary insolvency proceedings, of claims already submitted in the main insolvency proceedings by the liquidator in those proceedings is subject to the provisions relating to time limits for the lodging of claims and to the consequences of lodging such claims out of time, laid down by the law of the State of the opening of those secondary proceedings.

(1) OJ C 103, 30.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Regione Puglia v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others

(Case C-110/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy - Directive 94/22/EC - Conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons - Authorisation for the prospection of hydrocarbons in a specific geographical area for a specified period - Contiguous areas - Grant of several authorisations to the same operator - Directive 2011/92/EU - Article 4(2) and (3) - Environmental impact assessment)

(2022/C 109/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Regione Puglia

Respondents: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività culturali e del Turismo, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Commissione tecnica di verifica dell’impatto ambientale

Intervener: Global Petroleum Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons and Article 4(2) and (3) 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 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which lays down an upper limit on the size of the area that may be covered by a hydrocarbon exploration permit, but does not expressly prohibit granting the same operator more than one permit for adjacent areas that together cover an area exceeding that limit, provided that doing so is such as to ensure the best possible exercise of the exploration activity concerned from both a technical and economic point of view, and the achievement of the objectives pursued by Directive 94/22. It is also necessary, in the context of the environmental impact assessment, to assess the cumulative effect of projects likely to have significant effects on the environment, which are presented by that operator in its applications for hydrocarbon exploration permits.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava III — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against AB and Others

(Case C-203/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Scope - Article 51 - Implementation of EU law - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Jurisdiction of the Court - Reference made before the issue of a European arrest warrant - Admissibility - Principle ne bis in idem - Article 50 - Concepts of ‘acquittal’ and ‘conviction’ - Amnesty in the issuing Member State - Final decision discontinuing a criminal prosecution - Revocation of the amnesty - Setting-aside of the decision discontinuing the criminal prosecution - Resumption of proceedings - Need for a decision taken after a determination of the criminal liability of the person concerned - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Scope - Concept of ‘criminal proceedings’ - Legislative procedure for the adoption of a resolution relating to the revocation of an amnesty - Judicial procedure for review of the compliance of that resolution with the national Constitution)

(2022/C 84/11)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Bratislava III

Parties in the main proceedings

AB, CD, EF, NO, JL, GH, IJ, LM, PR, ST, UV, WZ, BC, DE, FG

Intervening parties: HI, Krajská prokuratúra v Bratislave

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding the issue of a European arrest warrant against a person who was subject to a criminal prosecution that was initially discontinued by a final judicial decision adopted on the basis of an amnesty, and resumed following the adoption of a law revoking that amnesty and setting aside that judicial decision, in the case where that decision was adopted before any determination as to the criminal liability of the person concerned;

2. Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not applying to a legislative procedure for the revocation of an amnesty or to a judicial procedure the purpose of which is to review the compliance of that revocation with the national constitution.

(1) OJ C 230, 13.7.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UE v ShareWood Switzerland AG, VF

(Case C-595/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Law applicable to contractual obligations - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I) - Consumer contracts - Choice of applicable law - Article 6(4)(c) - Exclusion of contracts relating to a right in rem in immovable property or to a tenancy of immovable property - Contract of sale, including a lease agreement and a service agreement, relating to trees planted for the sole purpose of being harvested for profits)

(2022/C 148/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UE

Defendants: ShareWood Switzerland AG, VF

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(4)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (‘Rome I’) must be interpreted as meaning that a contract of sale, including a lease agreement and a service agreement, relating to trees planted on leased land for the sole purpose of being harvested for profit, does not constitute a ‘contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property or a tenancy of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.