ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/41

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 7 July 2014 — Helm AG v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

(Case C-323/14)

2014/C 315/66

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Helm AG

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Question referred

Is Council Regulation (EU) No 248/2011 (1) invalid, to the extent to which it relates to the Jushi Group, in view of the fact that the Commission did not determine within three months of the initiation of the investigation, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation, (2) whether the Jushi Group, which was included in the sample, met the criteria set out in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation?

(1) Implementing Regulation of 9 March 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 67, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 21 July 2014 — Minister delegate for the budget v Marlène Pazdziej

(Case C-349/14)

2014/C 339/12

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister delegate for the budget

Defendant: Marlène Pazdziej

Question referred

Do the provisions of the second paragraph of Article [13] of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union preclude any account being taken, for the purposes of calculating a tax household’s notional income, of the remuneration received by an official or other servant of the European Union who is a member of that tax household, where such taking into account is capable of influencing the amount of taxation payable by that tax household? Alternatively, is it necessary to apply the judgment in Case C-229/98 Vander Zwalmen and Massart (1) by analogy, when the purpose of taking such remuneration into account, with a view to the possibility of applying a social measure designed to (a) exempt payment from tax, (b) grant a reduction in the basis of its assessment or, more generally, (c) grant a tax reduction, is only to ascertain whether or not the notional income of the tax household is less than the threshold laid down by national tax law for the grant of the benefit — possibly adjusted by reference to the notional income — of that social measure?

(1) EU:C:1999:501.
3.

If the answer to Question 2 is that the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment and the free movement of services in a purely internal situation applies to the assessment of the question as to whether Chapter III of Directive 2006/123 is applicable: (a) Should the national courts apply the provisions laid down in Chapter III of Directive 2006/123 in a situation such as that in the present case, in which the service provider has not established himself on a cross-border basis and does not offer services on a cross-border basis, but nevertheless relies on those provisions? (b) Is it relevant to the answer to that question that the services are expected to be provided mainly to residents of the Netherlands? (c) In order to answer that question, is it necessary to determine whether undertakings established in other Member States have shown or will show genuine interest in providing the same or comparable services?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2014 — Vodafone GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-395/14)

2014/C 372/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone GmbH

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Question referred

Is Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that a national regulatory authority which has required an operator with significant market power to provide mobile call termination services and has made the fees charged for this subject to authorisation in compliance with the procedure laid down in the aforementioned provision of the directive is required to carry out the procedure under Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC again before each authorisation of fees specifically requested?

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 4 July 2014 — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Anna Pančurová and Others

(Case C-328/14)

2014/C 351/03

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CD Consulting s.r.o.

Defendants: Anna Pančurová and Others

Question referred

Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 4 of Council Directive 87/102/EEC (2) of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which in principle does not allow the national court deciding on rights under an endorsed bill of exchange at any stage of the proceedings to examine of its own motion the agreement and the basis of the legal relationship and the possible unfair nature of a contractual term and any breach of the law regulating the consequences of the failure to state the APR in the consumer credit agreement from which the bill of exchange arose?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2) OJ 1993 L 42, p. 48.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 388/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 12 August 2014 — Youssouf Drame Ba v Catalunya Caixa SA

(Case C-385/14)

2014/C 388/05

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Youssouf Drame Ba

Defendant: Catalunya Caixa SA

Questions referred

Given that the Spanish system provides in Article 43 of the LEC (1) that, where an individual action is brought concurrently by a consumer, the effect is that that action must be stayed and treated as a preliminary issue pending final judgment in collective proceedings, and that the consumer is bound by the decision in those proceedings without having had the opportunity to put forward the appropriate pleas or adduce evidence with full equality of arms:

1. Can it be considered [that the Spanish legal system provides for] an effective means or mechanism pursuant to Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13? (2)

2. To what extent does the effect of a stay of proceedings preclude a consumer from complaining that the unfair terms included in the contract concluded with him are void, and, therefore, infringe Article 7(1) of the directive?

3. Does the fact that a consumer is unable to dissociate himself from collective proceedings constitute an infringement of Article 7(3) of Directive 93/13?

4. Or, on the other hand, is the effect of a stay of proceedings provided for in Article 43 of the LEC compatible with Directive 93/13 on the grounds that the rights of consumers are fully safeguarded by a collective action, because the Spanish legal system provides for other equally effective procedural mechanisms for the protection of consumers’ rights and by the principle of legal certainty?

(1) Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Spanish Code of Civil Procedure).

(2) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2014 — X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

(Case C-342/14)

2014/C 372/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft

Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

Questions referred

1. Does Article 5 of Directive 2005/36/EC (1) preclude a restriction of the freedom to provide services in a case where a tax consultancy company formed in accordance with the law of a Member State prepares in the Member State of its establishment, where tax consultancy work is not regulated, a tax return for a recipient of services in another Member State and sends it to the tax authority, and national provisions in that other Member State require that a tax consultancy company be recognised as authorised to provide professional assistance in tax matters and that the tax advisers managing the company must act autonomously?

2. Can a tax consultancy company, in the circumstances referred to in question 1, rely successfully on Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/123/EC (2), irrespective of which of the two Member States is the one in which it provides the service?

3. Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a restriction, by measures applicable in the Member State of the recipient of services, of the freedom to provide services in the circumstances referred to in question 1, if the tax consultancy company is not established in the Member State of the recipient of the services?

(1) Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications.

(2) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market.
2.

Is it compatible with EU law for a Danish court, in a case between an employee and a private employer concerning payment of a severance allowance which the employer under national law as described in question 1 is exempt from having to pay but where that result is not compatible with the general EU law principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age, to undertake a weighing-up of that principle and its direct effect with the principle of legal certainty and the related principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and, following that weighing-up, reaches the conclusion that the principle of legal certainty must prevail over the principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age, with the result that under national law the employer is exempt from having to pay the severance allowance? Guidance is also sought as to whether the fact that the employee, depending on the circumstances, may claim compensation from the State as a result of the Danish legislation’s incompatibility with EU law has an impact on the issue of whether such a weighing-up may be considered.
2)

Must Articles 18 TFEU and 45 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a rule of a Member State under which a seaman who belonged to the crew of a vessel with a home port in that Member State, who had no place of residence on shore and who is not a national of any Member State, was excluded from insurance cover for purposes of an old-age pension, whereas, under that rule, a seaman who is a national of the Member State in which the vessel has its home port and who is otherwise in the same situation is deemed to be insured, if the State of which the first-named seaman is a national has in the meanwhile, by the time of the determination of the pension, acceded to (a legal predecessor of) the European Union or Regulation No 1408/71 has in the meanwhile entered into force for that State?
1.

Does the obligation to register laid down in Articles 213(1) and 214(1) of the VAT Directive (1) preclude the national practice in Hungary of mandatorily requiring the registration of individuals — under the threshold for the personal exemption from VAT — who do not wish to pursue an activity subject to VAT?
1.

Must Article 5 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), in conjunction with Articles 2(3) and 21(4) thereof, be interpreted as precluding the national rules laid down in Article 89(16) of the Ustawa o podatku akcyzowym (Law on excise duty; ‘the UPA’) of 6 December 2008 (Dz. U. 2009 No 3, heading 11, as amended), which requires that the rate of excise duty laid down in respect of motor fuels be applied to heating oil if the taxable person fails to fulfil the formal condition laid down in Article 89(14) and (15) of the UPA?
3)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 November 2014 — RG (*1) v SF (*1)

(Case C-498/14)

(2015/C 016/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RG (*1)

Defendant: SF (*1)

Question referred

Are the provisions in Article 11(7) and (8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (1) (‘the Brussels IIa Regulation’) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from:

— giving preference to the specialisation of courts in situations of parental child abduction with respect to the procedure provided for in those [provisions] even where a court or tribunal has already been seised of proceedings concerning the substance of parental responsibility in relation to the child?

— removing, from the court seised of proceedings on the substance of parental responsibility in relation to the child, jurisdiction to give judgment on the custody of the child, even though that court has jurisdiction, under international and national law, to give judgment on questions of parental responsibility in relation to the child?

(*1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1) OJ 2000 L 338, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/12

Appeal brought on 7 April 2014 by Eleonora Giulia Calvi against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2014 in Case T-159/14 Eleonora Giulia Calvi v European Court of Human Rights

(Case C-171/14 P)

(2015/C 007/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Eleonora Giulia Calvi (represented by: M. Schirò and G. Crespi, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights

By order of 9 October 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.
1.

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid in so far as it failed to take into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) , going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 25 August 2014 — Marie Matoušková, court commissioner in inheritance proceedings v Misha Martinus and Elisabeth Jekaterina Martinus, represented by David Sedlák as trustee; Beno Jeriël Eljada Martinus

(Case C-404/14)

(2014/C 431/16)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marie Matoušková, court commissioner in inheritance proceedings

Persons concerned by the inheritance proceedings: Misha Martinus and Elisabeth Jekaterina Martinus, represented by David Sedlák as trustee; Beno Jeriël Eljada Martinus

Question referred

If an inheritance settlement agreement concluded on behalf of a minor by his or her trustee requires the approval of a court in order to be valid, is that decision on the part of the court a measure within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) or a measure within the meaning of Article 1(3)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000?

(1) OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 18 November 2014 — SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy

(Case C-521/14)

(2015/C 034/13)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft

Respondent: If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy

Question referred

Is Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as covering an action, such as that described above, on a warranty or guarantee or another equivalent claim closely linked to the original action, which is brought by a third party, as permitted by national law, against one of the parties with a view to its being heard in the same court proceedings?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/15

Action brought on 26 November 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-538/14)

(2015/C 034/17)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Koskinen and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to designate a body with competence to perform, in the field of working life, the tasks required by Article 13 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (1), and by failing to ensure that those tasks are actually performed, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(1) and 13 of that directive;

— order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/43/EC, the scope of the directive includes working life. Under Article 13 of Directive 2000/43/EC Member States are to designate a body or bodies for the promotion of equal treatment of all persons without discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, and to ensure that the competences of at least one of the nominated bodies extend, as regards the matters and tasks laid down in that article, to action in questions concerning working life. Since no body is designated in Finnish legislation to carry out the tasks laid down in Article 13 of Directive 2000/43/EC in questions of working life, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(1) and 13 of that directive.

(1) OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 56/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 2 December 2014 — Finn Frogne A/S v Rigspolitiet ved Center for Beredskabskommunikation

(Case C-549/14)

(2015/C 056/10)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finn Frogne A/S

Defendant: Rigspolitiet ved Center for Beredskabskommunikation

Question referred

Is Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in conjunction with the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Pressetext Nachrichtenagentur v Austria, C-454/06, ECR, ECLI:EU:C:2008:351, and Wall v La ville de Francfort-sur-le-Main and Frankfurter Entsorgungs- und Service (FES), C-91/08, ECR, ECLI:EU:C:2010:182, to be interpreted as meaning that a settlement agreement which introduces limitations on and amendments to the services to be provided as originally agreed by the parties under a contract previously put out to tender and also mutual agreement to waive application of remedies for breach in order to avoid a subsequent litigation constitutes a contract which in itself requires a tendering procedure, in a situation where the original contract has become distressed?

(1) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
Appeal brought on 1 July 2014 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2014 in Case T-473/11 Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-311/14 P)

(2015/C 073/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Weleda Trademark AG

By order of 20 January 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 19 November 2014 — Sparkasse Allgäu v Finanzamt Kempten

(Case C-522/14)

(2015/C 065/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sparkasse Allgäu

Defendant: Finanzamt Kempten

Question referred

Does the freedom of establishment (Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, ex Article 43 [of the Treaty establishing] the European Communities) preclude a provision in a Member State under which a credit institution established in its national territory must, on the death of a domestic testator, also notify the tax office responsible for the administration of inheritance tax in the national territory of those of the testator’s assets which are held or managed in a dependent branch of the credit institution in another Member State, where there is no similar notification obligation in the other Member State and credit institutions in that State are subject to banking secrecy any breach of which constitutes a criminal offence?