do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-496/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania — Italy) — Antonio Capaldo SpA v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Examination of goods — Application for revision of a customs declaration — Post-clearance examination)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU customs procedure, customs formalities, customs inspection, customs union








C_2020297EN.01001901.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/19






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania — Italy) — Antonio Capaldo SpA v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno
(Case C-496/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Examination of goods - Application for revision of a customs declaration - Post-clearance examination)
(2020/C 297/24)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Antonio Capaldo SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as not precluding the initiation of the procedure for revision of the customs declaration provided for therein, even though the goods in question were, on a previous import, subject, without challenge, to a physical inspection confirming their tariff classification.


(1)  OJ C 257, 21.10.2019.
Case C-378/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) and of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) — MARE, Senior and ECRN projects — Commission decision to recover sums unduly paid — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, competitiveness, financial aid, innovation, jurisdiction, reimbursement of aid








C_2020297EN.01000201.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/2






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE v European Commission
(Case C-378/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) and of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) - MARE, Senior and ECRN projects - Commission decision to recover sums unduly paid - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature)
(2020/C 297/02)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (represented by: A. D’Amico and S. Famiani, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by F. Moro, S. Delaude and L. Di Paolo, and subsequently by F. Moro and S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and by D. Gullo, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 April 2016, Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission (T-539/13, not published, EU:T:2016:235);










2.


Refers Case T-539/13 back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 April 2020 (Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.)) 2020/C 234/02
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2020234EN.01000201.xml










16.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/2






EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 April 2020


(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (1))

(2020/C 234/02)
Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by ESA’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.
The base rates for Iceland and Norway as from 1 April, have been updated in light of exceptional circumstances, the COVID-19 pandemic.
Base rates have been determined as follows:








 


Iceland


Liechtenstein


Norway




1.4.2020–


2,88


–0,56 


1,28






(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.
Case T-456/20: Action brought on 16 July 2020 — LA v Commission
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, professional qualifications, rights of the defence








C_2020287EN.01004301.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/43






Action brought on 16 July 2020 — LA v Commission
(Case T-456/20)
(2020/C 287/63)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: LA (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 20 June 2019 by which the applicant was not included in the list of candidates admitted to the Assessment Centre phase of Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;










—


annul the decision of 24 September 2019 rejecting the request for review;










—


annul the decision of 6 April 2020 dismissing the administrative appeal brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.






—


In this regard the applicant claims that the selection board infringed the competition notice (first paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations), in so far as it did not take into account her professional qualities, clearly disregarding the requirements of the competition notice and the functions assigned to the successful candidates.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of equality.






—


In this regard the applicant claims that during the Talent Screener phase the selection board failed to comply with the assessment criteria laid down by the competition notice and thereby failed to ensure equal treatment of candidates.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the related principle of equality of the parties in the proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).






—


In this regard the applicant claims that there was a significant lack of reasoning for the contested decisions which consequently had repercussions on her rights of defence and on the equality of the parties in the proceedings.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the competition notice is unlawful under Article 277 TFEU.






—


In this regard the applicant claims that, contrary to Article 1(e) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, which states that the appointing authority is to establish the nature and type of the exams and how they will be marked, in the present procedure the selection board established the ‘weighting factors’, whereas this fell within the competence of the appointing authority according to the aforementioned provision.
Case C-317/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2020 — KX v PY GmbH
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract of carriage, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, package travel, residence, right of action, traveller








C_2020348EN.01000501.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2020 — KX v PY GmbH
(Case C-317/20)
(2020/C 348/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KX

Defendant: PY GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to regulating international jurisdiction, the provision also lays down a rule to be observed by the adjudicating court as to the territorial jurisdiction of the national courts in matters pertaining to travel contracts where both the consumer, as the traveller, and his contractual partner, the tour operator, are domiciled in the same Member State, however the destination is not in that Member State but is located abroad (‘apparent domestic cases’), with the consequence that the consumer can bring contractual claims against the tour operator before the court for his place of residence as a supplement to national rules of jurisdiction?


(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Case C-424/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Cabinet de avocat UR v Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice prin Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice, MJ, NK (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax (VAT) — Article 9(1) — Concept of ‘taxable person’ — Person practising the profession of lawyer — Final judicial decision — Principle of res judicata — Scope of that principle if that decision is incompatible with EU law)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, lawyer, legal aid, primacy of EU law, provision of services, taxpayer








C_2020297EN.01001801.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/18






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Cabinet de avocat UR v Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice prin Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice, MJ, NK
(Case C-424/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Article 9(1) - Concept of ‘taxable person’ - Person practising the profession of lawyer - Final judicial decision - Principle of res judicata - Scope of that principle if that decision is incompatible with EU law)
(2020/C 297/23)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cabinet de avocat UR

Defendants: Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice prin Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Administraţia Sector 3 a Finanţelor Publice, MJ, NK

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 9(1) 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 person practising the profession of a lawyer must be regarded as a ‘taxable person’ within the meaning of that provision;










2.


EU law precludes a national court, in a dispute relating to value added tax (VAT), from applying the principle of res judicata where that dispute does not relate to a tax period identical to the one which was at issue in the dispute which gave rise to the judicial decision having the authority of res judicata, does not have the same subject matter as that dispute, and where the application of that principle would prevent that court from taking into account EU legislation on VAT.






(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Case C-550/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing — Directive (EU) 2015/849 — Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures — Article 260(3) TFEU — Application for an order to pay a lump sum)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, infringement procedure (EU), money laundering, national implementing measure, sanction (EU), terrorism financing








C_2020297EN.01000601.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/6






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-550/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing - Directive (EU) 2015/849 - Failure to transpose and/or to notify transposition measures - Article 260(3) TFEU - Application for an order to pay a lump sum)
(2020/C 297/07)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, L. Flynn and G. von Rintelen, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: G. Hodge, M. Browne and A. Joyce, Agents, and by P. McGarry, Senior Counsel, and G. Gilmore, Barrister at-Law)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, Agent), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, B. Fodda and J.-L. Carré, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by having failed to adopt, on the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion of 8 March 2018, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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, and, therefore, by having failed to notify those provisions to the European Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67 of Directive 2015/849;










2.


Orders Ireland to pay the European Commission a lump sum in the amount of EUR 2 000 000;










3.


Orders Ireland to pay the costs;










4.


Orders the Republic of Estonia and the French Republic to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Case C-316/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Portugal) lodged on 16 July 2020 — VO and Others v SATA International — Azores Airlines SA
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, indemnification, sponsorship, sporting event, ticket, traveller








C_2021035EN.01002101.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Portugal) lodged on 16 July 2020 — VO and Others v SATA International — Azores Airlines SA
(Case C-316/20)
(2021/C 35/31)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: VO, ZO, ML, NB, KE, JE, PI, VY

Defendant: SATA International — Azores Airlines SA

Question referred

Does the concept of travel at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public cover passengers who paid part of their fare, the remainder being borne by the airline, in the context of sponsorship of a sports competition?
By order of 26 November 2020, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held:

Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation does not apply to passengers travelling on tickets issued at a preferential fare by an air carrier in the context of an event sponsorship transaction, the benefit of which is restricted to certain specific persons and the issuing of which presupposes prior individual authorisation on the part of the air carrier.



(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Joined Cases C-632/19 and C-633/19: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie v Metalen Galler NV (C–632/19 and C–633/19), LW–Idee GmbH (C–632/19 and C–633/19), KGH Belgium NV (C–632/19), Vollers Belgium NV (C–633/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Dumping — Importation of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 — Validity and interpretation — Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual background of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, admissibility, anti-dumping duty, bolt and screw industry, import (EU), iron and steel product, originating product








C_2020304EN.01000301.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/3






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie v Metalen Galler NV (C–632/19 and C–633/19), LW–Idee GmbH (C–632/19 and C–633/19), KGH Belgium NV (C–632/19), Vollers Belgium NV (C–633/19)
(Joined Cases C-632/19 and C-633/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Dumping - Importation of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 - Validity and interpretation - Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual background of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2020/C 304/03)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie

Defendants: Metalen Galler NV (C–632/19 and C–633/19), LW–Idee GmbH (C–632/19 and C–633/19), KGH Belgium NV (C–632/19), Vollers Belgium NV (C–633/19)

Operative part of the order

The references for a preliminary ruling made by the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (District Court of Antwerp, Belgium) by decisions of 27 March 2019 are manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Order of the President of 16 July 2020 In Case E-6/20 Pintail AG v Finanzmarktaufsicht 2021/C 5/14
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, business activity, electronic money, financial institution, trade licence








C_2021005EN.01001401.xml










7.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/14






ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
of 16 July 2020
In Case E-6/20
Pintail AG v Finanzmarktaufsicht
(2021/C 5/14)
REQUEST to the Court from Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht (Board of Appeal of the Financial Market Authority) for an Advisory Opinion under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, the President of the Court made an Order of 16 July 2020, the operative part of which is as follows:
Case E-6/20 is removed from the Register.