mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019.
Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele - Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) — Establishment of the producers’ contribution to the payment of the additional levy due — Reallocation of unused reference quantities — National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria.
Case C-348/18. (2019)
Language: English

The applicant in the main proceedings challenged the lawfulness of that decision, and also the lawfulness of AGEA’s decision adopted under Article 1(5) of Decree-Law No 8/2000 on the national adjustment for the milk and milk products marketing period from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, before the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — sede di Roma (Regional Administrative Court for Lazio — Rome, Italy).
Following the dismissal of its action, the applicant in the main proceedings brought an appeal before the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The applicant"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "The applicant"->"Challenged the lawfulness of decision";
   "Challenged the lawfulness of decision"->"Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio";
   "Challenged the lawfulness of decision"->"The national adjustment for the milk and milk products marketing 01/04/2000 – 31/03/2001"[dir=none];
   "Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio"->"The applicant"[label="Dissmiss"];
   "The Applicant"->"Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy)"[label="Appeal"];
}
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2019.
Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele - Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Second subparagraph of Article 2(1) — Establishment of the producers’ contribution to the payment of the additional levy due — Reallocation of unused reference quantities — National measure reallocating unused quantities on the basis of objective priority criteria.
Case C-348/18. (2019)
Language: English

Following the dismissal of its action, the applicant in the main proceedings brought an appeal before the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy).
The applicant in the main proceedings considers that the legal provisions laying down the detailed arrangements for redistribution, to which it was subject, in particular Article 1(8) of Decree-Law No 43/1999 and Article 1(5) of Decree-Law No 8/2000, are contrary to Regulations No 3950/92 and No 536/93. By providing for the additional levy to be quantified following the reallocation of unused reference quantities on the basis of priority categories, the Italian legislature infringed Article 2(1) of Regulation No 3950/92, which, in the event that a Member State opts to reallocate the unused reference quantities, prescribes a criterion based on parity and proportionality without any exception.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The applicant"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "The Applicant"->"Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy)"[label="Appeal"];
   "The applicant"->"Article 1(8) of Decree-Law No 43/1999 and Article 1(5) of Decree-Law No 8/2000 are contrary to Regulations No 3950/92 and No 536/93"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Minister for Justice and Equality v RO.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Grounds for non-execution — Article 50 TEU — Warrant issued by the judicial authorities of a Member State that has initiated the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union — Uncertainty as to the law applicable to the relationship between that State and the Union following withdrawal.
Case C-327/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: English

RO is the subject of two European arrest warrants issued by the courts of the United Kingdom and sent to Ireland.
The first, issued on 27 January 2016, relates to crimes of murder and arson alleged to have been committed on 2 August 2015. The second, issued on 4 May 2016, relates to a crime of rape alleged to have been committed on 30 December 2003. Those crimes each carry potential sentences of life imprisonment.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The courts of the United Kingdom"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Two European arrest warrants"[shape=trapezium];
    
   "The courts of the United Kingdom"->"Two European arrest warrants"[label="Issue"];
   "Two European arrest warrants"->"Issued 27/01/2016 relates to murder and arson"[dir=none];
   "Two European arrest warrants"->"Issued 04/05/2016 relates to rape"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Minister for Justice and Equality v RO.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Grounds for non-execution — Article 50 TEU — Warrant issued by the judicial authorities of a Member State that has initiated the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union — Uncertainty as to the law applicable to the relationship between that State and the Union following withdrawal.
Case C-327/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: English

RO was arrested and remanded in custody in Ireland on 3 February 2016. Since that date he has remained on remand in custody within that Member State, by virtue of the two European arrest warrants to which he is subject.
RO raised objections to his surrender to the United Kingdom on the basis of, inter alia, the withdrawal of that Member State from the European Union and Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’), claiming that he could suffer inhuman and degrading treatment if he were to be imprisoned in Maghaberry prison in Northern Ireland.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "RO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Two European arrest warrants"[shape=trapezium];
   "The withdrawal of that Member State from the European Union and Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"[shape=trapezium];
    
   "Two European arrest warrants"->"Arrested and remanded in custody 03/02/2016";
   "Arrested and remanded in custody 03/02/2016"->"RO";
   "RO"->"Raised objections to his surrender to the United Kingdom"[dir=none];
   "Raised objections to his surrender to the United Kingdom"->"The withdrawal of that Member State from the European Union and Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Minister for Justice and Equality v RO.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Grounds for non-execution — Article 50 TEU — Warrant issued by the judicial authorities of a Member State that has initiated the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union — Uncertainty as to the law applicable to the relationship between that State and the Union following withdrawal.
Case C-327/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: English

By a decision of 2 November 2017, the High Court (Ireland), after examining RO’s claims in relation to the treatment that he might suffer in Northern Ireland, held that, on the basis of specific and updated information on the conditions of detention in Maghaberry prison, there was a real risk that, because of his vulnerability, RO might suffer inhuman and degrading treatment. The High Court considered it necessary, in the light of the judgment of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru (C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198), to ask for further information from the United Kingdom authorities on the conditions of RO’s detention in the event of his being surrendered.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "RO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "High Court (Ireland)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "High Court (Ireland)"->"Necessary to ask for further information from the United Kingdom authorities"[dir=none];
   "High Court (Ireland)"->"Decision 02/11/2017";
   "Decision 02/11/2017"->"RO";
   "Decision 02/11/2017"->"There was a real risk that, because of his vulnerability, RO might suffer inhuman and degrading treatment."[dir=none];

    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Minister for Justice and Equality v RO.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Grounds for non-execution — Article 50 TEU — Warrant issued by the judicial authorities of a Member State that has initiated the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union — Uncertainty as to the law applicable to the relationship between that State and the Union following withdrawal.
Case C-327/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: English

By a decision of 2 November 2017, the High Court (Ireland), after examining RO’s claims in relation to the treatment that he might suffer in Northern Ireland, held that, on the basis of specific and updated information on the conditions of detention in Maghaberry prison, there was a real risk that, because of his vulnerability, RO might suffer inhuman and degrading treatment. The High Court considered it necessary, in the light of the judgment of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru (C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198), to ask for further information from the United Kingdom authorities on the conditions of RO’s detention in the event of his being surrendered.
On 16 April 2018 the judicial authority that had issued the European arrest warrants concerned, Laganside Court in Belfast (United Kingdom), provided information as to how the Northern Irish Prison Service would address the risks to RO of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in Northern Ireland.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "RO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "High Court (Ireland)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Laganside Court in Belfast (United Kingdom)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "High Court (Ireland)"->"Necessary to ask for further information from the United Kingdom authorities"[dir=none];
   "High Court (Ireland)"->"Decision 02/11/2017";
   "Decision 02/11/2017"->"RO";
   "Decision 02/11/2017"->"There was a real risk that, because of his vulnerability, RO might suffer inhuman and degrading treatment."[dir=none];
   "Laganside Court in Belfast (United Kingdom)"->"High Court (Ireland)"[label="Provided information"];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Hampshire County Council v C.E. and N.E.
References for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — International child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11 — Application for return — Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 — Application for a declaration of enforceability — Appeal — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Time limit for bringing the appeal — Order authorising enforcement — Enforcement prior to service of the order.
Joined Cases C-325/18 PPU and C-375/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: English

The parents concerned, who are British nationals, married and who lived together in the United Kingdom, arrived in Ireland by ferry on 5 September 2017 with the three children, one of whom had been born two days previously. Ms E. is the mother of all three children and Mr E. is the father of only the youngest of the three children.
The two older children had been the subject of interim care orders made in the United Kingdom in June 2017. Concerns had already been expressed by HCC regarding this family, including the standards of hygiene within the home, the parents’ capacity to manage their children’s behaviour, domestic violence in previous relationships and substance abuse. It also appeared that one child had suffered a non-accidental injury, and the possibility that Mr E. was the perpetrator could not be excluded.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Ms E"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Mr E"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Child 1"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Child 2"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Child 3"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "Ms E"->""[dir=none style=bold];
   ""->"Mr E"[dir=none style=vold];
   ""->"Child 3"[dir=none style=bold];
   "Ms E"->"Child 2"[dir=none style=bold];
   "Ms E"->"Child 1"[dir=none style=bold];
   "Interim care orders"->"Child 1";
   "Interim care orders"->"Child 2";
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Hampshire County Council v C.E. and N.E.
References for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — International child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11 — Application for return — Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 — Application for a declaration of enforceability — Appeal — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Time limit for bringing the appeal — Order authorising enforcement — Enforcement prior to service of the order.
Joined Cases C-325/18 PPU and C-375/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: English

On 8 September 2017, owing to the concerns of the United Kingdom public authorities about the children’s safety, the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) issued an order making the three children wards of court, attributing rights of custody to HCC (‘the wardship order’) and incorporating an order that the three children be returned (‘the return order’).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "United Kingdom public authorities"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (United Kingdom)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Order"[shape=trapezium];
    
   "United Kingdom public authorities"->"High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (United Kingdom)"[label="Concerns about the children’s safety"];
   "High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (United Kingdom)"->"Order"[label="Issue 08/09/2017"];
   "Order"->"Making the three children wards of court, ‘the wardship order’ and ‘the return order’."[dir=none];

    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Hampshire County Council v C.E. and N.E.
References for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — International child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11 — Application for return — Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 — Application for a declaration of enforceability — Appeal — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Time limit for bringing the appeal — Order authorising enforcement — Enforcement prior to service of the order.
Joined Cases C-325/18 PPU and C-375/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: English

On the same day, HCC had contacted its counterpart in Ireland, the Child and Family Agency (‘the CFA’), informing the CFA of HCC’s intention to seek an order from the High Court (England and Wales) providing for the return of the three children. The CFA replied that such an order would need to be enforced under Regulation No 2201/2003. Later that same day, HCC informed the CFA that the return order had been made that day by the High Court (England and Wales).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "HCC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The Child and Family Agency (‘the CFA’)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Regulation No 2201/2003"[shape=trapezium];

   "The Child and Family Agency (‘the CFA’)"->"Inform 08/09/2017";
   "Inform 08/09/2017"->"HCC";
   "Inform 08/09/2017"->"The return order had been made that day by the High Court (England and Wales)"[dir=none];
   "Inform 08/09/2017"->"Seeking an order from the High Court (England and Wales) providing for the return of the three children"[dir=none];
   "HCC"->"Order would need to be enforced";
   "Order would need to be enforced"->"The Child and Family Agency (‘the CFA’)";
   "Order would need to be enforced"->"Regulation No 2201/2003"[dir=none];

    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Hampshire County Council v C.E. and N.E.
References for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — International child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11 — Application for return — Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 — Application for a declaration of enforceability — Appeal — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Time limit for bringing the appeal — Order authorising enforcement — Enforcement prior to service of the order.
Joined Cases C-325/18 PPU and C-375/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: English

The CFA informed the parents concerned that it would be applying for an interim care order in respect of the three children on the basis of the information which had been received from HCC. It also informed them that HCC might apply to the High Court (Ireland) to have the return order in respect of the three children recognised, and that if that application were successful, the three children would then be returned to the United Kingdom.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Parents"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The Child and Family Agency (‘the CFA’)"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "The Child and Family Agency (‘the CFA’)"->"Inform";
   "Inform"->"Parents";
   "Inform"->"The return order had been made that day by the High Court (England and Wales)"[dir=none];
   "Inform"->"HCC might apply to the High Court (Ireland) to have the return order"[dir=none];
   "Inform"->"It would be applying for an interim care order received from HCC"[dir=none];

    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Hampshire County Council v C.E. and N.E.
References for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — International child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11 — Application for return — Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 — Application for a declaration of enforceability — Appeal — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Time limit for bringing the appeal — Order authorising enforcement — Enforcement prior to service of the order.
Joined Cases C-325/18 PPU and C-375/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: English

On 14 September 2017, the District Court (Ireland) granted interim care orders in respect of the three children in favour of the CFA, which placed them in foster care accommodation. The parents concerned consented to that temporary placement on a without prejudice basis. A care plan meeting was arranged by the CFA with those parents. They were expressly informed that HCC intended to have the return order which had just been made by the High Court (England and Wales) enforced by means of an ex parte application to the High Court (Ireland) so that the children would be returned to the United Kingdom.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "District Court (Ireland)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The Child and Family Agency (‘the CFA’)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "HCC"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "District Court (Ireland)"->"Granted interim care orders 14/09/2017";
   "Granted interim care orders 14/09/2017"->"The Child and Family Agency (‘the CFA’)";
   "Granted interim care orders 14/09/2017"->"Placed children in foster care accommodation"[dir=none];
   "HCC"->"An ex parte application";
   "An ex parte application"->"District Court (Ireland)";
   "An ex parte application"->"Intend to have the return order enforced by means of an ex parte application"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Hampshire County Council v C.E. and N.E.
References for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — International child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11 — Application for return — Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 — Application for a declaration of enforceability — Appeal — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Time limit for bringing the appeal — Order authorising enforcement — Enforcement prior to service of the order.
Joined Cases C-325/18 PPU and C-375/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: English

On 24 November 2017, they brought an appeal in the High Court (Ireland) against the ex parte order. On 18 January 2018, that appeal, which had been lodged two days after the period prescribed in Article 33(5) of Regulation No 2201/2003 had expired, was dismissed as being out of time, on the ground that the time limit laid down in that provision was mandatory and that the court seised had no jurisdiction to extend it. They appealed against that decision to the referring court.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "District Court (Ireland)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Parents"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Parents"->"Appeal 09/10/2017";
   "Appeal 09/10/2017"->"District Court (Ireland)";
   "Two days after the period prescribed in Article 33(5) of Regulation No 2201/2003 had expired"->"Appeal 09/10/2017"[dir=none];
   "District Court (Ireland)"->"Parents"[label="Dismissed as being out of time"];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2019.
Terre wallonne ASBL v Région wallonne.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Decree — Establishment of conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 network, in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC — Definition of ‘plans and programmes’ — Obligation to undertake an environmental assessment.
Case C-321/18. (2019)
Language: English

On 8 November 2012, the Minister with responsibility for nature lodged with the Walloon Government a note concerning the adoption of a preliminary draft decree establishing the conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 network. From 10 December 2012 to 8 February 2013, a public inquiry was conducted in the 218 municipalities affected by the Natura 2000 network.
In October and November 2016, a second then a third draft decree were put before the Walloon Government.
On 1 December 2016, that government adopted the contested decree.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Minister with responsibility for nature"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Walloon Government"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Minister with responsibility for nature"->"Walloon Government"[label="Second draft decree 10/2016"];
   "Minister with responsibility for nature"->"Walloon Government"[label="Third draft decree 11/2016"];
   "Minister with responsibility for nature"->"Note 08/11/2012";
   "Note 08/11/2012"->"Walloon Government";
   "Note 08/11/2012"->"Concerning the adoption of a preliminary draft decree establishing the conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 network"[dir=none];
   "Walloon Government"->"Adopted decree"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2019.
Terre wallonne ASBL v Région wallonne.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Decree — Establishment of conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 network, in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC — Definition of ‘plans and programmes’ — Obligation to undertake an environmental assessment.
Case C-321/18. (2019)
Language: English

By application lodged on 9 February 2017, Terre wallonne sought the annulment of that decree before the Conseil d’Etat (Council of State, Belgium).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Terre wallonne"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Conseil d’Etat (Council of State, Belgium)"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Terre wallonne"->"Application 09/02/2017";
   "Application 09/02/2017"->"Conseil d’Etat (Council of State, Belgium)";
   "Application 09/02/2017"->"Sought the annulment of that decree"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2019.
Terre wallonne ASBL v Région wallonne.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Decree — Establishment of conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 network, in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC — Definition of ‘plans and programmes’ — Obligation to undertake an environmental assessment.
Case C-321/18. (2019)
Language: English

By application lodged on 9 February 2017, Terre wallonne sought the annulment of that decree before the Conseil d’Etat (Council of State, Belgium).
In support of its application, that association claimed, inter alia, that the provisions of the Decree of 1 December 2016 come within the scope of the notion of ‘plans and programmes’, for the purposes of either the Habitats Directive or the SEA Directive. According to the association, that notion applies not only to plans and programmes likely to be harmful to the environment but also to those potentially beneficial to the environment. It takes the view, moreover, that the public inquiry ought to have extended to the entire territory of the Walloon Region and not solely to the municipalities affected by the Natura 2000 sites.
In reply, the Government of the Walloon Region contends, first, that the Decree of 1 December 2016 is ‘directly linked or necessary’ to the management of the sites, with the effect that it does not come within the scope of the situations referred to in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Secondly, since that decree is exempt from an appropriate assessment, within the meaning of that directive, it ought also to be exempt from an assessment of its effects, for the purposes of the SEA Directive, Article 3(2)(b) of which refers to Articles 6 and 7 of the Habitats Directive. The Walloon Government adds that that decree does not constitute a plan or programme, for the purposes of the SEA Directive, and does not, in any case, come within the scope of that directive as a result of Article 3 thereof.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Terre wallonne"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Conseil d’Etat (Council of State, Belgium)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Government of the Walloon Region"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Terre wallonne"->"Application 09/02/2017";
   "Application 09/02/2017"->"Conseil d’Etat (Council of State, Belgium)";
   "Application 09/02/2017"->"Sought the annulment of that decree"[dir=none];
   "Terre wallonne"->"The provisions of the Decree of 1 December 2016 come within the scope of the notion of ‘plans and programmers’."[dir=none];
   "Government of the Walloon Region"->"The Decree of 01/12/2016 is ‘directly linked or necessary’ to the management of the sites"[dir=none];
   "Government of the Walloon Region"->"Conseil d’Etat (Council of State, Belgium)";
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘worker’ — Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee.
Case C-317/18. (2019)
Language: English

On 19 April 2005, Ms Correia Moreira entered into a training contract with Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Ms Correia Moreira"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"->"Ms Correia Moreira"[label="Training contract 19/04/2005"dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘worker’ — Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee.
Case C-317/18. (2019)
Language: English

On 19 April 2005, Ms Correia Moreira entered into a training contract with Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM.
On 2 January 2006, Ms Correia Moreira entered into a fixed-term contract of employment with that company for one year to perform duties as a member of the human resources staff.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Ms Correia Moreira"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"->"Ms Correia Moreira"[label="Training contract 19/04/2005"];
   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"->"Fixed-term contract of employment 02/01/2006"[dir=none];
   "Fixed-term contract of employment 02/01/2006"->"Ms Correia Moreira"[dir=none];
   "Fixed-term contract of employment 02/01/2006"->"Member of the human resources staff"[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘worker’ — Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee.
Case C-317/18. (2019)
Language: English

On 1 November 2008, Ms Correia Moreira and Portimão Urbis EM SA (‘Portimão Urbis’) entered into a contract for a position of trust to perform the duties of head of the administrative management and human resources unit. That contract lasted until 30 June 2010.
On 1 July 2010, Ms Correia Moreira entered into a new contract for a position of trust with Portimão Urbis to perform the same duties. The parties terminated that contract on 1 July 2013.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Ms Correia Moreira"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"->"Ms Correia Moreira"[label="Contract for a position of trust to perform the duties of head of the administrative management and human resources unit 01/11/2008 – 30/06/2010"];
   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"->"Ms Correia Moreira"[label="New contract for a position of trust 01/07/2010 – 01/07/2013"];


}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘worker’ — Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee.
Case C-317/18. (2019)
Language: English

On 19 April 2005, Ms Correia Moreira entered into a training contract with Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM.
On 2 January 2006, Ms Correia Moreira entered into a fixed-term contract of employment with that company for one year to perform duties as a member of the human resources staff.
On the same date, she entered into a new contract for a position of trust with Portimão Urbis to perform the duties of manager of the administrative management and human resources unit, but with a reduction in her gross pay.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Ms Correia Moreira"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"->"Ms Correia Moreira"[label="Contract for a position of trust to perform the duties of head of the administrative management and human resources unit 01/11/2008 – 30/06/2010"dir=none];
   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"->"Ms Correia Moreira"[label="New contract for a position of trust 01/07/2010 – 01/07/2013"dir=none];
   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"->"New contract for a position of trust 01/07/2013"[dir=none];
   "New contract for a position of trust 01/07/2013"->"Ms Correia Moreira"[dir=none];
   "New contract for a position of trust 01/07/2013"->"Reduction in gross pay"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘worker’ — Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee.
Case C-317/18. (2019)
Language: English

On 15 October 2014, the Municipality of Portimão approved the winding up and liquidation of Portimão Urbis as part of a plan to in-source some of the activities of that undertaking to the municipality and to outsource other activities to another municipal undertaking, that is to say, Empresa Municipal de Águas e Resíduos de Portimão EM SA (‘EMARP’).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Municipality of Portimão"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Empresa Municipal de Águas e Resíduos de Portimão EM SA (‘EMARP’)."[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Municipality of Portimão"->"Empresa Municipal de Águas e Resíduos de Portimão EM SA (‘EMARP’)."[label="Outsource other activities"];
   "Municipality of Portimão"->"Expo Arade, Animação e Gestão do Parque de Feiras e Exposições de Portimão EM"[label="Approved the winding up and liquidation 15/10/2014"];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘worker’ — Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee.
Case C-317/18. (2019)
Language: English

Ms Correia Moreira was included on the list of ‘in-sourced’ employees of the Municipality of Portimão, who entered into a public-interest transfer agreement with Portimão Urbis, and she was assigned to administrative and human resources management services. Between 1 January 2015 and 20 April 2017, she performed the duties of a senior member of staff in human resources operations within the Municipality of Portimão.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Ms Correia Moreira"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Portimão Urbis"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Ms Correia Moreira"->"Performed the duties of a senior member of staff in human resources operations within the Municipality of Portimão 01/01/2015 – 20/04/2017"[dir=none];
   "Ms Correia Moreira"->"On the list of ‘in-sourced’ employees of the Municipality of Portimão"[dir=none];
   "Ms Correia Moreira"->"Portimão Urbis"[label="Public-interest transfer agreement"dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘worker’ — Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee.
Case C-317/18. (2019)
Language: English

Ms Correia Moreira was included on the list of ‘in-sourced’ employees of the Municipality of Portimão, who entered into a public-interest transfer agreement with Portimão Urbis, and she was assigned to administrative and human resources management services. Between 1 January 2015 and 20 April 2017, she performed the duties of a senior member of staff in human resources operations within the Municipality of Portimão.
In July 2015, the employees who came under the in-sourcing plan, which included Ms Correia Moreira, were informed by the Municipality of Portimão that their applications to the proposed competition would, assuming they were successful, result in their recruitment to the first rung of the civil service, where they would be required to remain for at least 10 years. The employees who were ‘outsourced’ to EMARP were not subject to such a competitive selection procedure.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Ms Correia Moreira"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Portimão Urbis"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Municipality of Portimão"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Ms Correia Moreira"->"Performed the duties of a senior member of staff in human resources operations within the Municipality of Portimão 01/01/2015 – 20/04/2017"[dir=none];
   "Ms Correia Moreira"->"On the list of ‘in-sourced’ employees of the Municipality of Portimão"[dir=none];
   "Ms Correia Moreira"->"Portimão Urbis"[label="Public-interest transfer agreement"dir=none];
   "Municipality of Portimão"->"Information 07/2015";
   "Information 07/2015"->"Ms Correia Moreira";
   "Information 07/2015"->"Applications to the proposed competition would, assuming they were successful, result in their recruitment"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘worker’ — Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee.
Case C-317/18. (2019)
Language: English

In July 2015, the employees who came under the in-sourcing plan, which included Ms Correia Moreira, were informed by the Municipality of Portimão that their applications to the proposed competition would, assuming they were successful, result in their recruitment to the first rung of the civil service, where they would be required to remain for at least 10 years. The employees who were ‘outsourced’ to EMARP were not subject to such a competitive selection procedure.
A competition was initiated to which Ms Correia Moreira applied. At the conclusion of the competition, and even though she had been ranked in first place on the list, she was informed that her remuneration would be lower than what she received at Portimão Urbis, which she did not accept.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Ms Correia Moreira"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Municipality of Portimão"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Ms Correia Moreira"->"Municipality of Portimão"[label="Appplied competition"];
   "Ms Correia Moreira"->"Ranked in first place"[dir=none];
   "Municipality of Portimão"->"Information 07/2015";
   "Information 07/2015"->"Applications to the proposed competition would, assuming they were successful, result in their recruitment"[dir=none];
   "Information 07/2015"->"Ms Correia Moreira";
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘worker’ — Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee.
Case C-317/18. (2019)
Language: English

On 26 April 2017, Portimão Urbis gave Ms Correia Moreira notice of the termination of her contract of employment due to the closure of the undertaking.
On 2 January 2018, the conclusion of the liquidation procedure for Portimão Urbis was registered in the commercial registry.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Ms Correia Moreira"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Portimão Urbis"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Portimão Urbis"->"Notice of the termination of contract of employment 26/04/2017";
   "Notice of the termination of contract of employment 26/04/2017"->"Ms Correia Moreira";
   "Notice of the termination of contract of employment 26/04/2017"->"The closure of the undertaking"[dir=none];
   "Portimão Urbis"->"The conclusion of the liquidation procedure for Portimão Urbis was registered in the commercial registry 02/01/2018"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘worker’ — Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee.
Case C-317/18. (2019)
Language: English

Ms Correia Moreira applied to the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro (District Court, Faro, Portugal) for a declaration that her contract of employment with Portimão Urbis was transferred to the Municipality of Portimão from 1 January 2015, as a result of the transfer of the establishment where she worked. In view of the transfer of Portimão Urbis, she is asking the referring court to declare that the subsequent termination of the contract of employment is unlawful and that she must be brought into the workforce of the Municipality of Portimão under the same conditions as those applied to her by Portimão Urbis since 1 January 2015.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Ms Correia Moreira"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro (District Court, Faro, Portugal)"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Ms Correia Moreira"->"Applied for a declaration";
   "Applied for a declaration"->"Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro (District Court, Faro, Portugal)";
   "Applied for a declaration"->"Her contract of employment with Portimão Urbis was transferred to the Municipality of Portimão from 1 January 2015"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
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.
Case C-316/18. (2019)
Language: English

The activities of the University of Cambridge are financed in part through donations and endowments, which are placed into a fund and then invested. That fund is managed by a third party. In March 2009 the University of Cambridge submitted a claim to the Commissioners requesting the deduction of the VAT relating to the fees paid for the management of the relevant fund for the periods from 1 April 1973 to 1 May 1997 and from 1 May 2006 to 30 January 2009, arguing that the income generated by that fund had been used to finance the whole range of its activities.
The Commissioners rejected that claim on the ground that those fees were directly and exclusively attributable to the investment activity concerned, which did not fall under the VAT Directive. The Commissioners concluded that, in any event, those fees were not a cost component in the downstream supply of goods or services subject to VAT, as the income generated by that fund financed in part that supply of goods or services.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "University of Cambridge"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Commissioners"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "University of Cambridge"->"Commissioners"[label="Requesting the deduction of the VAT relating to the fees paid for the management of the relevant fund."];
   "Commissioners"->"Rejected that claim";
   "Rejected that claim"->"University of Cambridge";
   "Rejected that claim"->"Those fees were directly and exclusively attributable to the investment activity concerned, which did not fall under the VAT Directive."[dir=none];
}