ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ard-Chúirt — Ireland) — UH v An tAire Talmhaíochta, Bia agus Mara, Éire, An tArd-Aighne

(Case C-64/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 288 TFEU - Directive 2001/82/EC - Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products - Articles 58, 59 and 61 - Information to be provided on outer packaging, immediate packaging and the package leaflet for veterinary medicinal products - Obligation to provide information in all the official languages of the Member State in which the product is marketed - National legislation providing that the information may be provided in one or other of the official languages of the Member State - National court hearing an action for a declaration that the Member State had failed correctly to transpose Directive 2001/82/EC and that the competent national authorities must amend the national legislation)

(2021/C 180/02)

Language of the case: Irish

Referring court

Ard-Chúirt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UH

Defendants: An tAire Talmhaíochta, Bia agus Mara, Éire, An tArd-Aighne

Operative part of the judgment

Article 288 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national court — which, in the context of proceedings laid down in national law for that purpose, finds that the Member State to which it pertains has failed to fulfil its obligation to transpose correctly Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, as amended by Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 — from refusing, on the ground that it appears to it that the national legislation is consistent with Regulation (EU) 2019 /6 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on veterinary medicinal products and repealing Directive 2001/82/EC, which repeals that directive and will apply with effect from 28 January 2022, to make a declaration that that Member State has not correctly transposed that directive and is required to take remedial steps in that regard.

(1) OJ C 162, 11.5.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Jumbocarry Trading GmbH

(Case C-39/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Union Customs Code - First subparagraph of Article 22(6), read in conjunction with Article 29 - Communication of the grounds to the person concerned before taking a decision which would adversely affect that person - Article 103(1) and Article 103(3)(b) - Limitation of the customs debt - Period for notification of the customs debt - Suspension of the period - Article 124(1)(a) - Extinguishment of the customs debt where it is time-barred - Temporal application of the provision governing the grounds for suspension - Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations)

(2021/C 289/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Jumbocarry Trading GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 103(3)(b) and Article 124(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, must be interpreted as applying to a customs debt incurred before 1 May 2016 and not yet time-barred at that date.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht — Germany) — L.R. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-8/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Application for international protection - Grounds of inadmissibility - Article 2(q) - Concept of ‘subsequent application’ - Article 33(2)(d) - Rejection by a Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible due to the rejection of a previous application made by the person concerned in a third State with which the European Union has concluded an agreement on the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the States parties to that agreement - Final decision taken by the Kingdom of Norway)

(2021/C 278/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L.R.

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33(2)(d) 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, read in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for the possibility of rejecting as inadmissible an application for international protection, within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that directive, made to that Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person whose previous application seeking the grant of refugee status, made to a third State implementing 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, in accordance with the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway — Declarations, had been rejected by that third State.

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — BEMH, Conseil national des centres commerciaux v Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance, Ministre de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales

(Case C-325/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 14(6) - Freedom of establishment - Commercial operating permit issued by a collegiate body - Body made up of, inter alia, recognised experts representative of the economic fabric - Persons potentially constituting or representing competing operators of the applicant for authorisation - Prohibition)

(2021/C 349/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BEMH, Conseil national des centres commerciaux

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance, Ministre de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that permits the presence, within a collegiate body responsible for issuing opinions on the granting of commercial operating permits, of recognised experts representative of the local economic fabric in the relevant catchment area, even if those experts do not take part in the vote on the application for authorisation and merely present the situation of that economic fabric and the impact of the project on that economic fabric, in so far as the actual or potential competitors of the applicant participate in the appointment of those persons.

(1) OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
3.

Article 2d(1)(a) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989, on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply where a contract notice has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, even if, first, the estimated quantity and/or the estimated value of the products to be supplied under the envisaged contract is not set out in the contract notice but rather in the tender specifications and, second, neither that contract notice nor those tender specifications mention a maximum quantity or a maximum value of the products to be supplied under that framework contract.
1.

Declares that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, read in conjunction with Article 10 of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, by not ensuring that, before it is discharged, urban waste water from the agglomerations Lycksele, Malå and Pajala is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, and declares that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU, since it did not, during the pre-litigation procedure, provide the European Commission with the information necessary for it to assess whether the waste water treatment plants for the agglomerations Habo and Töreboda satisfy the requirements of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008;
1.

Annuls Council Decision (EU) 2020/245 of 17 February 2020 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Partnership Council established by the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the other part, as regards the adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the Partnership Council and those of the Partnership Committee, subcommittees and other bodies set up by the Partnership Council, and the establishment of the list of Sub-Committees, for the application of that Agreement with the exception of Title II thereof, and Council Decision (EU) 2020/246 of 17 February 2020 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Partnership Council established by the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the other part, as regards the adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the Partnership Council and those of the Partnership Committee, subcommittees and other bodies set up by the Partnership Council, and the establishment of the list of Sub-Committees, for the application of Title II of that Agreement;
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — CS v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-613/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Strike by airline staff - Strike by the staff of a subsidiary in solidarity with the staff of the parent company)

(2021/C 490/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: CS

Respondent: Eurowings GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

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, must be interpreted as meaning that strike action intended to assert workers’ demands with regard to salary and/or social benefits, which is entered into upon a call by a trade union of the staff of an operating air carrier in solidarity with strike action which was launched against the parent company of which that air carrier is a subsidiary, which is observed by a category of the staff of that subsidiary whose presence is necessary to operate a flight and which continues beyond the period originally announced by the trade union which called the strike, in spite of the fact that an agreement has been reached in the meantime with the parent company, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — HYDINA SK s.r.o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-186/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (VAT) - Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 - Articles 10 to 12 - Exchange of information - Tax audit - Time limits - Suspension of the tax audit in case of exchange of information - Non-compliance with the time limits laid down for providing information - Effect on the lawfulness of the suspension of the tax audit)

(2021/C 481/17)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HYDINA SK s.r.o.

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax, read in the light of recital 25 thereof, must be interpreted as not laying down time limits, the non-compliance with which is liable to affect the lawfulness of the suspension of a tax audit provided for by the law of the requesting Member State pending the communication, by the requested Member State, of the information requested under the administrative cooperation mechanism established by that regulation.

(1) OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — E v Finanzamt N (C-45/20) and Z v Finanzamt G (C-46/20)

(Joined Cases C-45/20 and C-46/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 167, Article 168(a), Article 250 and Article 252 - Deduction of input tax - Immovable property - An office room - Photovoltaic system - Allocation decision giving rise to a right of deduction - Communication of the allocation decision - Limitation period for exercising a right to deduct - Presumption of allocation to the private assets of the taxable person where the allocation decision is not communicated - Principle of neutrality - Principle of legal certainty - Principles of equivalence and proportionality)

(2021/C 502/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: E (C-45/20), Z (C-46/20)

Defendants: Finanzamt N (C-45/20), Finanzamt G (C-46/20)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, read in conjunction with Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions interpreted by a national court in such a manner that where a taxable person has the right to decide to allocate an asset to his or her business assets and where, at the latest upon expiry of the statutory period for submitting the annual turnover-tax return, the competent national tax authority has not been put in a position to establish such an allocation of that asset by means of an express decision or sufficient evidence, that authority may refuse the right to deduct value added tax in respect of that asset on the ground that it has been allocated to the taxable person’s private assets, unless the specific legal arrangements under which that option may be exercised show that it does not comply with the principle of proportionality.

(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — WD v job-medium GmbH, in liquidation

(Case C-233/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Article 7(1) - Right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken before the end of the employment relationship - Early termination of the employment relationship by the employee)

(2022/C 51/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WD

Defendant: job-medium GmbH, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which no allowance is payable in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in respect of the current and last year of employment, where the worker unilaterally terminates the employment relationship early and without cause;

2. It is not necessary for the national court to verify whether the worker was unable to take the leave to which he or she was entitled.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně — Czech Republic) — ELVOSPOL v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-398/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90 - Reduction of the taxable amount for VAT purposes - Total or partial non-payment of the price on account of the debtor’s insolvency - Conditions imposed by national legislation for the adjustment of output VAT - Condition that the claim not paid in whole or in part must not have arisen during the six-month period preceding the declaration of insolvency of the debtor company - Non-compliance)

(2022/C 11/15)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Brně

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ELVOSPOL

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national provision which makes adjustment of the amount of value added tax subject to the condition that the partially or totally unpaid claim must not have arisen during the six-month period preceding the declaration of insolvency of the debtor company, where it is not ruled out under that condition that such a claim may ultimately be definitively irrecoverable.

(1) OJ C 359, 26.10.2020.
1.

Article 3(2)(a) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the passenger has a ‘confirmed reservation’, within the meaning of that provision, where the tour operator submits to that passenger, with whom it has a contract, ‘other proof’, within the meaning of Article 2(g) of that regulation, by which he or she is assured transport on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival, and the flight number, even in cases where that tour operator has not received confirmation from the air carrier concerned as to the times of departure and arrival of that flight;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the County Court at Birkenhead — United Kingdom) — BT v Seguros Catalana Occidente, EB

(Case C-708/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - Claim for compensation for damage suffered by an individual domiciled in a Member State following an accident in rented accommodation in another Member State - Action brought by the injured person against, first, the insurer and, secondly, against the insured owner of that accommodation - Applicability of Article 13(3) of that regulation)

(2022/C 73/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

County Court at Birkenhead

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BT

Defendants: Seguros Catalana Occidente, EB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a direct action brought by the injured person against an insurer in accordance with Article 13(2) thereof, the court of the Member State in which that person is domiciled cannot also assume jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 13(3) thereof, to rule on a claim for compensation brought at the same time by that person against the policyholder or the insured who is domiciled in another Member State and who has not been challenged by the insurer.

(1) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
2.

Article 2(3) and Article 31 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [50(2)(g) TFEU] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 must be interpreted as not precluding a practice of the tax authorities of a Member State challenging the accounting entries of a company on the ground that they do not comply with the principles of completeness and independence of financial years, as set out in the legislation of that Member State, even though all the other accounting principles laid down by that legislation are complied with, where such non-compliance does not constitute an exceptional and necessary derogation to ensure compliance with the principle of true and fair view, which must be disclosed in the notes to the annual accounts and duly substantiated, together with a statement regarding its effect on the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss.