do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-512/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 3 July 2019 — Go Sun Srl, Malby Energy 4 Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
Date: 2019-07-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, energy law, energy production, national law, ownership, principle of legal certainty, public sector, renewable energy, solar energy








C_2019357EN.01001301.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 3 July 2019 — Go Sun Srl, Malby Energy 4 Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
(Case C-512/19)
(2019/C 357/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Go Sun Srl, Malby Energy 4 Srl

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Autorità di Regolazione per l’Energia, Reti e Ambiente, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Questions referred

Does EU law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as that in Article 26(3) of Decree-Law No 91/2014, as converted by Law No 116/2014, which significantly reduces the payment of incentives already granted by law and defined on the basis of corresponding agreements concluded by undertakings generating electrical energy by means of photovoltaic conversion with Gestore dei servizi energetici s.p.a, a public company responsible for that process?
In particular, is that provision of national law compatible with the general principles of EU law relating to legitimate expectation, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and effectiveness, with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and with the rules governing support schemes laid down in that directive, and with Article 216(2) TFEU, in particular in relation to the European Energy Charter Treaty?


(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).
Case C-486/16: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante — Spain) — Bankia SA v Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law — Principle of effectiveness — Principle of procedural autonomy)
Date: 2019-07-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, mortgage, national law, real estate credit, real property, seizure of goods, unfair terms of contract








C_2020019EN.01000401.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/4






Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante — Spain) — Bankia SA v Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño
(Case C-486/16) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 6 and 7 - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law - Principle of effectiveness - Principle of procedural autonomy)
(2020/C 19/04)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bankia SA

Defendants: Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño

Operative part of the order

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, as not precluding that a national court of first instance may be bound by a decision delivered by an appeal court requiring the initiation of an enforcement procedure taking into account the seriousness of the consumer’s failure to fulfil his obligations under the mortgage loan agreement, even if that agreement contains a term declared unfair in an earlier judgment which has become final, but which does not have the force of res judicata under national law.


(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Case T-450/19: Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Gallenzi v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01006702.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/67






Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Gallenzi v Parliament
(Case T-450/19)
(2019/C 295/88)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Giulio Cesare Gallenzi (Ariccia, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-452/19: Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Napoletano v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01006901.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/69






Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Napoletano v Parliament
(Case T-452/19)
(2019/C 295/90)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Pasqualina Napoletano (Anzio, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case C-316/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads)
Date: 2019-07-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, financial transaction, investment income, investment transaction, overheads, payment, tax on investment income, tax relief








C_2019305EN.01002101.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/21






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge
(Case C-316/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Deduction of input tax - Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions - Overheads)
(2019/C 305/26)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondent: The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person that (i) is carrying out both taxable and exempt activities, (ii) invests the donations and endowments that it receives by placing them in a fund and (iii) uses the income generated by that fund to cover the costs of all of those activities is not entitled to deduct, as an overhead, input value added tax paid in respect of the costs associated with that investment.


(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Case T-573/16: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2019 — PT v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Organisation of services — Time dispensation — Access to e-mail and IT connections — Pre-litigation procedure — Admissibility — Legal certainty — Right to be heard — Presumption of innocence — OLAF Final Report — Obligation to state reasons — Liability — Material damage — Non-material damage)
Date: 2019-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, admissibility, damages, dismissal, electronic mail, indemnification, institutional structure, pay, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence








C_2019295EN.01001701.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/17






Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2019 — PT v EIB
(Case T-573/16) (1)

(Civil Service - EIB staff - Organisation of services - Time dispensation - Access to e-mail and IT connections - Pre-litigation procedure - Admissibility - Legal certainty - Right to be heard - Presumption of innocence - OLAF Final Report - Obligation to state reasons - Liability - Material damage - Non-material damage)
(2019/C 295/21)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: PT (represented by: E. Nordh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by G. Nuvoli, E. Raimond, T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, and subsequently by G. Faedo and M. Loizou, acting as Agents, and by M. Johansson, B. Wägenbaur, lawyers and J. Currall, Barrister)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, the annulment of the decisions of the EIB of 13 April, 12 May, 16 June and 20 October 2015, 6 June 2016 and 7 February 2017 on the applicant’s time dispensation, the decision of the EIB of 18 June 2015 to block the applicant’s access to his e-mail and to the EIB’s IT connections and the decisions of the EIB not to communicate his remuneration slips to him and to delete his name from the organisation chart published on the EIB’s intranet and, secondly, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decisions of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 13 April, 12 May, 16 June and 20 October 2015, 6 June 2016 and 7 February 2017, on the PT’s time dispensation, and the EIB’s decision of 18 June 2015 to block PT’s access to his e-mail and to the EIB’s IT connections;











2.



Orders the EIB to pay PT, in respect of the non-material damage suffered, an amount of EUR 25 000 plus default interest, from the date of delivery of this judgment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its principal refinancing operations, plus 3.5 points.











3.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder.











4.



Orders the EIB to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case F-150/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-420/19: Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Nobilia v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01004601.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/46






Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Nobilia v Parliament
(Case T-420/19)
(2019/C 295/59)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Mauro Nobilia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.