ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 – KF v SatCen

(Case C‑464/20 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal – Institutional law – Staff of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) – Members of the contract staff – Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out in respect of the applicant – Reopening of the investigation – Compliance with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 October 2018, KF v SatCen (T‑286/15, EU:T:2018:718) – Action for annulment and for damages)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Acts producing binding legal effects as regards third parties – Decision to open an administrative investigation within the European Union Satellite Centre – Preparatory act – Precluded – Existence of infringements of the rights of the defence – Irrelevant (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 26, 27)

2. EU agencies – European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) – Non-contractual liability – Compensation for damage caused to a staff member – Close link between the action for annulment and for damages – Inadmissibility of the action for annulment entailing inadmissibility of the action for damages (Arts 263, 268 and 340 TFEU) (see paras 48, 49)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders KF to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 February 2021 – Rottendorf Pharma

(Case C‑92/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs Union – Community Customs Code – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Second indent of Article 239(1) – Reimbursement of lawfully collected customs duties – Special situation – Issuance of an authorisation for release for free circulation – Invalidation of the authorisation and issue of an authorisation for inward processing with retroactive effect – Re-exporting goods outside of the EU territory – Failure to present goods to customs)

1. Own resources of the European Union – Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Equity clause introduced by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code – Conditions – Existence of a special situation – No circumstances implying deception or obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned – Cumulative nature (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) (see para. 27, operative part.)

2. Own resources of the European Union – Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Equity clause introduced by Article 239 of the Community Customs Code – Conditions – Existence of a special situation – Concept – Re-export of goods to a third country without entering the economic network of the European Union – Not included – Taxation caused by an error relating to the information contained in the computer system of the economic operator since that operator failed to take account of the conditions in the authorisation – Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239) (see paragraphs 30, 32-38, operative part)

Operative part

The second indent of Article 239(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, first, an economic operator may claim repayment of the customs duties which it has paid only where that operator is in a special situation and there is no manifest negligence or deception on its part and, second, that the fact that the goods concerned were re-exported to a third country without entering the economic network of the European Union is insufficient to establish that that economic operator was in such a special situation. The same conclusion applies where the conduct giving rise to the imposition of the customs duties concerned was caused by an error in the information contained in the computer system of that economic operator, since that error could have been avoided if the same economic operator had taken account of the conditions contained in the authorisation granted to it.

( 1 ) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
21

In those circumstances, the Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Do Framework Decision [2002/584], the second paragraph of Article 19(1) TEU and/or the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter indeed preclude the executing judicial authority from executing a [European arrest warrant] issued by a court where the national legislation of the issuing Member State has been amended after that [European arrest warrant] was issued such that the court no longer meets the requirements of effective or actual judicial protection since that legislation no longer guarantees the independence of that court? (2) Do Framework Decision [2002/584] and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter indeed preclude the executing judicial authority from executing a [European arrest warrant] when it has established that there is a real risk in the issuing Member State of breach of the fundamental right to an independent tribunal for any suspected person – and thus also for the requested person – irrespective of which courts of that Member State have jurisdiction over the proceedings to which the requested person will be subject and irrespective of the requested person’s personal situation, the nature of the offence for which he is being prosecuted and the factual context that forms the basis of the [European arrest warrant], where that real risk is related to the fact that the courts of the issuing Member State are no longer independent on account of systemic and generalised deficiencies? (3) Do Framework Decision [2002/584] and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter indeed preclude the executing judicial authority from executing a [European arrest warrant] when it has established that: – there is a real risk in the issuing Member State of breach of the fundamental right to a fair trial for any suspected person, where that risk is connected with systemic and generalised deficiencies relating to the independence of that Member State’s judiciary, – those systemic and generalised deficiencies are therefore not only liable to have negative consequences, but actually do have such consequences for the courts of that Member State with jurisdiction over the proceedings to which the requested person will be subject, and – there are therefore serious and established grounds for believing that the requested person runs a real risk of breach of his fundamental right to an independent tribunal and, therefore, of the essence of his fundamental right to a fair trial, even though, aside from those systemic and generalised deficiencies, the requested person has not expressed any specific concerns, and even though the requested person’s personal situation, the nature of the offences for which he is being prosecuted and the context that forms the basis of the [European arrest warrant], aside from those systemic and generalised deficiencies, do not give rise to fears that the executive and/or legislature will exert concrete pressure on or influence his trial?’
1.

Declares that the Portuguese Republic, first, in failing to draw up strategic noise maps for the major roads PT_a_rd00410, PT_a_rd00458, PT_a_rd00460, PT_a_rd00462 and PT_a_rd00633 or action plans for the agglomerations of Amador and Porto and for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to the present judgment, and, second, in failing to communicate to the European Commission the information provided by those maps or the summaries of those action plans, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 7(2), Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) 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, read in conjunction with Annex VI to that directive;
8

Article 11 of that directive is worded as follows: ‘1. Where the holder of a valid national driving licence issued by a Member State has taken up normal residence in another Member State, he may request that his driving licence be exchanged for an equivalent licence. It shall be for the Member State effecting the exchange to check for which category the licence submitted is in fact still valid. 2. Subject to observance of the principle of territoriality of criminal and police laws, the Member State of normal residence may apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State and, if necessary, exchange the licence for that purpose. … 4. A Member State shall refuse to issue a driving licence to an applicant whose driving licence is restricted, suspended or withdrawn in another Member State. A Member State shall refuse to recognise the validity of any driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose driving licence is restricted, suspended or withdrawn in the former State’s territory. A Member State may also refuse to issue a driving licence to an applicant whose licence is cancelled in another Member State. 5. A replacement for a driving licence which has, for example, been lost or stolen may only be obtained from the competent authorities of the Member State in which the holder has his normal residence; those authorities shall provide the replacement on the basis of the information in their possession or, where appropriate, proof from the competent authorities of the Member State which issued the original licence. …’
8

Article 69 of that regulation, entitled ‘Effects of the Certificate’, states: ‘1. The Certificate shall produce its effects in all Member States, without any special procedure being required. 2. The Certificate shall be presumed to accurately demonstrate elements which have been established under the law applicable to the succession or under any other law applicable to specific elements. The person mentioned in the Certificate as the heir, legatee, executor of the will or administrator of the estate shall be presumed to have the status mentioned in the Certificate and/or to hold the rights or the powers stated in the Certificate, with no conditions and/or restrictions being attached to those rights or powers other than those stated in the Certificate. 3. Any person who, acting on the basis of the information certified in a Certificate, makes payments or passes on property to a person mentioned in the Certificate as authorised to accept payment or property shall be considered to have transacted with a person with authority to accept payment or property, unless he knows that the contents of the Certificate are not accurate or is unaware of such inaccuracy due to gross negligence. 4. Where a person mentioned in the Certificate as authorised to dispose of succession property disposes of such property in favour of another person, that other person shall, if acting on the basis of the information certified in the Certificate, be considered to have transacted with a person with authority to dispose of the property concerned, unless he knows that the contents of the Certificate are not accurate or is unaware of such inaccuracy due to gross negligence. 5. The Certificate shall constitute a valid document for the recording of succession property in the relevant register of a Member State, without prejudice to points (k) and (l) of Article 1(2).’
4

Article 5 of that directive provides: ‘1. For the purposes of paragraph 2, Member States shall by 31 December 1993 identify sensitive areas according to the criteria laid down in Annex II. 2. Member States shall ensure that urban waste water entering collecting systems shall before discharge into sensitive areas be subject to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4, by 31 December 1998 at the latest for all discharges from agglomerations of more than 10000 p.e.. 3. Discharges from urban waste water treatment plants described in paragraph 2 shall satisfy the relevant requirements of section B of Annex I. The Commission may amend those requirements. Those measures, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 18(3). 4. Alternatively, requirements for individual plants set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 above need not apply in sensitive areas where it can be shown that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all urban waste water treatment plants in that area is at least 75% for total phosphorus and at least 75% for total nitrogen. 5. Discharges from urban waste water treatment plants which are situated in the relevant catchment areas of sensitive areas and which contribute to the pollution of these areas shall be subjected to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. In cases where the above catchment areas are situated wholly or partly in another Member State Article 9 shall apply. 6. Member States shall ensure that the identification of sensitive areas is reviewed at intervals of no more than four years. 7. Member States shall ensure that areas identified as sensitive following review under paragraph 6 shall within seven years meet the above requirements. 8. A Member State does not have to identify sensitive areas for the purpose of this Directive if it implements the treatment established under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 over all its territory.’
17

Annex VI to Regulation No 562/2006, entitled ‘Specific rules for the various types of border and the various means of transport used for crossing the Member States’ external borders’, contained a section entitled ‘Pleasure boating’, which provides as follows: ‘3.2.5. By way of derogation from Articles 4 and 7, persons on board a pleasure boat coming from or departing to a port situated in a Member State shall not be subject to border checks and may enter a port which is not a border crossing point. However, according to the assessment of the risks of illegal immigration, and in particular where the coastline of a third country is located in the immediate vicinity of the territory of the Member State concerned, checks on those persons and/or a physical search of the pleasure boat are to be carried out. … 3.2.7. During those checks, a document containing all the technical characteristics of the vessel and the names of the persons on board shall be handed in. A copy of that document shall be given to the authorities in the ports of entry and departure. As long as the vessel remains in the territorial waters of one of the Member States, a copy of that document shall be included amongst the ship’s papers.’
9

Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004, under the heading ‘Unemployed persons who resided in a Member State other than the competent State’, provides in its paragraphs 2 and 5: ‘2. A wholly unemployed person who, during his/her last activity as an employed or self-employed person, resided in a Member State other than the competent Member State and who continues to reside in that Member State or returns to that Member State shall make himself/herself available to the employment services in the Member State of residence. Without prejudice to Article 64, a wholly unemployed person may, as a supplementary step, make himself/herself available to the employment services of the Member State in which he/she pursued his/her last activity as an employed or self-employed person. An unemployed person, other than a frontier worker, who does not return to his/her Member State of residence, shall make himself/herself available to the employment services in the Member State to whose legislation he/she was last subject. … 5. (a) The unemployed person referred to in the first and second sentences of paragraph 2 shall receive benefits in accordance with the legislation of the Member State of residence as if he/she had been subject to that legislation during his/her last activity as an employed or self-employed person. Those benefits shall be provided by the institution of the place of residence. (b) However, a worker other than a frontier worker who has been provided benefits at the expense of the competent institution of the Member State to whose legislation he/she was last subject shall firstly receive, on his/her return to the Member State of residence, benefits in accordance with Article 64, receipt of the benefits in accordance with (a) being suspended for the period during which he/she receives benefits under the legislation to which he/she was last subject.’
20

In those circumstances, the Tribunale di Milano (District Court, Milan) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does Article 11(1)(d) or (f) of [Directive 2003/109] preclude national legislation such as that under consideration [in the main proceedings], which provides for the issue by the government of a Member State to nationals of that Member State or of other Member States of the European Union, but not to third-country nationals who are long-term residents, of a document which confers entitlement to discounts on supplies of goods and services by public and private entities that have entered into an agreement with the government of the Member State in question? (2) Does Article 12(1)(e) of [Directive 2011/98], in conjunction with Article 1(z) and Article 3[(1)](j) of [Regulation No 883/2004], or Article 12(1)(g) of [Directive 2011/98] preclude national legislation such as that under consideration [in the main proceedings], which provides for the issue by the government of a Member State to nationals of that Member State or of other Member States of the European Union, but not to third-country nationals as referred to in Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of [Directive 2011/98], of a document which confers entitlement to discounts on supplies of goods and services by public and private entities that have entered into an agreement with the government of the Member State in question? (3) Does Article 14(1)(e) of [Directive 2009/50], in conjunction with Article 1(z) and Article 3[(1)](j) of [Regulation No 883/2004], or Article 14(1)(g) of [Directive 2009/50], preclude national legislation such as that under consideration [in the main proceedings], which provides for the issue by the government of a Member State to nationals of that Member State or of other Member States of the European Union, but not to third-country nationals holding an “EU Blue Card” within the meaning of [Directive 2009/50], of a document which confers entitlement to discounts on supplies of goods and services by public and private entities that have entered into an agreement with the government of the Member State in question? (4) Does Article 29 of [Directive 2011/95] preclude national legislation such as that under consideration [in the main proceedings], which provides for the issue by the government of a Member State to nationals of that Member State or of other Member States of the European Union, but not to third-country nationals benefiting from international protection, of a document which confers entitlement to discounts on supplies of goods and services by public and private entities that have entered into an agreement with the government of the Member State in question?’
15

Article 10 of that regulation provided: ‘1. By way of derogation from Article 7, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex III, may authorise, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, if the following conditions are met: (a) the competent authority concerned has determined that the funds or economic resources are: (i) necessary to satisfy the basic needs of persons listed in Annex IV or V, and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges; (ii) intended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services; or (iii) intended exclusively for payment of fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; and … 2. By way of derogation from Article 7, the competent authorities of the Member States, as indicated in the websites listed in Annex III, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are necessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that (a) if the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex IV, the Sanctions Committee has been notified of this determination by the Member State concerned and that the determination has been approved by that Committee, and (b) if the authorisation concerns a person, entity or body listed in Annex V, the competent authority has notified the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted to the other competent authorities of the Member States and to the Commission at least two weeks before the authorisation. …’
11

After Corendon Airlines had refused to compensate the passengers in question, the latter brought an action before the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Local Court, Düsseldorf, Germany), which dismissed that action on the grounds, first, that, although the departure time of the flight had been changed, the original planning of that flight had not been abandoned. Second, those passengers had, in any event, been informed of the change in departure time within the period laid down in Article 5(1)(c)(ii) of Regulation No 261/2004, which is between two weeks and seven days before the scheduled time of departure, with the result that it was not necessary to examine whether the change in the flight time constituted a cancellation or a long delay of that flight. Furthermore, that court noted that it was not necessary to examine whether Corendon Airlines had fulfilled its obligation to provide information on the rights which the passengers in question had under Article 8 of that regulation, since a possible breach of such an obligation to provide information does not confer a right to compensation under Article 7(1) of that regulation.
6

Title II of that directive, entitled ‘Tobacco products’, contains Chapter II, entitled ‘Labelling and packaging’. Article 8 of Directive 2014/40, which appears in that chapter and which is entitled ‘General provisions’, provides, in paragraphs 1, 3 and 8 thereof: ‘1. Each unit packet of a tobacco product and any outside packaging shall carry the health warnings provided for in this Chapter in the official language or languages of the Member State where the product is placed on the market. … 3. Member States shall ensure that the health warnings on a unit packet and any outside packaging are irremovably printed, indelible and fully visible, including not being partially or totally hidden or interrupted by tax stamps, price marks, security features, wrappers, jackets, boxes, or other items, when tobacco products are placed on the market. On unit packets of tobacco products other than cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco in pouches, the health warnings may be affixed by means of stickers, provided that such stickers are irremovable. The health warnings shall remain intact when opening the unit packet other than packets with a flip-top lid, where the health warnings may be split when opening the packet, but only in a manner that ensures the graphical integrity and visibility of the text, photographs and cessation information. … 8. Images of unit packets and any outside packaging targeting consumers in the Union shall comply with the provisions of this chapter.’