ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2022 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-161/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Council decision, contained in the act of the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) of 5 February 2020, endorsing the submission to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) concerning the introduction of life cycle guidelines to estimate well-to-tank greenhouse gas emissions of sustainable alternative fuels - Article 17(1) TEU - External representation of the European Union - Transmission of that submission to the IMO by the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council, on behalf of the Member States and the Commission)

(2022/C 213/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented: initially by J.-F. Brakeland, S.L. Kalėda, W. Mölls and E. Georgieva, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland, S.L. Kalėda and E. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: N. Rouam, K. Michoel, T. Haas and A. Norberg, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: S. Baeyens and P. Cottin, acting as Agents, and by V. Van Thuyne and W. Timmermans, advocaten), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, D. Czechová, K. Najmanová and L. Březinová, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by J. Nymann-Lindegren, M. Jespersen, V. Pasternak Jørgensen and M. Søndahl Wolff, and subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen and M. Søndahl Wolff, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs and J. Möller, acting as Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Chala, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: J.-L. Carré, T. Stéhelin and A.-L. Desjonquères, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, M.H.S. Gijzen and J.M. Hoogveld, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: O. Simonsson, J. Lundberg, C. Meyer-Seitz, A.M. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev, H. Eklinder and R. Shahsavan Eriksson, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

3. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland — Netherlands) — X, Z v Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

(Case C-245/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Competence of the supervisory authority - Article 55(3) - Processing operations of courts acting in their judicial capacity - Concept - Making available to a journalist of documents arising from court proceedings containing personal data)

(2022/C 198/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Midden-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X, Z

Defendant: Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

Operative part of the judgment

Article 55(3) 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 the fact that a court makes temporarily available to journalists documents from court proceedings containing personal data in order to enable them better to report on the course of those proceedings falls within the exercise, by that court, of its ‘judicial capacity’, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
1.

Article 80(2)(a) and (c) and Article 90(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that the certificate appearing in a V I 1 document, drawn up for a consignment of wine imported into the European Union under Article 43 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, according to which that consignment was produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine or authorised by the European Union, is relevant in order to determine whether the consignment complies with the oenological practices referred to in Article 80(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1308/2013, but is not sufficient on its own to establish such compliance.
3.

Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which an applicant for financial support under the single area payment scheme submits, in support of his application, a concession contract relating to areas of pastureland and loan-for-use contracts, concluded free of charge, in respect of animals intended for grazing on those areas, may fall within the concept of ‘artificially created conditions’ for the purposes of that provision, provided that, first, it is apparent from a combination of objective circumstances that, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the relevant rules, the purpose of those rules has not been achieved and, second, the intention to obtain an advantage from the EU rules by creating artificially the conditions laid down to obtain it is established.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 May 2022 — Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-718/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty)

(2022/C 257/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Gustafsson, P. Němečková and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Association France Nature Environnement v Premier ministre, Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire

(Case C-525/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - Framework for European Union action in the field of water policy - Article 4(1)(a) - Environmental objectives relating to surface water - Obligation of the Member States not to authorise a programme or a project that may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water - Concept of ‘deterioration’ of the status of a body of surface water - Article 4(6) and (7) - Derogations from the prohibition of deterioration - Conditions - Programme or project with temporary, short-term impacts which are without lasting consequences on the status of a body of surface water)

(2022/C 244/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association France Nature Environnement

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy must be interpreted as precluding Member States, when they assess the compatibility of a particular programme or project with the objective of preventing the deterioration of water quality, from taking into account the temporary, short-term impacts which are without lasting consequences, unless it is clear that such impacts have, by their nature, little effect on the status of the bodies of water concerned and cannot lead to a ‘deterioration’ of that status, within the meaning of that provision. Where, as part of the authorisation procedure for a programme or project, the competent national authorities determine that that programme or project could lead to such a deterioration, that programme or project may be authorised only if the conditions set out in Article 4(7) of that directive are met, even if the deterioration is temporary in nature.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
1.

Article 34(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment entered by a court of a Member State in the terms of an arbitral award does not constitute a ‘judgment’, within the meaning of that provision, where a judicial decision resulting in an outcome equivalent to the outcome of that award could not have been adopted by a court of that Member State without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of that regulation, in particular as regards the relative effect of an arbitration clause included in the insurance contract in question and the rules on lis pendens contained in Article 27 of that regulation, and that, in that situation, the judgment in question cannot prevent, in that Member State, the recognition of a judgment given by a court in another Member State;
2.

The first sentence of Article 20 of the Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air concluded on 28 May 1999 in Montreal must be interpreted as meaning that, where an accident which caused damage to a passenger consists of a fall of that passenger, for no ascertainable reason, on a mobile stairway set up for the disembarkation of the passengers of an aircraft, the air carrier concerned may be exonerated from its liability towards that passenger only to the extent that, taking account of all the circumstances in which that damage occurred, that carrier proves, in accordance with the applicable national rules and subject to the observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, that the damage suffered by that passenger was caused or contributed to by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of that passenger, within the meaning of that provision.
2.

Article 16(1)(b) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as meaning that in order to find that there is a real family relationship, within the meaning of that provision, in the case of family reunification of a minor child with a parent who has been granted refugee status, where that child has attained his or her majority before the parent sponsor was granted refugee status and before the application for family reunification was submitted, the legal parent/child relationship is not sufficient on its own. However, it is not necessary for the parent sponsor and the child concerned to cohabit in a single household or to live under the same roof in order for that child to qualify for family reunification. Occasional visits, in so far as they are possible, and regular contact of any kind may be sufficient to consider that those persons are reconstructing personal and emotional relationships and to establish the existence of a real family relationship. Furthermore, nor can the parent sponsor and his or her child be required to support each other financially.
2.

Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that a defeat device, which guarantees compliance with the emission limits laid down by that regulation only where the outside temperature is between 15 and 33 oC, and the driving altitude is less than 1 000 metres, cannot fall within the exception to the prohibition on the use of such devices, laid down in that provision, solely because that device is intended to protect the exhaust gas recirculation valve, unless it is established that that device strictly meets the need to avoid immediate risks of damage or accident to the engine, caused by a malfunction of that part, of such a serious nature as to give rise to a specific hazard when a vehicle fitted with that device is driven. In any event, a defeat device which, under normal driving conditions, operated during most of the year in order to protect the engine from damage or accident and ensure the safe operation of the vehicle could not fall within the exception provided for in Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation No 715/2007.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — L.F. v SCRL

(Case C-344/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Establishment of a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief - Internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting any manifestation, in the workplace, of religious, philosophical or political belief - Prohibition including words, clothing, or any other means of manifesting those beliefs - Wearing of an item of religious clothing)

(2022/C 463/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L.F.

Defendant: SCRL

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘religion or belief’ contained therein constitute a single ground of discrimination, covering both religious belief and philosophical or spiritual belief.

2. Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of an undertaking’s terms of employment which prohibits workers from manifesting, through words, through clothing, or in any other way, their religious or philosophical beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, does not constitute, with regard to workers who intend to exercise their freedom of religion and conscience through the visible wearing of a sign or an item of clothing with religious connotations, direct discrimination ‘on the [ground] of religion or belief’ for the purposes of that directive, provided that that provision is applied in a general and undifferentiated way.

3. Article 1 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding provisions of national legislation, which are intended to ensure the transposition of that directive into national law and which are construed as meaning that religious belief and philosophical belief constitute two separate grounds of discrimination, from being taken into account as ‘provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment than those laid down in [that directive]’ for the purposes of Article 8(1) thereof.

(1) OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom) — United Kingdom) — Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited v Commissioner of Income Tax

(Case C-705/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Aid schemes implemented by the Government of Gibraltar concerning corporate income tax - Decision (EU) 2019/700 - Non-taxation of passive interest and royalty income - Decision of the European Commission declaring the aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Recovery obligation - Scope - Domestic provision which was not the subject of the Commission’s investigation concerning the State aid at issue - Set-off of the tax paid abroad in order to prevent double taxation)

(2022/C 418/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Income Tax Tribunal of Gibraltar (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fossil (Gibraltar) Limited

Defendant: Commissioner of Income Tax

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Decision (EU) 2019/700 of 19 December 2018 on the State aid SA.34914 (2013/C) implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime

must be interpreted as meaning

that it does not preclude the national authorities responsible for the recovery from the beneficiary of aid which is unlawful and incompatible with the internal market from applying a domestic provision which prescribes a mechanism for the set-off of taxes paid by that beneficiary abroad against taxes for which it is liable in Gibraltar, where it appears that that provision was applicable on the date of the operations in question.

(1) OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Överklagandenämnden för studiestöd — Sweden) — MCM v Centrala studiestödsnämnden

(Case C-638/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 45 TFEU - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(2) - Financial aid for higher education studies in another Member State - Residence requirement - Alternative requirement of social integration for non-resident students - Situation of a student who is a national of the State granting the aid, residing since birth in the State of studies)

(2023/C 24/04)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Överklagandenämnden för studiestöd

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MCM

Defendant: Centrala studiestödsnämnden

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union

must be interpreted as meaning that those provisions do not preclude legislation of a Member State by which the grant of financial aid for the pursuit of studies in the host Member State, to the child of a person who has left the host Member State in which that person worked in order to return to live in the first Member State, of which he or she is a national, is made subject to the requirement that the child have a connection with the Member State of origin, in a situation where, first, the child has lived since birth in the host Member State and, second, the Member State of origin makes other nationals not satisfying the residence requirement and who apply for such financial aid to study in another Member State subject to the requirement of the existence of a connection.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
1.

Article 18(1) and (3) 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, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, read in conjunction with Article 5 of and point 3(b) of Annex III to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require an obliged entity automatically to assign a high-risk level to a customer and therefore to adopt enhanced due diligence measures in respect of that customer solely because the customer is a non-governmental organisation, or one of the employees of that customer is a national of a high-corruption-risk third country, or a business partner of that customer, but not the customer itself, is linked to such a third country. A Member State may, however, identify such circumstances in national law as factors indicative of a potentially higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, which obliged entities must take into account in their risk assessment of their customers, provided that those factors are in conformity with European Union law and, in particular, the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.
2.

Article 23(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority, referred to in that provision, is not met where the executing Member State makes a police service responsible for ascertaining whether there is a situation of force majeure and whether the necessary conditions for the continued detention of the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant are satisfied and for deciding, as the case may be, on a new surrender date, even if that person is entitled to apply to the executing judicial authority at any time for a decision on the abovementioned matters. Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the time limits referred to in Article 23(2) to (4) must be regarded as having expired, with the result that that person must be released, where the requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority, referred to in Article 23(3) of that framework decision, has not been met.
1.

Article 58(1) and (4) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2365 of 18 December 2017, must be interpreted as not precluding, in a public procurement procedure, a contracting authority from being able to impose, under the selection criteria relating to the technical and professional abilities of the economic operators, stricter requirements than the minimum requirements set by the national legislation, provided that such requirements are appropriate to ensure that a candidate or tenderer has the technical and professional abilities to perform the contract to be awarded, that they are related to the subject matter of the contract and that they are proportionate to it.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 — Fakro sp. z o.o. v European Commission, Republic of Poland

(Case C-149/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Rejection of a complaint by the European Commission - Lack of Union interest)

(2022/C 318/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Fakro sp. z o.o. (represented by: Z. Kiedacz and A. Radkowiak-Macuda, radcowie prawni)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley, I.V. Rogalski and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Fakro sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.