Staffelung des Urlaubsanspruchs nach dem Lebensalter - Diskriminierung jüngerer Arbeitnehmer - Verzug des Arbeitgebers mit der Urlaubsgewährung - Entbehrlichkeit einer Mahnung

Betriebsübergang - Verzicht auf das Widerspruchsrecht - Begriff "Betriebs(teil)übergang"

Gesetzlicher Übergang eines Arbeitsverhältnisses nach § 6c Abs 1 SGB II - Vereinbarkeit von § 6c Abs 1 SGB II mit Unionsrecht

Gesetzlicher Übergang eines Arbeitsverhältnisses nach § 6c Abs 1 SGB II - Vereinbarkeit von § 6c Abs 1 SGB II mit Unionsrecht

PUBLIC HEALTH - IN GENERAL - Rejection - Notion - Needs - Incidence of evaluations related to the lack of utility, for the agent, of what is discarded - Exclusion - Case law of the European Court of Justice.

SOURCES OF LAW - LAWS - CRIMINAL LAW - SUCCESSION OF LAWS - Non-criminal laws - Modifications - Applicability of Article 2 para 2 of the criminal code – Conditions – Case at issue.

JURISDICTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES - FOREIGN CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS - RECOGNITION - IN GENERAL - Measure of cumulo di pene concorrenti [strict aggregation of concurrent sentences] - Inclusion of a judgement issued by a foreign State - Preconditions - Enforcement in Italy of the foreign judgement - Necessity.

FINANCE AND TAXES - IN GENERAL - Criminal proceedings for offenses relating to value added tax (VAT)– Statute of limitation - Judgment of 8 September 2015 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Taricco and Others - Application to act committed previously – Exclusion – Case at issue.

JURISDICTIONAL RELATIONS WITH FOREIGN AUTHORITIES - IN GENERAL - Crimes committed in whole or in part on Italian territory - Reason for refusal provided by Article 18, paragraph 1, letter (p) of Legge [Law] No 69 of 2005 - Subsistence - Condition - Criminal proceedings pending for the same act at the basis of the European Arrest Warrant - Necessity.

LEGAL PERSON - COMPANY - CORPORATE OFFENSES Market manipulation - Final imposition of an administrative sanction having a substantially criminal nature - Prohibition of a second judgment - Exclusion - Conditions.

LEGAL PROFESSIONALS (LAWYERS) – SOCIAL SECURITY Pursuit of activity in several EU countries - Applicable social security legislation - Identification - Criteria - Place of residence or substantial pursuit of activity –- Prevalence – Grounds – Case at issue.

PUBLIC ORDER AND SECURITY - SECURITY POLICE - POLICE RESTRICTIONS - FOREIGNERS Immigration - Application for international protection - Submission after the adoption of the expulsion decree - Rejection of the proposed opposition by the justice of the peace – Illegality - Grounds.

EUROPEAN UNION - TREATIES National Law - Implementation of EU Law - Conditions - Consequences.

CIVIL PROCEDURE – SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS – PERSON WITH NO PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY RESIDENCE NOR DOMICILE IN THE REPUBLIC Service in a Member State of the European Union - Translation of notification - Burden of proof – Finding of lack of translation - Consequences.

STOCK EXCHANGE – IN GENERAL Administrative offense provided by Article 187-bis of Decreto Legislativo [Legislative Decree] No 58 of 24/02/1998 – Final and full acquittal of defendant by a criminal court for the same fatti storici [material acts] - of the delitto [crime] provided by Article 184 of Testo Unico della Finanza [Consolidation Law on Finance] - Starting or continuing an administrative sanctioning procedure also in the opposizione [appeal] - Compatibility with the Treaty Law and EU Law principle of "ne bis in idem" - Exclusion.

OBSTACLES TO THE CONSOB ACTIVITY - ARTICLE 187 QUINQUIESDECIES OF THE CONSOLIDATED TEXT ON FINANCE (T.U.F.) QUESTION OF COSTITUTIONALITY - CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION - ARTICLE 47 - “NEMO TENETUR SE DETEGERE” - CONSISTENCY - QUESTION NON MANIFESTLY UNFOUNDED.

INSURANCE - VEHICLES (CIRCULATION-OBLIGATORY INSURANCE) - OBLIGATION OF INSURANCE - PERSONS (INSURANCE, INSURED, THIRD PARTIES) - Insured transported - Damage to the person - Compensation against the insurer - Expectation - Legal Base - Co-Responsibility in the cause of the damage - Irrelevance.

EUROPEAN UNION - NATIONAL COURTS - PRELIMINARY REFERENCE - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Cases in which the applicable domestic law was enacted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty - Duty of national courts to seek a preliminary ruling - Exclusion - Legal basis.

EUROPEAN LAW - NATIONAL JUDGE - REMEDY - Council of State - Failure to refer a question for a preliminary ruling - Examination - Exclusion - Legal basis - Limits.

CIVIL CLAIMS - CASSATION (APPLICATION FOR) - SPECIAL JURISDICTIONS (CLAIM) - COUNCIL OF STATE "Errores in iudicando" or "in procedendo" committed by the COUNCIL of STATE in the application of EU law - Dismissal of jurisdiction - Configurability - Exclusion - Limits.

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 6(1) - “Actio pauliana” [fraudulent conveyance] or “azione revocatoria” in Italian law - Jurisdiction in respect of the other co-defendant domiciled outside the Member State of the forum - Domicile of one of the co-defendants - Jurisdiction of the court seised with regard to the other defendants - Competence in respect of the judges of the Member State of the forum - Rules provided for by UE Regulation - Violations - Domestic law remedies

À propos des questions préjudicielles formulées en réplique, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne juge, quant au principe d’effectivité, que les règles de procédure nationales ne doivent pas être de nature à rendre pratiquement impossible ou excessivement difficile l’exercice des droits conférés par l’ordre juridique de l’Union. À cet égard, il convient de tenir compte de la place de ces règles dans l’ensemble de la procédure, du déroulement et des particularités de celle-ci, devant les diverses instances nationales. Dans cette perspective, il convient de prendre en compte, s’il y a lieu, les principes qui sont à la base du système juridictionnel national, tels que la protection des droits de la défense, le principe de sécurité juridique et le bon déroulement de la procédure. Des règles procédurales nationales en vertu desquelles l’objet du litige est déterminé par les moyens du recours soulevés au moment de son introduction sont compatibles avec le principe d’effectivité dès lors qu’elles assurent le bon déroulement de la procédure, notamment, en la préservant des retards inhérents à l’appréciation des moyens nouveaux*. Les questions préjudicielles formulées par la requérante l’ont été pour la première fois dans le mémoire en réplique. Elles portent sur des considérations qui lui étaient connues au jour du dépôt de la requête en annulation. Leur présentation à un stade ultérieur au dépôt des mémoires en réponse et en intervention n’a pas permis aux parties adverse et intervenante de les analyser dans le cadre du déroulement normal de la procédure en annulation, ce qui a été de nature à entraver le bon déroulement de celle-ci. La circonstance que la requérante a intégré les questions préjudicielles précitées dans la demande de suspension, postérieure au mémoire en réplique, n’énerve pas ce constat. En conséquence, elles sont tardives et, partant, irrecevables. Une telle exception d’irrecevabilité est compatible avec le principe d’effectivité à partir du moment où elle poursuit les objectifs visés par la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. La sanction de l’irrecevabilité d’une question préjudicielle formulée pour la première fois au stade du mémoire en réplique n’est pas de nature à rendre pratiquement impossible ou excessivement difficile l’exercice des droits conférés par l’ordre juridique de l’Union européenne. Il était en effet loisible à la requérante de libeller, dès la requête en annulation, les questions préjudicielles suggérées de manière précise tardivement, soit en réplique. Il s’ensuit qu’il n’y a pas lieu de poser à la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne les questions préjudicielles proposées par la requérante.

Même si le premier juge n’a pas mentionné expressément l’article 16 de la directive 2013/32/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 26 juin 2013 relative à des procédures communes pour l’octroi et le retrait de la protection internationale, la motivation permet de comprendre pourquoi, selon le juge, les garanties prévues pour le bénéficiaire de la protection internationale ont été respectées. Il a ainsi répondu de manière suffisante à l’argumentation de la partie requérante concernant l’obligation pour la partie adverse de lui permettre de s’expliquer au sujet de contradictions dans ses déclarations et sur le déroulement de la procédure devant la partie adverse et devant le Conseil du contentieux des étrangers.

Sprožitev vprašanja glede prava Unije in zagotovitev zadostnih informacij pristojnemu nacionalnemu sodišču, da v zvezi z razlago pravil Unije, ki jih mora upoštevati nacionalno sodišče, obstaja razumen dvom, je primarno naloga strank. Od pritožnika se pričakuje, da bo dokazal, da lahko razumno obveščeno sodišče, ki odloča z običajno skrbnostjo, zadevno določbo prava Unije razlaga na več načinov. Od sodišč ni mogoče pričakovati, da bodo začela postopek pri Sodišču EU na podlagi nejasnih, nedoločnih ali neutemeljenih vprašanj.

Zur Umsatzsteuerpflicht von Bestattungsleistungen

Innergemeinschaftliche Lieferung: Gelangensbestätigung keine Voraussetzung für Vertrauensschutz

Akteneinsicht in Steuerakten

EUROPEAN UNION - NATIONAL COURT - REFUSAL OF ACTS - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Obligation for the national court to refer the question of interpretation of a EU rule to the Court of Justice of the European Union - Conditions.

EUROPEAN UNION - NATIONAL JUDGE - EU law and the law of the European Convention on Human Rights - Violations - Methods of assessment and remedies - Differences - Autonomy of the two regulatory systems - Legal basis - Entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty - Relevance of the rules of the European Convention on Human Rights under Art. 11 of the Italian Constitution - Exclusion.

«In tema di abuso del diritto, per la configurazione di una pratica elusiva, secondo l’ordinamento dell’Unione europea e la giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia, è necessaria, oltre alla sussistenza dell’elemento oggettivo del mancato raggiungimento dell’obiettivo perseguito dalla normativa unionale (pur nel formale rispetto delle condizioni da essa previste), quella di un elemento soggettivo, dovendo risultare, da un insieme di circostanze, che lo scopo essenziale delle operazioni controverse è conseguire un risparmio di imposta, il quale è sempre illecito quando rappresenti la parte preponderante e comunque prevalente dell’oggetto del contratto o degli accordi nel loro complesso, in quanto le ragioni economiche dell’operazione negoziale, valutata secondo la sua essenza, appaiano meramente marginali o teoriche e tali, quindi, da considerarsi manifestamente inattendibili o comunque irrilevanti rispetto alla finalità di ottenere un (indebito) vantaggio fiscale»

«In tema di giurisdizione del giudice italiano, quando la domanda abbia per oggetto un illecito extracontrattuale trova applicazione il criterio di individuazione della giurisdizione fissato dall’articolo 7, n. 2, del Regolamento (UE) n. 1215 del 2012, a mente del quale una persona domiciliata in uno Stato membro può essere convenuta in un altro Stato membro, in materia di illeciti civili dolosi o colposi, davanti all’autorità giurisdizionale del luogo in cui l’evento dannoso è avvenuto o può avvenire; alla luce di tale criterio e della chiara e costante interpretazione che ne ha dato la Corte di giustizia dell' Unione europea, la giurisdizione si radica o nel luogo in cui si è concretizzato il danno o, in alternativa, a scelta dell’attore danneggiato, in quello dove si è verificato l’evento generatore di tale danno, coincidendo il primo, quando il danneggiato è persona giuridica, normalmente con la sua sede statutaria, a meno che non sia dimostrato che quivi non si svolge la sua attività prevalente, tanto da escluderne la coincidenza con il centro di interessi della persona giuridica. (Nella specie, la S.C. ha affermato la giurisdizione del giudice italiano in ordine a un’azione proposta da una società italiana di accertamento dell’illegittimità di una condotta, consistente nella diffusione in Germania di valutazioni denigratorie in ordine alla sussistenza delle violazioni di una complessiva autoregolamentazione contrattuale e considerata come tale idonea a causare un pregiudizio professionale, ritenendo irrilevante il luogo di pubblicazione o di materiale immissione in circolazione della notizia lesiva e reputando invece decisivo il fatto che la società danneggiata avesse in Italia la propria sede statutaria, difettando la prova della preminenza dell'attività sociale in luogo diverso)»

«Non è affetta dal vizio di eccesso di potere giurisdizionale, ed è pertanto insindacabile sotto il profilo della violazione del limite esterno della giurisdizione, in relazione al diritto eurounitario, la decisione, adottata dal Consiglio di Stato, di non disporre il rinvio pregiudiziale alla Corte di Giustizia UE, giacché il controllo che l’art. 111, comma 8, Cost., affida alla S.C. non include il sindacato sulle scelte ermeneutiche del giudice amministrativo, suscettibili di comportare errori “in iudicando” o “in procedendo” per contrasto con il diritto dell’Unione europea, salva l’ipotesi “estrema” in cui l’errore si sia tradotto in un’interpretazione delle norme europee di riferimento in contrasto con quelle fornite dalla CGUE, sì da precludere, rendendola non effettiva, la difesa giudiziale»

Employment Chamber [Sezione Lavoro], Judgment [sentenza] of 1 June 2020, No 10414. In the case of transfer of an undertaking declared to be in a situation of crisis (pursuant to Article 2(5)(c) of Law No 675 of 1977) or made subject to the special administration procedure (pursuant to Legislative Decree No 270 of 1999) when the undertaking’s business has continued or has not ended, the trade-union agreement provided in Article 47(4-bis) of Law No 428 of 1990 (inserted by Decree Law No 135 of 2009, subsequently converted into Law No 166 of 2009), may allow derogations from Article 2112 civil code (which provides, inter alia, that “In case of business transfer, the employment relationship continues with the transferee and the employee maintains all the ensuing rights”) concerning employment conditions, without prejudice to the transfer of the employment relationships to the transferee. This is based on the fact that the phrase “When an agreement is reached on the maintenance – even partial – of employment levels, Article 2112 shall apply in the terms and within the limits of the relevant agreement” (contained in the above mentioned paragraph 4-bis ) is to be read in compliance with the law of the European Union and the interpretation of it given by the EU Court of Justice, on 11 June 2009, in case C-516/07 (in its judgment in the infringement procedure against the Republic of Italy for the violation of Directive 2001/23/EC) in the sense that where the transferor is the subject of insolvency proceedings that have been instituted “with a view to the liquidation of the assets” of the transferor, the collective agreements cannot decide on the employment pre-existing to the transfer of the undertaking. (The case examined concerned the transfer of the company’s assets from Alitalia CAI to Alitalia SAI).

6th Criminal Chamber, Judgment [sentenza] 11 June 2020, No 18352 On the European Arrest Warrant. If the issuing State has not given assurance that the person concerned will not suffer inhuman or degrading treatment, the judicial authority of the executing State may refuse to execute the request only if, on the basis of precise information, it can find that there is the risk that conditions of detention constitute an infringement of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (In its reasoning, the Supreme Court of Cassation referred to the principles on the matter in the case-law of the EU Court of Justice cited in its Judgments (Grand Chamber) of 15 Oct. 2019, Dorabantu, Case C-128/18, and of 25 July 2018, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft, case C-220/18 PPU.

1st Civil Chamber, Judgment [sentenza] of 12 June 2020, No 11351. On the service of judicial documents in EU Member States: Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 provides that Each Member State shall be free to effect service of judicial documents directly by postal services on persons residing in another Member State by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or “equivalent”. However, as stated by the EU Court of Justice (Judgment of 2 March 2017, case C- C-354/15), such equivalent must provide equivalent guarantees to postal service by registered letter as regards certainty that the addressee has received the document in question. (In the case examined, the Supreme Court of Cassation, quashed the judgment of the lower court of merit which had incorrectly stated that the appeal was inadmissible for having been brought out of time, and had not applied a broader time limit, while instead it should have declared the nullity of the service of the appealed judgment, given that it had been made by postal service, but the addressee had not received the document since the relevant letter had been returned to the sender unclaimed).

United Civil Chambers, ruling [ordinanza] of 2 Mar. 2020 No 5682 Article 24(1)(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 assigns to the courts of the Member State in which a company has its seat the jurisdiction over the matters concerning the validity of the decisions of its organs. Hence, it concerns exclusively proceedings challenging the validity of those decisions in the light of the applicable company law, or of the Company’s Statutes on the functioning of its organs. (The Supreme Court of Cassation, in application of this principle, excluded the applicability of this provision to an action for a declaration of nullity of the minutes of the company’s general meetings stating a sham increase in the company’s capital through a contribution of immovable property).

6th Criminal Chamber, Judgment [sentenza] 30 Oct. 2019, No 46912 As regards the extradition to a third country of an EU citizen who is a national of a Member State of the EU, the Italian State is required to ensure that s/he is guaranteed the same treatment and rights as those accorded to its own citizens, in compliance with the principles of the equality of treatment for every citizen of the EU Member States established by the EU Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) in its judgment of 13 November 2018, case No C 247/17. Under Article 21 of the TFEU, failure to do so would cause an unlawful restriction on the freedom of movement of the person to be extradited. (In the case examined, the Court concluded that there was no violation of the principle of non-discrimination, given that the Italian State had not exercised the option - provided by Article 6 of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition - to refuse extradition of its own citizens).

OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON - CRIMES AGAINST INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM - SEXUAL VIOLENCE - SEXUAL ACTS WITH MINORS – Re-taking of evidence from a minor-victim of crime in the trial hearing - Necessity - Criteria of the "Victims’ Directive" - Exclusion.

Une disposition d’un décret flamand prévoit, pour le calcul de l’ancienneté requise pour une désignation à titre temporaire à durée ininterrompue ou une nomination définitive dans l’enseignement subventionné de la Communauté flamande, la division de moitié du nombre de jours de prestations d’un enseignant dans un emploi à mi-temps ou représentant moins qu’un mi-temps. En revanche, une telle division ne s’applique pas lorsque le membre du personnel ne remplit pas au moins la moitié du nombre d’heures requis pour un emploi à prestations complètes. En réponse à une question préjudicielle de la Cour d’appel d’Anvers, la Cour juge que cette disposition viole le principe d’égalité et de non-discrimination. Le souci d’exiger une expérience minimum du personnel afin de garantir la qualité de l’enseignement ne justifie pas raisonnablement la division de moitié des jours d’ancienneté, dès lors que l’enseignant n’accumule de l’ancienneté que pour le pourcentage à temps partiel de son occupation. Par ailleurs, diviser de surcroît de moitié les jours d’ancienneté accumulés a pour effet qu’un tel enseignant se trouve encore plus lésé du fait de son occupation à temps partiel.

Une disposition de la loi sur les accises oblige le juge, en cas d’infraction, à prononcer la confiscation des produits d’accise faisant l’objet de l’infraction, sans qu’il puisse, sur la base de circonstances atténuantes, renoncer à cette peine ou modérer celle-ci. Interrogée par la Cour d’appel de Bruxelles, la Cour juge que cette disposition viole le droit de propriété, en ce qu’elle oblige le juge à prononcer une telle confiscation lorsque cette peine porte à la situation financière de la personne à laquelle elle est infligée une atteinte telle que cette personne serait soumise à une peine déraisonnablement lourde. Pour éviter l’insécurité juridique, la Cour maintient les effets de la disposition concernée pour les affaires dans lesquelles le juge a prononcé la confiscation des produits d’accise faisant l’objet de l’infraction et pour lesquelles une décision définitive a déjà été prononcée à la date de la publication de l’arrêt au Moniteur belge