ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 15 February 2021 — VW v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

(Case C-92/21)

(2021/C 138/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VW

Defendant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Questions referred

Is a remedy, provided for by domestic law to asylum seekers who have been requested to have their applications for international protection examined in another Member State, which does not have suspensory effect and may acquire such effect only if the asylum seeker is deprived of liberty with a view to his imminent transfer an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation? (1)

Must the effective remedy prescribed in Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as precluding only the implementation of a measure of enforced transfer while an appeal against that transfer decision is being examined or as prohibiting any measure preparatory to removal, such as relocation to a centre which establishes return paths for asylum seekers who have been requested to have their asylum applications examined in another European country?

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

Does the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Charter and Article 53 of the Charter and in the light of Article 15(2)(b) of the Return Directive, Article 9(3) of the Reception Directive and Article 28(4) of the Dublin III Regulation, mean that, where a foreign national requests a court of any instance to end the detention and order his or her release, that court must give an adequate substantive statement of reasons for any decision on that request, if the remedy is otherwise structured in the same manner as it is in this Member State? If the Court of Justice considers a national legal practice in which the court of second, and therefore highest, instance may confine itself to ruling without giving any substantive reasons to be incompatible with EU law, having regard to the way in which the legal remedy is otherwise structured in this Member State, does that then mean that such a power for the court of second and therefore highest instance in asylum and ordinary immigration cases must also be regarded as being incompatible with EU law, in the light of the vulnerable position of the foreign national, the considerable importance of immigration procedures and the fact that, in contrast to all other administrative procedures, in terms of legal protection, those procedures contain the same weak procedural guarantees for the foreign national as the detention procedure? Having regard to Article 24(2) of the Charter, are the answers to these questions different if the foreign national challenging a decision of the authorities concerning matters of immigration law is a minor?
Appeal brought on 26 February 2021 by American Airlines, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-430/18, American Airlines v Commission

(Case C-127/21 P)

(2021/C 163/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: American Airlines, Inc. (represented by: J.-P. Poitras, avocat, J. Ruiz Calzado, abogado, J. Wileur, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside and annul the judgment under appeal;

— annul Commission Decision C(2017) 2788 final of 30 April 2018;

— in the alternative, if deemed necessary, remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration in accordance with the Court’s judgment;

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the appellant’s costs, both for these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court;

— take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the appellant relies on a single plea in law that the General Court committed an error of law in accepting the Commission’s flawed legal interpretation that the ‘appropriate use’ test in Clause 1.10 of the American-US Airways merger commitments (‘Commitments’) means only ‘absence of misuse’ and thereby the judgment incorrectly upheld Commission Decision C(2017) 2788 final of 30 April 2018 granting Grandfathering rights to Delta Airlines (Case M.6607 — US Airways/American Airlines).

The plea has three limbs:

1. In the first limb, the appellant focuses on the correct legal approach to interpreting the ‘appropriate use’ test for the award of Grandfathering rights under Clause 1.10 of the Commitments and demonstrates that the General Court erred in law in its interpretative approach.

2. In the second limb, the appellant demonstrates that General Court further erred in law by accepting the Commission’s analysis that ‘appropriate use’ means only ‘absence of misuse’ thereby incorrectly accepting Delta’s failure to operate 470 remedy slots.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 11 February 2021 — WY

(Case C-85/21)

(2021/C 148/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: WY

Respondent authority: Steiermärkische Landesregierung

Question referred

Is Article 21 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an ex lege loss of nationality provided for under national law, and the subsequent loss of citizenship of the Union, it is to be included in the examination of proportionality in each individual case in accordance with the principles of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Tjebbes and Others case (1) and is capable of constituting an obstacle to the loss of nationality in the case where a national has reacquired his or her previous nationality by means of a declaration of reacquisition, and the threatened loss of citizenship of the Union has a significant impact on his or her family life and professional life?

(1) EU:C:2019:189.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v ZR

(Case C-107/21)

(2021/C 182/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: ZR

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

(1) 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
2.

If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, could the recognition of periods of service in the public health system of a Member State be made conditional on the prior adoption of general approval criteria for the career systems of staff of the health services of Member States of the European Union?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-44/21)

(2021/C 182/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG

Defendants: HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 9(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) if German higher regional courts (Oberlandesgerichte), which have jurisdiction at last instance in proceedings for interim relief, refuse, in principle, to grant interim measures for patent infringement if the patent in dispute has not survived opposition or invalidity proceedings at first instance?

(1) Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).
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?

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Εfeteio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 3 March 2021 — VP, CX, RG, TR and Others v Elliniko Dimosio

(Case C-133/21)

(2021/C 206/18)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Εfeteio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: VP, CX, RG, TR and Others

Respondent: Elliniko Dimosio

Questions referred

Is national legislation, such as that at issue, which imposes different treatment for wage purposes on workers with fixed-term contracts within the meaning of clause 1 of Directive 1999/70/EC

Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. (1) In particular, is national legislation under which different treatment of workers for wage purposes is justified on the ground that they provided their work under fixed-term contracts in the knowledge that they were covering fixed and permanent needs of the employer compatible with clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC?

(1) as compared to the comparable permanent worker, on the basis of the sole criterion of differentiation that their contracts are classified by their employer or by law as fixed-term contracts for work, compatible with clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC?
1.

Must Article 11(2), Article 12(1)(d) and (2), Article 23(1)(b) and Article 45(1) and (3) to (5) of the Asylum Procedure Directive (1) — in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) — be interpreted as meaning that, where the exception for reasons of national security referred to in Article 23(1) of that directive applies, the Member State authority that has adopted a decision to refuse or withdraw international protection based on a reason of national security and the national security authority that has determined that the reason is confidential must ensure that it is guaranteed that in all circumstances the applicant, a refugee or a foreign national beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, or that person’s legal representative, is entitled to have access to at least the essence of the confidential or classified information or data underpinning the decision based on that reason and to make use of that information or those data in proceedings relating to the decision, where the responsible authority alleges that their disclosure would conflict with the reason of national security?
—

when ruling, in proceedings to secure claims, on the seizure of goods bearing the EU trade mark, refer in their rulings to ‘goods which have not been put on the market within the European Economic Area by the right holder or with his consent’, with the result that it is left to the enforcement authority, in view of the general wording of the ruling, to determine which items bearing the EU trade mark are subject to the injunctions and prohibitions granted (that is to say, which items have not been put on the market within the European Economic Area by the right holder or with his consent), while the possibility of challenging the aforementioned findings of the enforcement authority before a court in declaratory proceedings is excluded or limited by the nature of the legal remedies available to the defendant in proceedings to secure claims and in enforcement proceedings?
—

accordingly, order the defendant to pay compensation for material harm (i) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2019, that is, an increase of 1,2 %, for the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019; (ii) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the consequences of applying the annual adjustment of 0,8 % for 2019 on the amount of the salaries which will be paid from January 2019; (iii) for default interest on outstanding salaries due until full payment of the amounts due, the rate of default interest to be applied having to be calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus three percentage points;
Action brought on 4 May 2021 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-286/21)

(2021/C 252/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— first, declare that, by systematically and persistently exceeding the daily limit value for fine particulate matter (PM10) from 1 January 2005 in the Paris agglomeration and air quality zone (FR04A01/FR11ZAG01) and from 1 January 2005 until 2016 inclusive in the Martinique/Fort-de-France zone (FR39N10/FR02ZAR01), the French Republic has continuously failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of 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, (1) read in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive;

— secondly, declare that the French Republic has failed, in those two zones from 11 June 2010, to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, read in conjunction with Annex XV to that directive, and in particular its obligation to ensure that the exceedance period is kept as short as possible.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards Paris, the daily limit value was not complied with uninterruptedly from 2005 until the latest data available, that is, in 2019. Furthermore, the compliance gap regarding the exceedances of the daily limit value in the Paris zone is substantial (since the number of exceedances is double the permitted number of exceedances) and has not improved since 2015. As regards the Martinique zone, the daily limit value was not complied with continuously until 2016 (with the exception of 2008).

In the two zones of Paris and Martinique, the limit values for PM10 were exceeded when the time limit for responding to the reasoned opinion expired. At that time, France should have established and notified plans. Analysis shows that France has not adopted such plans. The measures taken (at national and regional level) by France failed to ensure that the exceedance period is kept as short as possible, as required by the provisions of Directive 2008/50/EC.

(1) OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 14 April 2021 — I.L. v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

(Case C-241/21)

(2021/C 242/19)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: I.L.

Respondent: Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

Question referred

Is the first sentence of Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that Member States may keep in detention a third-country national in respect of whom there is a real risk that, while at liberty and prior to removal, he or she will commit a criminal offence, the investigation and punishment of which may substantially impede the execution of the removal process?

(1) Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98, corrigendum OJ 2019 L 240, p. 17).
2.

Must Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term contracts concluded on 18 March 1999 between the general cross-industry organisations (ETUC, UNICE and CEEP) annexed to Council Directive 1999/70 of 28 June 1999 be interpreted as meaning that both (i) the fact that the period in question has already been taken into account to enable the individual to become a career civil servant and (ii) the design of the civil service career progression arrangements established in national legislation, are objective grounds that justify why a period of service as an interim civil servant undertaken by a permanent civil servant before he or she obtained permanent status should not be taken into account for the purposes of consolidating the individual’s personal grade?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 22 February 2021 by H.R. Participations SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-535/19, H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER)

(Case C-109/21 P)

(2021/C 289/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: H.R. Participations SA (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Rossi, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Hottinger Investment Management Ltd

By order of 2 June 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that H.R. Participations SA should bear its own costs.
Action brought on 11 May 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-303/21)

(2021/C 278/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by excluding non-Italian EU citizens who do not intend to settle in Italy from the scheme providing for the purchase of their first house or flat, other than a luxury house or flat, in the Italian territory, at a reduced rate, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

A reduced rate of stamp duty for the purchase in Italy of a property for residential use (‘first home’) is applied under certain conditions, including the condition that the property be situated in the municipality where the taxpayer resides or where the taxpayer intends to establish his or her residence within 18 months from the purchase of the property. For the purposes of the application of that tax relief, that condition applies without distinction to both Italian citizens and citizens of other Member States. Nevertheless, according to the provisions at issue in the present action, that requirement is not necessary only for citizens of Italian nationality who, for work reasons, have moved abroad.

According to the Commission, by establishing, for the purposes of that tax relief, that the taxpayers’ Italian citizenship is the determining factor behind the distinction between Italian citizens and citizens of other Member States, the national legislation in question entails direct discrimination on grounds of nationality which is prohibited by Article 18 TFEU.

Furthermore, the Commission considers that, since the purchase of a property in the territory of a Member State by a non-resident is an investment in real estate which falls within the category of the movement of capital between Member States, the preferential treatment of the citizens of one Member State provided for by the national legislation in question constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital which is prohibited by Article 63(1) TFEU and which cannot be objectively justified under Article 65(1) and (3) TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 2 March 2021 by Production Christian Gallimard against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-863/19, Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO — Éditions Gallimard

(Case C-143/21 P)

(2021/C 297/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Production Christian Gallimard (represented by: L. Dreyfuss-Bechmann, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française SA

By order of 5 May 2021 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Production Christian Gallimard shall bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement (Luxembourg) lodged on 21 May 2021 — G-Finance SARL, DV v Luxembourg Business Registers

(Case C-317/21)

(2021/C 297/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’arrondissement

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: G-Finance SARL, DV

Defendant: Luxembourg Business Registers

Questions referred

Are the provisions of Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU, (1) and in particular Article 1(15)(c) thereof, amending Article 30(5) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, as amended by the aforementioned Directive (EU) 2018/843, in so far as they grant a right of access to information on the beneficial owners of companies and other legal entities to ‘any member of the general public’,

invalid because they:

(a) infringe the principle of proportionality, as set out, in particular, in Article 5(4) TEU; and/or

(b) infringe Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (freedom to conduct a business); and/or

(c) infringe Articles 20 (equality before the law) and 21 (non-discrimination) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and/or

(d) infringe the general principle of European law of protection of business secrecy?

(1) OJ 2018 L 156, p. 43.