ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2021 — UM v Daimler AG

(Case C-506/21)

(2021/C 431/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Erfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UM

Defendant: Daimler AG

Questions referred

1. Are Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Articles 4, 5 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, (2) also intended to protect the interests of individual purchasers of motor vehicles and their assets? Does this also include the interest of an individual purchaser of a vehicle in not purchasing a vehicle which does not comply with the requirements of EU law, and in particular in not purchasing a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

2. Does EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness EU fundamental rights and principles, and the inherent rights of nature, require that the purchaser of a vehicle have a civil claim for damages against the vehicle manufacturer in the event of any culpable — negligent or intentional — act on the part of the vehicle manufacturer in relation to the placing on the market of a vehicle equipped with a prohibited defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

3. Does EU law, in particular Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, preclude provisions of German law such as Paragraph 348(3) of the German Code of Civil Procedure and the related case-law, in so far as they impede, delay or frustrate a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union? Does this also apply to the provisions of German law on bias, such as Paragraph 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure?

(1) Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).
Appeal brought on 31 March 2021 by 12seasons GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2021 in Case T-329/19, 12seasons v EUIPO — Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN)

(Case C-211/21 P)

(2021/C 462/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: 12seasons GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny

By order of 1 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that 12seasons GmbH should bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2021 — H. Ltd. v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-496/21)

(2021/C 471/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: H. Ltd.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

1. Can the principal intended action of a substance be pharmacological within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 93/42/EEC (1) even if it is not based on a receptor-mediated mode of action and the substance is not absorbed by the human body but remains on and reacts with the surface of, for example, the mucosa? On what criteria should a distinction be drawn between pharmacological and non-pharmacological means, in particular physico-chemical means, in such a case?

2. Can a product be regarded as a substance-based medical device within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 93/42/EEC if, according to current scientific knowledge, the mode of action of the product is open to debate and it is thus not possible to definitively determine whether the principal intended action is achieved by pharmacological or physico-chemical means?

3. In such a case, is the classification of the product as a medicinal product or as a medical device to be carried out on the basis of an overall assessment of its other properties and all other circumstances, or, in so far as it is intended to prevent, treat or alleviate diseases, is the product to be regarded as a medicinal product by presentation within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2001/83/EC, (2) irrespective of whether or not a specific medicinal effect is being claimed?

4. Does the primacy of the regime governing medicinal products also apply in such a case in accordance with Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC?

(1) Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), as last amended by Directive 2007/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 17).

(2) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) in the version of Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 299, p. 1) applicable here.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 5 August 2021 — Euler Hermes SA Magyarországi Fióktelepe v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-482/21)

(2021/C 471/28)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Euler Hermes SA Magyarországi Fióktelepe

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Do the principles of proportionality, fiscal neutrality and effectiveness –having regard, in particular, to the fact that a Member State may not charge an amount of VAT exceeding that actually received by the supplier of goods or services in respect of that supply of goods or services — and the exemption laid down in Article 135(1)(a) of the VAT Directive (1) — particularly as regards the requirement that that activity is to be treated as a single exempt transaction, by reference to the principles laid down in points 35, 37 and 53 of the Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-242/08, Swiss Re — and the obligation to guarantee the free movement of capital and services in the internal market preclude a practice of a Member State pursuant to which the reduction applicable to the taxable amount in the event of definitive non-payment, as provided for in Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, is not applicable where an insurer, in the course of its commercial credit insurance business, paid an indemnity to the insured person in respect of the taxable amount and also in respect of the VAT due when the risk materialised (non-payment by the insured’s client), meaning that, under the insurance contract, the debt, together with all associated rights of enforcement, was assigned to the insurer, in the following circumstances:

(i) at the time when the debts in question became irrecoverable, national law did not allow any reduction of the taxable amount in respect of an irrecoverable debt;

(ii) since the incompatibility of that prohibition with Union law was made clear, national positive law has consistently excluded outright the refund of VAT on an irrecoverable debt to the original supplier of the goods or services (the insured person) on the grounds that the insurer has reimbursed that amount of VAT to the supplier; and

(iii) the insurer is able to show that its claim against the debtor has become definitively irrecoverable?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
1.

Having regard to the second sentence of Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (Directive 2003/96), can the first sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, in so far as it provides that electricity used to produce electricity is to be exempt from taxation, be interpreted as meaning that that exemption also covers operations in which energy products are extracted in opencast mines and made more suitable for use in power stations, such as the operations of breaking the products down, separating foreign matter from them and crushing them down to the size operationally required by the boiler?
Action brought on 14 October 2021 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-633/21)

(2021/C 513/34)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and M. Noll-Ehlers)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(A) Declare that the Hellenic Republic: — first, by systematically and consistently exceeding the yearly limit values for nitrogen dioxide with regard to the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003) since 2010, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/ΕC, (1) read in conjunction with Annex XI to the directive, — second, by failing to adopt, from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the yearly limit value for NO2 in the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC (in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive), and in particular the obligation, laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, to take the necessary measures so that that the duration of the exceedance of limit values is as short as possible.

(B) Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea in law, the Commission submits that Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe requires that Member States limit the exposure of citizens to nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The Commission claims that since 2005, when compliance with daily and annual limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) became mandatory, pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC, the Hellenic Republic, on the basis of the annual air quality reports submitted by it, has failed consistently to ensure compliance with daily limit values in the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003).

By its second plea in law, the Commission claims that the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC imposes a clear and urgent obligation on Member States in the event that limit values are exceeded to adopt air quality plans setting out appropriate measures to ensure that the duration of any exceedance is as short as possible. The Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic failed to draw up an appropriate air quality plan with regard to nitrogen dioxide covering the agglomeration of Athens (EL0003), in breach of its obligation under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC.

(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).
Appeal brought on 12 July 2021 by Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2021 in Case T-637/19, Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO — Carpathian Springs (AQUA CARPATICA)

(Case C-425/21 P)

(2022/C 11/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd (represented by: M. Maček, odvetnica)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Carpathian Springs SA

By order of 11 November 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd should bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 September 2021 — European arrest warrant issued against X, Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

(Case C-562/21)

(2022/C 2/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

European arrest warrant issued against: X

Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

Question referred

What test should an executing judicial authority apply when deciding whether to execute an EAW for the purpose of executing a final custodial sentence or detention order when examining whether, in the issuing Member State, the trial resulting in the conviction was conducted in breach of the right to a tribunal previously established by law, where no effective remedy was available in that Member State for any breach of that right?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 21 July 2021 — J.K., B.K. v Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe X

(Case C-452/21)

(2022/C 24/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: J.K., B.K.

Respondent: Przedsiębiorstwo Państwowe X

Question referred

Must Article 191(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 7, 17 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) and Articles 2, 8 and 9 of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, (1) be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of a provision of national law, namely Article 129(4) of the Ustawa z dnia 27 kwietnia 2001 r. — Prawo ochrony środowiska (Environmental Protection Law of 27 April 2001), which provides for a time limit of three years for bringing a claim related to a restriction on the manner of use of property, and which prevents the owners of property within a restricted use area associated with the operation of an airport from obtaining compensation for a reduction in the value of their property and reimbursement for the costs of soundproofing, as in the present case?

(1) OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12.
1.

Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and its recitals be interpreted as not precluding the inclusion in the definition of ‘consumer’ of a person engaged in business activity who entered into an agreement concerning a loan indexed to a foreign currency together with a joint-borrower who is not engaged in business activity, which loan is intended to be used partly for the business purposes of one of the borrowers and partly for purposes unconnected with his or her business activity, and not only where business use is so marginal as to be negligible in the overall context of the agreement in question, and where it is irrelevant that the non-business element is predominant? If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 23 September 2021 by DD against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2021 in Case T-632/19, DD v FRA

(Case C-587/21 P)

(2022/C 37/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: DD (represented by: N. Lorenz, Rechtsanwältin)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety,

— consequently, — annul the decision of the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) dated 19 November 2018 rejecting the applicant's request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations; — if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 12 June 2018, received on 13 June 2018, rejecting the complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations directed by the applicant against the above decision of 19 November 2019; — grant the applicant compensation for the sustained non-material damage, as detailed in this appeal, estimated ex aequo et bono at 100 000 €; — order the FRA to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Error of law and distortion of evidence regarding the statement of facts.

Error of law and violation of the principle of legal certainty regarding the first head of unlawfulness.

Error of law, violation of res iudicata, insufficient reasoning, failure to rule on appellant’s head of claim, distortion of evidence regarding the second head of unlawfulness.

Error of law, manifest error of appraisal and insufficient reasoning regarding the third head of unlawfulness.

Error of law, distortion of evidence, manifest error of appraisal, plea that General Court acted ultra vires and ultra petita, plea alleging that the General Court wrongly rejected the appellants' offer of production of a document on request which was material to the case and insufficient reasoning regarding the fourth head of unlawfulness.

Error of law, insufficient reasoning, wrong legal classification of facts, distortion of evidence and manifest error of appraisal regarding the fifth head of unlawfulness.

Error of law, distortion of evidence, failure to rule on appellant’s head of claim, wrong legal classification, plea that GC acted ultra petita, plea alleging that GC wrongly rejected the appellants' request to order production of a document which was material to the case, incomplete examination of the application and of the plea of harassment raised by the applicant regarding the sixth head of unlawfulness.

Error of law regarding the section on actual damage alleged and causal link.
3.

Is it possible to apply Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 in such a way that the authority responsible for examination of the project proposal must verify whether other undertakings previously owned by the proprietor of the company applying for aid satisfy the provisions of Article 2(14) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and, if the conditions are not fulfilled, reject the project proposal without an additional individual assessment of the factual circumstances?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 28 July 2021 by Puma SE against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-510/19, Puma v EUIPO — Gemma Group (Representation of a bounding feline)

(Case C-462/21 P)

(2022/C 51/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Puma SE (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 1 December 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Puma SE should bear its own costs.
Appeal brought on 19 November 2021 by Mytilinaios AE — Omilos Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered on 22 September 2021 by the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-639/14 RENV, Τ-352/15 and Τ-740/17, Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE v European Commission supported by Mytilinaios AE — Omilos Epicheiriseon

(Case C-701/21 P)

(2022/C 37/28)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Mytilinaios AE — Omilos Epicheiriseon (represented by: Vassilios-Spyridon Christianos and Georgios Karydis, δικηγόροι)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Joined Cases T-639/14 RENV, T-352/15 and T-740/17;

— if necessary, refer the matter back to the General Court;

— order DEI AE to pay the costs in their entirety.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The purpose of the judgment under appeal was to determine whether the Commission should have had doubts or serious difficulties, pursuant to Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) as to the existence of State aid concerning the electricity supply tariff charged by DEI to the appellant following an arbitration decision, on the basis of which a formal investigation procedure should have been initiated.

The appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal and submits that, in the judgment under appeal:

— First, the General Court failed to examine the general principles of law nemo auditur (…) and venire contra factum proprium in so far as concerns DEI AE’s interest in bringing an action for annulment.

— Second, the General Court erred in law, first, as regards the private-operator test referred to in Article 107(1) TFEU and, second, as regards the status of the arbitration tribunal as a State body.

— Third, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 4 of Regulation 2015/1589 as regards first, the condition of doubts or serious difficulties as to the existence of State aid at the stage of the preliminary examination of complaints, and, second, the reversal of the burden of proof.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Appeal brought on 23 September 2021 by Abitron Germany GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2021 in Case T-75/20, Abitron Germany GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-589/21 P)

(2022/C 64/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Abitron Germany GmbH (represented by: T. Dolde, C. Zimmer, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Hetronic International, Inc.

By order of 13 December 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 15 October 2021 — LB GmbH v Hauptzollamt D

(Case C-635/21)

(2022/C 64/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LB GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt D

Question referred

Is the combined nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2016 L 294 of 28 October 2016, p. 1), (2) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘air loungers’ such as those in the present case and as described in more detail in the order come under subheading 9401 80 00?

(1) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2016 L 294, p. 1.