ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 May 2022 — Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden in the presence of: BASF Nederland BV (BASF)

(Case C-310/22)

(2022/C 359/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe)

Defendant: College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

In the presence of: BASF Nederland BV (BASF)

Questions referred

1. Does it follow from the second paragraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation 1107/2009, (1) in conjunction with paragraph 3.6.5 of Annex II thereto, that the potential endocrine disrupting properties of an active substance need no longer be assessed during the assessment at national level of an application for authorisation of a plant protection product?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does it mean that the scientific insights and technical knowledge relating to endocrine disrupting properties, which, for example, underpin Regulations 283/2013 (2) and 2018/605, (3) need not be taken into account when assessing the authorisation of a plant protection product? How does that relate to the requirement of Article 29(1)(e) of Regulation 1107/2009 that such an assessment must be conducted on the basis of current scientific and technical knowledge?

3. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, how can a non-governmental organisation such as the appellant be said to have an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter to refer the approval of an active substance to a court of law?

4. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does it mean that, when assessing an application for authorisation, the state of scientific and technical knowledge about that endocrine disrupting property at that time is decisive?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) No 283/2013 of 1 March 2013 setting out the data requirements for active substances, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 2013 L 93, p. 1).

(3) Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 of 19 April 2018 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 by setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties (OJ 2018 L 101, p. 33).
4.

Having regard to the objective of Council Directive 2009/119/EC of 14 September 2009 imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products, and in the light of the principle of proportionality under Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 17 thereof, must recital 33 and Article 1, Article 3, Article 8 and Article 2(i) and (j) of that directive be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a person is obliged to establish and maintain stocks of a product which he or she does not use in the course of his or her economic activity and which is not connected with that activity, whereby that obligation also entails a significant financial burden (leading, in practice, to the impossibility of compliance), since the person neither possesses the product nor imports it and/or holds stocks of it?
2.

Must Article 45 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (2) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the granting of compensation for loss of earnings suffered by workers as a result of isolation ordered by the health authorities in the case of a positive COVID-19 test result (with the compensation being initially payable to the workers by their employer, and the entitlement to compensation vis-à-vis the Austrian Federal Government then being transferred to the employer to that extent) is subject to the condition that the isolation is ordered by an Austrian authority on the basis of provisions of national law relating to epidemics, with the result that such compensation is not paid to workers who, as frontier workers, are resident in another Member State and whose isolation (‘quarantine’) is ordered by the health authorities of their Member State of residence?
1.

Is the institution of a Member State which has issued an A1 form and which, of its own motion (without a request from the competent institution of the Member State concerned), intends to cancel/withdraw or invalidate the issued form, obliged to make arrangements with the competent institution of another Member State in accordance with rules analogous to those set out in Articles 6 and 16 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems …? (1)
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 10 June 2022 — Nord Vest Pro Sani Pro SRL v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Satu Mare, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca

(Case C-387/22)

(2022/C 368/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Satu Mare

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nord Vest Pro Sani Pro SRL

Defendants: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Satu Mare, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca

Question referred

Are the provisions of [EU] law [in question] to be interpreted as precluding or not precluding a legal situation such as that at issue in the present case, in which the Romanian legislature may treat differently, from a tax perspective, Romanian companies which conduct business on the territory of the Romanian State and those which conduct business on the territory of other Member States, with the result that the applicant company, which has provided services principally in Austria and Germany, does not benefit from the tax exemptions enjoyed by other companies in the construction sector that conduct their businesses in Romania?
1.

Must the phrase ‘legal effect [of an electronic signature] as evidence’ in Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC be interpreted as meaning that that provision requires the courts of the Member States to presume that, where the requirements of [points] 10, 11 and 12 of Article 3 of that regulation are met or are not in dispute, the existence and claimed authorship of such a signature must be presumed a priori to be established beyond doubt or dispute, and must that phrase be interpreted as meaning that, where the requirements of those provisions are met, the courts of the Member States are required to recognise that the qualified electronic signature has the evidential value/force equivalent to that of a handwritten signature only to the extent that the relevant national legal regime prescribes in respect of such a handwritten signature?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 18 January 2022 by José Antonio Santos Cañibano and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-649/21, Santos Cañibano and Others v Commission

(Case C-38/22 P)

(2022/C 408/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: José Antonio Santos Cañibano, Ruth Hompanera Lanzós, Judith Lapresa Isla, José Manuel Arias García, María del Mar Barba Barba, María Isabel Bernárdez Rodríguez, Mónica Camara Torio, Adriana Canella Suárez, Eladio Cano Nieto, Pilar Carbajales García, Luis De Miguel Ribón, Luis Ángel Díaz Suárez, Daniel Fernández González, Cristina Fernández Somoano, Pedro García Parada, Inmaculada Garcia Perez, Susana González González, Pedro Óscar González Menéndez, José Manuel González Riopedre, Carlos Ángel Lazo Reguera, Salvador Llorens García, José Luis Lozano Garrido, Fernando Luiña Vela, Miguel Mera Vega, Abel Miravalles Pindas, Rafael Munguria Rubio, María Montserrat Muñiz Fernández, Aurora Nicolás Herreros, Verónica Pereira Torres, Ernesto Real Arias, Javier Rodríguez Lana, María Belén Rodríguez Menéndez, José Javier Rodríguez Mier, Concepción Rodríguez Rodríguez, María Elena Rodríguez Suárez, Alejandro Sánchez Gión, José Luis Santos Lobato, Susana Solís García, María de los Ángeles Ugido López, María Elvira Vega Fernández, Isabel María Vilalta Suárez, Antonio Villabela Pataño, María José Fernández Gutiérrez, Lourdes Cano Nieto (represented by: B. González González, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 6 September 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 14 January 2022 by Silvia González Sordo and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2021 in Case T-642/21, Gonzáles Sordo and Others v Commission

(Case C-36/22 P)

(2022/C 408/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Silvia González Sordo, Marta Calzado Melida, Evangelina Camino Nates, María José Canoura González, Félix Fernández Gascón, María Isabel Martínez de Lecea, José Antonio Pardo Cuesta, Natalia Ruisanchez Cáceres, María Ángeles Sáez Díaz, Mónica Ruiz Maccione, Ignacio Serrulla Rech, Celia Baños Olavarri, David Buitrago Cobo, Ana María Pardo García, Adriana Castillo Jiménez, José Manuel Salazar Castillo, María Lorena Tresgallo Salmón, Luis Alfredo Barroso Prados, Ana Isabel Alegre Rubio, Emilio-Joaquín Barrio Fernández de la Pradilla, Zulema Alexandra Lemolt García-Lago (represented by: B. González González, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 6 September 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 12 May 2022 by the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2022 in Case T-382/21, the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-320/22 P)

(2022/C 424/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Spieker, D. Mienert and J. Selbmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Moviescreens Rental GmbH

By order of 28 September 2022, 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 Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 11 July 2022 — DIGI Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság

(Case C-460/22)

(2022/C 432/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DIGI Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság

Questions referred

Is an undertaking which provides electronic communications services on the relevant market, but which did not participate in a given auction procedure (‘the auction procedure’) because it did not meet the requirements for participation established in the specifications laying down the detailed rules governing the auction procedure (‘the specifications’), as a result of which the decision of the national regulatory authority recording the outcome of the auction does not contain any provision relating to that undertaking, an undertaking affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) and, in consequence, an undertaking entitled to exercise the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] against that decision?

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.
If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Must the taking into account of the sentence imposed in the other EU Member State, as provided for under the second sentence of Article 3(5) of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA, take place in such a way that the disadvantage resulting from the impossibility to form a subsequent cumulative sentence is to be specifically documented and justified in the sentencing for the offence committed in Germany, in accordance with the principles governing the formation of cumulative sentences under German law?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by FJ and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-619/20, FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case C-171/22 P)

(2022/C 441/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: FJ and Others (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

By order of 5 October 2022, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
Appeal brought on 25 August 2022 by ZA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 June 2022 in Case T-545/16, YY and ZA v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-570/22 P)

(2022/C 441/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: ZA (represented by: L. Levi, J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union, YY, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 June 2022 in Case T-545/16, YY and ZA v Court of Justice;

— refer the present case to the Court of Justice for a ruling that the appellant’s action at first instance is well founded;

— order the defendant at first instance to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds:

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 45 TFEU, infringement by the General Court of its obligation to state reasons, error of legal characterisation and distortion of the contents of the file;

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of the purpose of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and breach of the general principle of proportionality.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 16 September 2022 — Società Italiana Imprese Balneari Srl v Comune di Rosignano Marittimo and Others

(Case C-598/22)

(2022/C 463/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Società Italiana Imprese Balneari Srl

Respondents: Comune di Rosignano Marittimo, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia del demanio — Direzione regionale Toscana e Umbria, Regione Toscana

Question referred

Do Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles arising from the Laezza judgment (C-375/14), where applicable, preclude the interpretation of a national provision such as Article 49 [of the Italian Shipping Code] as meaning that it results in the transfer without consideration and without compensation, by the concessionaire on expiry of the concession, when that concession has been renewed on an uninterrupted basis, where applicable by virtue of a new measure, of the building works constructed on the State-owned land forming part of the complex of assets organised for the operation of the resort enterprise, since that effect of immediate forfeiture could constitute a restriction that goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective actually pursued by the national legislature and is therefore disproportionate to the aim?
Appeal brought on 16 September 2022 by Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó and Antoni Comín i Oliveres against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 July 2022 in Case T-388/19, Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parlement

(Case C-600/22 P)

(2022/C 441/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó and Antoni Comín i Oliveres (represented by: P. Bekaert, S. Bekaert, advocaten, and G. Boye, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— refer the case back to the General Court or, in the alternative, annul the challenged acts; and

— order the Parliament and the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs or, in the alternative, reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of this appeal, the appellants rely on the following four pleas in law:

First, the General Court erred in law and infringed Article 263 TFEU and, thus, Article 47 of the Charter, by concluding that the fact that the appellants had not been allowed by the Parliament to take office, exercise their mandate and sit in the Parliament as from 2 July 2019 was not the result of the refusal of the Parliament to recognize the appellants’ status as Members of the European Parliament, as reflected in the instruction of 29 May 2019 and the letter of 27 June 2019, and therefore, that the challenged acts did not bring about a change to the appellants’ legal situation.

Pursuant to Article 12 of the 1976 Act, (1) it is for the Parliament to decide disputes that may arise out of the provisions of the 1976 Act, of which Article 1(3) is an essential provision. Donnici (2) wrongly interpreted the division of powers between national authorities and the Parliament provided for in Article 12 of the 1976 Act as regards the powers conferred to the Parliament. The appellants would have in any event been able to take their seats pending the decision on the dispute they brought before the Parliament, and therefore, the judgment under appeal erred in law by deciding that the challenged acts did not bring a change to the appellants’ situation.

The General Court erred in law by concluding that the decision not to take an initiative to assert the privileges and immunities pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament is not a challengeable act.

The General Court erred in law by claiming that the appellants had not made a request to the Parliament for the defence of their privileges and immunities pursuant to Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

(1) Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (OJ 1976 L 278, p. 5), annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976 (OJ 1976 L 278, p. 1), as amended by Council Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom of 25 June and 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 283, p. 1).

(2) Judgment of 30 April 2009, Italy and Donnici v Parliament, C-393/07 and C-9/08, EU:C:2009:275.
1.

Is an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24 (1) which entails the recognition in a host Member State of the effects of a decision by the competent administrative authority of the home Member State which has not been published in the manner required by Article 6(1) to (4) of Directive 2001/24 compatible with the fundamental right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the general principle of legal certainty and the principle of equality and the prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of nationality under Article 21(2) of the Charter?
2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, do those provisions preclude a Member State, in order to set the volume of HVO to be retained as input to the stock accounts which operators must maintain for the purposes of determining an incentive tax on the incorporation of biofuels paid in that State when the share of renewable energy in fuel released for consumption during the calendar year is lower than the national target for the share of renewable energy in transport, from requiring, upon entry into the first national tax warehousing facility in relation to imports of fuel containing HVO produced in another Member State under a co-processing procedure, a physical analysis of the HVO content of such fuel to be carried out, including where the installation in which the fuel was produced uses a mass balance approach which is certified by a voluntary system recognised by the Commission as being a comprehensive system?
1.

[The referring court asks] how to interpret Article 2(2)(f) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, according to which, for the purposes of the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP, ‘force majeure’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ may, in particular, be recognised in the case of the expropriation of all or a large part of the holding if that expropriation could not have been anticipated on the day of lodging the application, and, in particular, whether force majeure or exceptional circumstances in the form of an expropriation of all or a large part of the holding is present in the case where a contract for the use of municipal agricultural land (pastures, grassland and meadows) concluded between a municipal administration and a beneficiary under Measure 211, entitled ‘Payments to farmers in mountain areas facing natural handicaps’, of the Rural Development Programme for the period 2007-2013 is terminated in implementation of a change to the Bulgarian legislation which could not have been anticipated by the beneficiary on the day of lodging the application.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 4 May 2022 by Luis Miguel Novais against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2022 in Case T-66/22, Novais v Portugal

(Case C-295/22 P)

(2023/C 24/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Luis Miguel Novais (represented by: Á. Oliveira and C. Almeida Lopes, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic

By order of 24 November 2022, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.
2.

Must Article 2(2) and Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation be interpreted, having regard to recitals 16, 17, 20 and 21 of the directive, Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Articles 2 and 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (approved by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009), as meaning that the automatic termination on grounds of disability of the employment contract of a worker (who has been declared to be totally and permanently unable to perform his or her normal occupation), with no prior requirement for the employer to comply with the obligation to make ‘reasonable accommodation’ as required by Article 5 of the directive in order to enable the individual to remain in employment (or to show that the requirement would impose a disproportionate burden), constitutes direct discrimination, even though a rule of domestic law provides for termination of the contract?