do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-41/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — FX v GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Article 41(1) — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 24(5) — Maintenance order declared enforceable — Application opposing enforcement — Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of enforcement)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: debt, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, maintenance obligation








C_2020262EN.01000601.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/6






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — FX v GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother
(Case C-41/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 41(1) - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 24(5) - Maintenance order declared enforceable - Application opposing enforcement - Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of enforcement)
(2020/C 262/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FX

Defendant: GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations is to be interpreted as meaning that an application opposing enforcement brought by the maintenance debtor against enforcement of a decision given by a court of the Member State of origin and which established that debt, which has a close link with the procedure for enforcement, falls within its scope and is within the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of enforcement.
Pursuant to Article 41(1) of Regulation No 4/2009 and to the relevant provisions of national law, it is for the referring court, being a court of the Member State of enforcement, to adjudicate on the admissibility and the validity of the evidence adduced by the maintenance debtor, seeking to support the submission that he has predominantly discharged his debt.


(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Case C-233/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 June 2020 — WD v job-medium GmbH in liquidation
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: allowances and expenses, paid leave, termination of employment, working conditions








C_2020297EN.01002401.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 June 2020 — WD v job-medium GmbH in liquidation
(Case C-233/20)
(2020/C 297/33)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: WD

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: job-medium GmbH in liquidation

Questions referred







1


Is a provision of national law under which no allowance in lieu of annual leave is payable in respect of the current (last) working year, where the worker unilaterally terminates (‘withdraws from’) the employment relationship early without cause, compatible with Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2010/C 83/02) and Article 7 of the Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC)? (1)











2.


If the answer to that question is in the negative:






2.1.


Is it necessary to verify additionally if the worker was unable to use up his annual leave?










2.2.


If so, what are the criteria for that verification?










(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
Case C-812/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Terna SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Energy — Projects of common interest to the EU — EU financial assistance granted to two projects in the field of trans-European energy networks — Directive 2004/17/EC — Article 37 — Subcontracting — Article 40(3)(c) — Direct award — Technical specificity — Framework agreement — Reduction of the assistance originally granted following a financial audit — Reimbursement of amounts originally paid)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, award of contract, energy grid, financial audit, project of common interest, public procurement, reimbursement of aid, subcontracting, trans-European network








C_2020262EN.01000401.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/4






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Terna SpA v European Commission
(Case C-812/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Energy - Projects of common interest to the EU - EU financial assistance granted to two projects in the field of trans-European energy networks - Directive 2004/17/EC - Article 37 - Subcontracting - Article 40(3)(c) - Direct award - Technical specificity - Framework agreement - Reduction of the assistance originally granted following a financial audit - Reimbursement of amounts originally paid)
(2020/C 262/05)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Terna SpA (represented by: F. Covone, A. Police, L. Di Via, D. Carria and F. Degni, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, M. Ilkova, G. Gattinara and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Terna SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Case T-848/19: Action brought on 4 June 2020 — HS v Commission
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, discrimination based on disability, probationary period, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU), termination of employment, worker with disabilities








C_2020271EN.01003901.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/39






Action brought on 4 June 2020 — HS v Commission
(Case T-848/19)
(2020/C 271/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: HS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 12 March 2019 to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period,










—


so far as necessary, annul the decision of 10 October 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint,










—


compensate for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, to 15 000 Euros,










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination on ground of disability and of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation, violation of Article 21 of the Charter, of the United Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations and, violation of the duty of care.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations: breach of the probationary period proper conditions, lack of guidance and lack and uncertainty of objectives, breach of the right to be heard and, manifest errors of assessment.










3.


On the request for compensation, the applicant exposes the fault committed by the defendant, the damage suffered and the link between the fault and the damage.
Case T-612/19: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2020 — UPL Europe and Aceto Agricultural Chemicals v Commission
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: market approval, plant health control, plant health product, precautionary principle, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2020262EN.01003803.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/38






Order of the General Court of 4 June 2020 — UPL Europe and Aceto Agricultural Chemicals v Commission
(Case T-612/19) (1)

(2020/C 262/53)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case C-495/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Kancelaria Medius SA z siedzibą w Krakowie v RN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7(1) — Consumer credit — Review of whether the contractual terms are unfair — Failure of the consumer to appear at the hearing — Scope of the court’s powers and obligations)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, legal hearing, ruling, unfair terms of contract








C_2020262EN.01000901.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/9






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Kancelaria Medius SA z siedzibą w Krakowie v RN
(Case C-495/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7(1) - Consumer credit - Review of whether the contractual terms are unfair - Failure of the consumer to appear at the hearing - Scope of the court’s powers and obligations)
(2020/C 262/13)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Regional Court, Poznań, Poland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kancelaria Medius SA z siedzibą w Krakowie

Defendant: RN

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding the interpretation of a national provision whereby a court hearing an action brought against a consumer by a seller or supplier, which falls within the scope of Directive 93/13, and giving judgment in default, where that consumer has failed to appear at the hearing to which he was invited, is prevented from adopting the measures of inquiry needed in order to examine of its own motion whether the contractual terms on which the seller or supplier based its action are unfair, when that court has doubts as to whether those terms are unfair, within the meaning of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Case C-588/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federación Estatal de Servicios, Movilidad y Consumo de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FESMC-UGT), Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Grupo de Empresas DIA SA, Twins Alimentación SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Articles 5 and 7 — Weekly rest — Annual leave — Paid special leave permitting time off from work to meet specific needs and obligations)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, special leave, weekly rest period








C_2020262EN.01000302.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/3






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federación Estatal de Servicios, Movilidad y Consumo de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FESMC-UGT), Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) v Grupo de Empresas DIA SA, Twins Alimentación SA
(Case C-588/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Articles 5 and 7 - Weekly rest - Annual leave - Paid special leave permitting time off from work to meet specific needs and obligations)
(2020/C 262/04)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (Fetico), Federación Estatal de Servicios, Movilidad y Consumo de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FESMC-UGT), Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO)

Defendants: Grupo de Empresas DIA SA, Twins Alimentación SA

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not being applicable to national rules providing for special leave on days when workers are required to work which do not allow those workers to claim that leave in so far as the needs and obligations met by that special leave arise during weekly rest periods or periods of paid annual leave that are the subject of those articles.


(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Cases C-554/19: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against FU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) 2016/399 — Schengen borders code — Articles 22 and 23 — Abolition of internal border controls in the Schengen area — Checks within the territory of a Member State — Measures having an effect equivalent to border checks — Identity checks in the vicinity of an internal border of the Schengen area — Possibilities of checks irrespective of the behaviour of the person concerned or of the existence of specific circumstances — National framework concerning the intensity, frequency and selectivity of the checks)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, fight against crime, internal border of the EU, police checks








C_2020287EN.01002001.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/20






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against FU
(Cases C-554/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) 2016/399 - Schengen borders code - Articles 22 and 23 - Abolition of internal border controls in the Schengen area - Checks within the territory of a Member State - Measures having an effect equivalent to border checks - Identity checks in the vicinity of an internal border of the Schengen area - Possibilities of checks irrespective of the behaviour of the person concerned or of the existence of specific circumstances - National framework concerning the intensity, frequency and selectivity of the checks)
(2020/C 287/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Kehl

Criminal proceedings against

FU

Intervening party: Staatsanwaltschaft Offenburg

Operative part of the order

Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) must be interpreted as not precluding a national legislative provision which confers on the police authorities of the Member State in question the power to check the identity of any person, within an area of 30 kilometres from that Member State’s land border with other Schengen States, with a view to preventing or terminating unlawful entry into or residence in the territory of that Member State or preventing certain criminal offences which undermine the security of the border, irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned or the existence of specific circumstances, provided that that power is framed by sufficiently detailed specifications and limitations on the intensity, frequency and selectivity of the checks carried out, thereby guaranteeing that the practical exercise of that power cannot have an effect equivalent to border checks, which is, however, a matter for the referring court to verify.


(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.
Case C-234/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 4 June 2020 — SIA ‘Sātiņi-S’ v Lauku atbalsta dienests
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, agricultural region, aid per hectare, aid to agriculture, financial aid, ownership, peat, protected area, rural development, wooded area








C_2020262EN.01001802.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 4 June 2020 — SIA ‘Sātiņi-S’ v Lauku atbalsta dienests
(Case C-234/20)
(2020/C 262/24)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SIA ‘Sātiņi-S’

Defendant: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 30(6)(a) 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 (1) be interpreted as meaning that peat bogs are completely excluded from Natura 2000 payments?










2.


If the reply to the first question is in the negative, are peat bogs included in agricultural or forest areas?










3.


If the reply to the first question is in the negative, must Article 30 of Regulation No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may completely exclude peat bogs from Natura 2000 payments and that such national provisions are compatible with the compensatory aim of those payments established in Regulation No 1305/2013?










4.


Must Article 30 of Regulation No 1305/2013 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may restrict support payments for Natura 2000 areas by making support available only in connection with restrictions on a particular type of economic activity, for example, by limiting support in forest areas to forestry activities?










5.


Must Article 30(1) of Regulation No 1305/2013, read together with Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that someone is entitled to a Natura 2000 payment by virtue of his plans for a new economic activity if, when he acquired the property, he was already aware of the restrictions that applied to it?






(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487.
Case C-32/20: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Napoli — Italy) — TJ v Balga Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal — Articles 20, 21, 34 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Directive 98/59/EC — Collective dismissal — National legislation on the protection to be afforded to a worker who has been the subject of unjustified collective dismissal on account of a violation of the criteria for selecting the workers to be dismissed — Absence of a situation regarding the implementation of EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Inapplicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, equal treatment, indemnification, job cuts, labour law, seniority, unfair dismissal








C_2020320EN.01000302.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/3






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Napoli — Italy) — TJ v Balga Srl
(Case C-32/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal - Articles 20, 21, 34 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Directive 98/59/EC - Collective dismissal - National legislation on the protection to be afforded to a worker who has been the subject of unjustified collective dismissal on account of a violation of the criteria for selecting the workers to be dismissed - Absence of a situation regarding the implementation of EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Inapplicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
(2020/C 320/04)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte di appello di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TJ

Defendant: Balga Srl

Operative part of the order

The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Corte d’appello di Napoli (Court of Appeal, Naples, Italy) by decision of 18 September 2019.


(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.