ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 May 2019 — Acea Energia and Others

(Joined Cases C‑406/17 to C‑408/17 and C‑417/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market — Directive 2009/72/EC — Internal market in electricity — Directive 2009/73/EC — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2011/83/EU — Aggressive commercial practices — Conclusion of contracts for electricity and natural gas supply which were not requested by consumers — Conclusion of distance or off-premises supply contracts in breach of consumer rights — Competent authority to penalise such conduct)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of the relevant aspects of EU law — Reformulation of the questions (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 42, 43)

2. Consumer protection — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices — Directive 2005/29 — Scope — Article 3(4) — Notion of ‘conflict’ (see para. 49)

3. Consumer protection — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices — Directives 2005/29 and 2011/83 — Scope (European Parliament and Council Directives 2005/29, Art. 3(4) and 2011/83, Art. 3(2)) (see para. 62, operative part)

Operative part

Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Article 3(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation in accordance with which conduct such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in concluding supply contracts which were not requested by the consumers or consisting in concluding distance or off-premises supply contracts in breach of consumer rights, must be assessed in the light of the provisions of Directives 2005/29 and 2011/83 respectively, with the result that, according to that national legislation, the sectoral regulator, for the purposes of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC and of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, is not competent to penalise such conduct.

( 1 ) OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 — Barba Giménez

(Case C‑426/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Beneficiary of legal aid — Remuneration of legal aid lawyers — Fee scale set by order of the Bar Council — No prior information on fees provided by the lawyer to her client — Complaint as to fees — Examination as to whether terms and practices are unfair — Main dispute — Referral to a competent body — No referral to the referring court — Answers to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Utility — None — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Jurisdiction of the Court—Limits—Clearly irrelevant questions

(Art. 267 TFEU)

(see paras 36-39, 45-47, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Social Court No 2, Terrassa, Spain), by decision of 27 June 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
39

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the Tribunal de Contas (Court of Auditors) has not established the findings necessary for the Court to ascertain whether, in the case in the main proceedings, there is certain cross-border interest. As has been pointed out in paragraphs 23 to 25 of the present order, it follows from Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure that the Court must be able to find in a request for a preliminary ruling a summary of the facts on which the questions are based and the connection, inter alia, between those facts and the questions. Therefore, the findings necessary to make possible verification of the existence of certain cross-border interest, and more generally all the findings to be made by the national courts and on which the applicability of an act of secondary and primary legislation of the European Union depends, must be made before the questions are referred to the Court (see judgment of 11 December 2014, Azienda sanitaria locale n. 5 Spezzino and Others, C‑113/13, EU:C:2014:2440, paragraph 47).
In the introductory part of the judgment of 23 January 2019, M.A. and Others (C‑661/17, EU:C:2019:53), the reference to the observations of Ireland shall be rectified as follows:

‘Ireland, by M. Browne, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by S.-J. Hillery, Barrister-at-Law, and D. Conlan Smyth, Senior Counsel,’
Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 5, 6)
Case C‑619/18

European Commission

v

Republic of Poland

(Expedited procedure)

Summary — Order of the President of the Court, 15 November 2018

Judicial proceedings — Expedited procedure — Conditions — Circumstances justifying the matter being dealt with within a short time — Doubts as to the independence of the Supreme Court of a Member State — Admissibility of the use of that procedure

(Art. 2 TEU; Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 133(1))

In the context of an application for expedited procedure, made in an action for failure to fulfil obligations following doubts entertained by the Commission as to the actual ability of a Supreme Court of a Member State, following legislative amendments relating to the lowering of the age at which the members of that Supreme Court retire and the conditions on which those judges may, if necessary, be authorised beyond that age to continue to carry out their duties, to continue to rule in compliance with the fundamental right of any individual to have access to an independent court, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the requirement of judicial independence forms part of the essence of the fundamental right to a fair trial, a right which is of cardinal importance as a guarantee that all the rights which individuals derive from EU law will be protected and that the values common to the Member States set out in Article 2 TEU, in particular the value of the rule of law, will be safeguarded.

In addition, the uncertainties thus surrounding the disputed national provisions are also liable to have an effect on the working of the system of judicial cooperation embodied by the preliminary ruling mechanism provided for in Article 267 TFEU, the keystone of the EU judicial system, for which the independence of the national courts, and particularly those ruling at last instance, is essential.

In the light of the foregoing, a response from the Court within a short time is such as, for the purposes of legal certainty, in the interest of both the European Union and the Member State concerned, to remove the uncertainties relating to fundamental questions of EU law and concerning in particular the existence of possible interference with certain fundamental rights safeguarded by EU law and the effects which the interpretation of that law is likely to have as regards the actual composition and working conditions of the Supreme Court of that Member State.

(see paras 19-22, 25)
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2018 — Stiernon and Others

(Case C‑237/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Freedom of movement for workers — Freedom to choose an occupation — Articles 20, 21 and 45 TFEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 15 — Profession of psychomotor therapist not included in the national list of allied health professions)

Freedom of movement for persons—Workers—Restrictions—Establishment by a Member State of a list of allied health professions—Non-inclusion on that list of the profession of psychomotor therapist, even though an undergraduate degree in psychomotor therapy has been established in that Member State—Lawfulness

(Art. 45 TFEU)

(see paras 27-29, operative part)

Operative part

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, legislation of a Member State establishing a list of allied health professions that does not include the profession of psychomotor therapist in that list, even though an undergraduate degree in psychomotor therapy has been established in that Member State.

( 1 ) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Action for annulment — Time limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date on which the measure at issue was published — No infringement of the right to effective judicial protection

(Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 52(7))

(see para. 26)
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 January 2019 — Fluctus and Others

(Case C‑444/18)

(References for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Games of chance — Gambling monopoly in a Member State — Monopolistic advertising practices — Criteria for assessment — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 16-23, 25-28, 30, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Regional Administrative Court, Styria) (Austria) by decision of 2 July 2018 is manifestly inadmissible.
Appeal — Grounds — Challenge to the contested decision before the General Court and not the judgment it delivered — Inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 5)
Order of the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) of 19 March 2019 — Michal Harvilik — HYDRA v Czech Republic and the European Court of Human Rights

(Case C‑768/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for annulment and for damages — Decision of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the inadmissibility of an action brought against the Czech Republic — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

1. Appeal — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see para. 6)

2. Judicial proceedings — Action for annulment or for damages brought by a natural or legal person against a Member State and the European Court of Human Rights — General Court clearly lacking jurisdiction — Inadmissibility (Arts 256, 263, 268 and 340, paras 3 and 4, TFEU) (see para. 10)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
1.

Clause 4, point 1, of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is included in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not provide for the payment of any compensation to workers employed as members of auxiliary staff performing duties consisting in positions of trust or involving the performance of special advisory functions, such as the workers at issue in the main proceedings, upon the termination at the employer’s discretion of their post, whereas compensation is allocated to staff employed under a contract for an indefinite period upon the termination of their employment contract for an objective reason.
Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 5)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 January 2020 — Parliament v Josefsson

(Case C‑506/18 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — European Parliament — Termination of the contract — Agreement intended to resolve the dispute between the parties — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

Appeal — Subject matter — Application to set aside a judgment of the General Court — Agreement concluded between the parties having the purpose of implementing the contested judgment — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(see paras 18, 20, 21)

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

2. The European Parliament and Mr Erik Josefsson shall bear their own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 2020 — State of Canada

(Case C‑613/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Restrictions on the free movement of capital to or from a third country — Direct taxation — Tax on the revenue of legal persons — Profits distributed by companies resident in the territory of Portugal — Reduction in the tax base)

Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Taxation of dividends — National rules requiring deduction at source from dividends paid to resident and non-resident taxable persons and establishing a reduction in the tax base exclusively for residents — Unlawful — No justifications — Convention to avoid double taxation concluded with another State — Effect — Determination by the national court

(Arts 63 and 65 TFEU)

(see paras 28-37, operative part)

Operative part

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the dividends distributed by a resident company are subject to a tax the effective rate of which is higher where those dividends are received by an entity resident in a third country which does not principally carry out activities of a commercial, industrial or agricultural nature than where such dividends are received by such an entity resident in that State. The situation is different only if the application of the tax convention between Canada and the Portuguese Republic signed on 14 June 1999 for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income allows the effects of the difference in treatment under the legislation of that Member State to be completely neutralised, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

( 1 ) OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Privileges and immunities of the European Union – Members of the European Parliament – Immunity in respect of opinions expressed and votes cast in the performance of their duties – Definition of opinion expressed in the performance of duties – Application in the context of criminal proceedings against a Member of the Parliament – Need for a direct and obvious link between the opinion expressed and the parliamentary duties

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Arts 8 and 9)

(see paras 29, 30)
11

By order of 19 October 2018, the Vice-President of the Court, pursuant to Article 160(7) of the Rules of Procedure, even before the Republic of Poland had submitted its observations on the application for interim relief, ordered that Member State, immediately and until the order which will end the interlocutory proceedings has been delivered: – to suspend application of the provisions of Article 37(1) to (4) and of Article 111(1) and (1a) of the Law on the Supreme Court, of Article 5 of the Law amending the Law on the organisation of the common law courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and certain other laws and of all other measures adopted in application of those provisions; – to adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) affected by those provisions may carry out their duties in the same post while benefiting from the same staff regulations, the same rights and employment conditions as those under which they were employed until 3 April 2018, the date of entry into force of the Law on the Supreme Court; – to refrain from any measure appointing judges to the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) in the place of those affected by the provisions which form the basis of the failure to fulfil obligations and the subject matter of the main action, and any measure to appoint the new First President of that court or to indicate the person responsible for leading that court in the place of its First President until the appointment of the new First President; and – to communicate to the Commission, at the latest one month after service of the order granting those measures and then regularly, each month, details of all the measures which it has adopted in order to comply fully with this order.
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of du 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 and, in particular, Article 3(2)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that passengers on a flight with a delay of 3 hours or more on arrival who have a confirmed reservation on that flight cannot be denied compensation under that regulation solely on the ground that, upon claiming compensation, they failed to prove that they were present for check-in for that flight, in particular by means of a boarding card, unless it can be established that those passengers were not transported on the delayed flight at issue, which is matter for the national court to determine.
1.

Paragraph 51 of the judgment of 19 December 2019, Amoena (C‑677/18, EU:C:2019:1142), in the version in the language of the case, shall be rectified as follows: ‘It follows from the Court’s case-law that the notion of “accessories”, for the purposes of Chapter 90 of the CN, implies interchangeable parts or devices designed to adapt a machine for a particular operation, or to increase its range of operations, or to enable it to perform a particular service relative to its main function (see, to that effect, judgments of 16 June 2011, Unomedical, C‑152/10, EU:C:2011:402, paragraph 29, and of 4 March 2015, Oliver Medical, C‑547/13, EU:C:2015:139, paragraph 69).’
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 – Bettani v Commission

(Case C‑392/18 P-INT)

(Application for interpretation – Lack of legal representation – Manifest inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings – Interpretation of a judgment – Application for interpretation of an order – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer – Application signed by a representative who is registered in a national association which is not legally authorised to issue the title of lawyer – Lack of legal representation – Manifest inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third and fourth paras, and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 158(1) and 159)

(see paras 11-15)

Operative part

1. The application for interpretation is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 15 July 2019 — Herrero Torres v EUIPO

(Case C‑369/19 P)

(Appeal — EU trade mark — Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Request failing to show that an issue of law is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

Appeal — Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to show the significance of the issue — Appeal not allowed to proceed

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)

(see paras 8-11)

Operative part

1. The appeal shall not be allowed to proceed.
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 21 March 2019 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission

(Case C‑1/19 P(R)]

(Appeal — Application for interim measures — Competition — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives sector — European Commission decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision 2011/695/EU — Dismissal of an application for confidential treatment of the decision — Information claimed to be confidential — Publication — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Prima facie case)

1. Competition — Administrative procedure — Preservation of professional secrecy — Interest of an undertaking that certain information concerning its conduct not be disclosed — Interest which does not merit any specific protection in respect of undertakings which have been found to be in infringement in the operative part of a decision addressed to them (see paras 23-25)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Assessment in litigation on the protection of confidential information — Condition of prima facie case not satisfied (278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 32-36)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 September 2019 — Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg

(Case C‑277/19) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Credit agreements for consumers — Agreements antedating the accession of the Republic of Croatia of the European Union — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation of a Community directive in proceedings antedating the accession of a Member State to the European Union — Precluded

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2))

(see paras 27-30)

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction with regard to the reference for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Zadru (Municipal Court of Zadar, Croatia), made by decision of 25 March 2019.

( 1 ) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.