ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Vodafone GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

(Case C-854/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 - Article 3 - Open internet access - Article 3(1) - End users’ rights - Article 3(2) - Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights - Article 3(3) - Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic - Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures - Additional ‘zero tariff’ option - ‘Zero tariff’ excluded in the case of roaming)

(2021/C 431/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a limitation on use when roaming, on account of the activation of a ‘zero tariff’ option, is incompatible with the obligations arising from Article 3(3).

(1) OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur — Belgium) — C.J. v Région wallonne

(Case C-830/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 807/2014 - Young farmers setting up - Farm development - Business start-up aid for young farmers - Conditions of access - Equivalence - Not setting up as sole head of the holding - Upper thresholds - Fixing - Criteria - Standard output of the agricultural holding)

(2021/C 338/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C.J.

Defendant: Région wallonne

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 5 and 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 5 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 807/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and introducing transitional provisions, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the criterion for determining the upper threshold for enabling a young farmer, who is not setting up as sole head of the holding, to access business start-up aid is the standard gross output of the entire agricultural holding, and not simply that young farmer’s share in that holding.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2021 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium, Magnetrol International, Ireland

(Case C-337/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium - Excess profit exemption - Tax ruling - Consistent administrative practice - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 1(d) - Concept of ‘aid scheme’ - Concept of ‘act’ - Concept of ‘further implementing measures’ - ‘General and abstract’ definition of beneficiaries - Cross-appeal - Admissibility - Fiscal autonomy of the Member States)

(2021/C 471/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, C. Pochet and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and by M. Segura and M. Clayton, avocates), Magnetrol International (represented by: H. Gilliams and L. Goossens, advocaten), Ireland

Interveners in support of the defendants: Soudal NV, Esko-Graphics BVBA (represented by: H. Viaene, avocat), Flir Systems Trading Belgium BVBA (represented by: T. Verstraeten and C. Docclo, avocats, and by N. Reypens, advocaat), Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, Ampar BVBA, Atlas Copco Airpower NV, Atlas Copco AB (represented by: A. von Bonin, Rechtsanwalt, W.O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, advocaten, and by A. Haelterman, avocat), Wabco Europe BVBA (represented by: E. Righini and L. Villani, avvocati, S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, and by A. Papadimitriou, avocat), Celio International NV (represented by: H. Gilliams and L. Goossens, advocaten)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 February 2019, Belgium and Magnetrol International v Commission (T-131/16 and T-263/16, EU:T:2019:91);

2. Rejects the first and second pleas in law in Case T-131/16, and the first plea in law and the first part of the third plea in law in Case T-263/16;

3. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the third to fifth pleas in law in Case T-131/16 and on the second plea in law, the second and third parts of the third plea in law, and the fourth plea in law in Case T-263/16;

4. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 — NeXovation Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-665/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid in favour of the Nürburgring complex (Germany) - Decision declaring the aid partly incompatible with the internal market - Sale of the assets of the beneficiaries of the State aid found to be incompatible - Open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional tender process - Decision declaring that the reimbursement of incompatible aid did not concern the new owner of the Nürburgring complex and that the latter did not receive new aid for the acquisition of that complex - Admissibility - Status as an interested party - Person individually concerned - Infringement of the procedural rights of the interested parties - Difficulties requiring the initiation of a formal investigation procedure - Justification)

(2021/C 431/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: NeXovation Inc. (represented: initially by A. von Bergwelt, M. Nordmann and L. Hettstedt, and subsequently by A. von Bergwelt and M. Nordmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 June 2019, NeXovation v Commission (T-353/15, EU:T:2019:434), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action for annulment of the last indent of Article 1 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/151 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring;

2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3. Annuls the last indent of Article 1 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/151 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring;

4. Orders NeXovation Inc. and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht — Germany) — Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt

(Case C-825/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - End-use procedure - Authorisation with retroactive effect - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Union Customs Code - Article 211(2) - Scope ratione temporis - Conditions - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 294(2) - Scope)

(2021/C 502/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Erfurt

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 211(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as not applying to an application for renewal of authorisation with retroactive effect submitted before 1 May 2016, the date on which that article became applicable pursuant to Article 288(2) of that regulation, even if the decision on that application was adopted after that date.

2. Article 294(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/12 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1602/2000 of 24 July 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the issue, by the customs authorities, of a new authorisation with retroactive effect for operations and goods of the same type as those covered by the original authorisation is not subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 3 of that article.

(1) OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Banco Santander SA, Santusa Holding SL (C-53/19 P), Kingdom of Spain (C-65/19 P) v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland

(Joined Cases C-53/19 P and C-65/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification for the difference in treatment)

(2021/C 481/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Banco Santander SA, Santusa Holding SL (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados) (C-53/19 P), Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by A. Rubio González and A. Sampol Pucurull, and subsequently by S. Centeno Huerta and S. Jiménez García, Agents) (C-65/19 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and R. Kanitz, Agents), Ireland

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Banco Santander SA, Santusa Holding SL and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
1.

Declares that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under: — Article 33(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection by allowing an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on its territory via a State in which that person was not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed; — Article 8(2) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 10(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection by criminalising in its national law the actions of any person who, in connection with an organising activity, provides assistance in respect of the making or lodging of an application for asylum in its territory, where it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that that person was aware that that application could not be accepted under that law; — Article 8(2), Article 12(1)(c) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 10(4) of Directive 2013/33 by preventing any person who is suspected of having committed such an offence from the right to approach its external borders;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Eco Fox Srl (C-915/19), Alpha Trading SpA unipersonale (C-916/19), Novaol Srl (C-917/19) v Fallimento Mythen SpA (C-915/19), Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari a forestali, Minsitero dello Svilluppo economico (C-915/19 to C-917/19), Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (C-915/19)

(Joined Cases C-915/19 to C-917/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Biodiesel market - Aid scheme establishing biodiesel quotas exempt from excise duty - Amendment of the authorised aid scheme - Amendment of the quota allocation criteria - Obligation of prior notification to the European Commission - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(c) - Concept of ‘new aid’ - Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 - Article 4(1) - Concept of ‘alterations to existing aid’)

(2022/C 2/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eco Fox Srl (C-915/19), Alpha Trading SpA unipersonale (C-916/19), Novaol Srl (C-917/19)

Defendants: Fallimento Mythen SpA (C-915/19), Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-915/19 to C-917/19), Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (C-915/19)

Interveners: Oil B. Srl unipersonale, Novaol Srl (C-915/19), Fallimento Mythen SpA, Ital Bi-Oil Srl, Cereal Docks SpA, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (C-916/19 and C-917/19)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 107 and 108 TFEU and the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 [TFEU], as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 734/2013 of 22 July 2013, and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 must be interpreted as meaning that an amendment to a preferential tax scheme for biodiesel authorised by the European Commission is not to be regarded as new aid subject to the notification requirement under Article 108(3) TFEU where that amendment consists of a change, with retroactive effect, to the criteria for allocation of biodiesel quotas benefiting from a preferential rate of excise duty under that scheme, in so far as that amendment does not affect the constituent elements of the aid scheme concerned, as assessed by the Commission for the purposes of its evaluation of the compatibility of the previous versions of that scheme with the internal market.

(1) OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2022 — Romania v European Commission, Hungary

(Case C-899/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Citizens’ initiative - Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Article 4(2)(b) - Registration of a proposed citizens’ initiative - Condition requiring that that proposed citizens’ initiative does not manifestly fall outside the framework of the European Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties - Decision (EU) 2017/652 - Citizens’ initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ - Registration in part - Article 5(2) TEU - Principle of conferral - Article 296 TFEU - Obligation to state reasons - Audi alteram partem rule)

(2022/C 119/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane, L. Liţu, M. Chicu and L. E. Baţagoi, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: initially by I. Martínez del Peral, H. Stancu and H. Krämer, subsequently by I. Martínez del Peral and H. Stancu, acting as Agents, Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Romania to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
2.

Article 325(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Luxembourg on 26 July 1995, and Decision 2006/298 are to be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which judgments in matters of corruption and value added tax (VAT) fraud, which were not delivered, at first instance, by panels specialised in such matters or, on appeal, by panels all the members of which were selected by drawing lots, are rendered absolutely null and void, such that the cases of corruption and VAT fraud concerned must, as the case may be further to an extraordinary appeal against final judgments, be re-examined at first and/or second instance, where the application of those national rules or that national practice is capable of giving rise to a systemic risk of acts constituting serious fraud affecting the European Union’s financial interests or corruption in general going unpunished. The obligation to ensure that such offences are subject to criminal penalties that are effective and act as a deterrent does not exempt the referring court from verifying the necessary observance of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, but does not allow that court to apply a national standard of protection of fundamental rights entailing such a systemic risk of impunity.
1.

Article 2(2)(d) and Article 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation applies to the processing of personal data envisaged by national legislation intended to transpose, into domestic law, the provisions of Council Directive 2004/82/EC of 29 April 2004 on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data, those of Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC and also those of Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, in respect of, on the one hand, data processing operations carried out by private operators and, on the other hand, data processing operations carried out by public authorities covered, solely or in addition, by Directive 2004/82 or Directive 2010/65. By contrast, the said regulation does not apply to the data processing operations envisaged by such legislation which are covered only by Directive 2016/681 and are carried out by the passenger information unit (PIU) or by the authorities competent for the purposes referred to in Article 1(2) of that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA v YB (C-693/19), Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA and Others v YX, ZW (C-831/19)

(Joined Cases C-693/19 and C-831/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Payment order and attachment proceedings against third parties - Force of res judicata implicitly covering the validity of the terms of an enforceable instrument - Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion the potential unfairness of a term)

(2022/C 266/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SPV Project 1503 Srl, Dobank SpA (C-693/19), Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA, Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Carugate e Inzago sc, Intesa Sanpaolo SpA, Banca Popolare di Sondrio s.c.p.a, Cerved Credit Management (C-831/19)

Defendants: YB (C-693/19), YX, ZW (C-831/19)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where an order for payment issued by a court on application by a creditor has not been the subject of an objection lodged by the debtor, the court hearing the enforcement proceedings may not, on the ground that the force of res judicata of that order applies by implication to the validity of those terms, thus excluding any examination of their validity, subsequently review the potential unfairness of the contractual terms on which that order is based. The fact that, at the time when the order became final, the debtor was unaware that he or she could be classified as a ‘consumer’, within the meaning of that directive, is irrelevant in that regard.

(1) OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

OJ C 36, 3.2.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — AR v Stadt Pforzheim

(Case C-56/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Driving licences - Mutual recognition - Withdrawal of the licence in the territory of a Member State other than the issuing Member State - Affixing of an endorsement to the driving licence indicating that it is not valid within that Member State)

(2021/C 278/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AR

Defendant: Stadt Pforzheim

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2011/94/EU of 28 November 2011, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State which has adopted, under the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of that directive, as amended by Directive 2011/94, a decision refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State on account of unlawful conduct on the part of its holder, which occurred during a temporary stay in the territory of the first Member State after the issue of that licence, from affixing to that licence also an endorsement indicating a prohibition, for that holder, on driving in that Member State, when that holder has not established his or her normal residence, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 12 of Directive 2006/126, as amended by Directive 2011/94, in the territory of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.