ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

What are the criteria for determining whether the hygiene requirements laid down in point 4 of Chapter 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, as expressed with the words ‘materials for cleaning hands and for hygienic drying’, are met? Should that provision of the Annex be interpreted as meaning, for example, that a hand dryer or a water tap only meets the hygiene requirements of point 4 of Chapter I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 if the hand dryer or water tap can be used without touching by hand?
—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, and administrative provisions, necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) or in any event by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—

A declaration that, because for several years running the limit values for annual and daily concentrations of PM10 in ambient air have been exceeded, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, which have since 11 June 2010 been laid down in Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/2

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 14 June 2010 — Gebhard Stark v D.A.S. Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG

(Case C-293/10)

()

2010/C 274/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gebhard Stark

Defendant: D.A.S. Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzversicherung AG

Question referred

Is Article 4(1) of Directive 87/344/EEC (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as Paragraph 158k(2) of the Versicherungsvertragsgesetz (Law on insurance contracts) and a clause, based on that law, contained in the general conditions of insurance applied by a legal expenses insurer to the effect that it may be stipulated in the insurance contract that the insured person may select to represent him only persons professionally authorised to represent parties who have their chambers at the place of the court or administrative authority before which the proceedings at first instance are to be conducted?

(1) Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987, L 185, p. 77).
1.

Are Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (BC) No 864/2007 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), in conjunction with Article 297 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to be interpreted to require a national court to apply Rome II, and in particular Article 15(c) thereof, in a case where the event giving rise to the damage occurred on 29th August 2007?
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws and regulations necessary for the proper transposition of Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, (1) the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions of the directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/16

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 August 2010 — Finanzamt Deggendorf v Markus Stoppelkamp in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the assets of Harald Raab

(Case C-421/10)

()

2010/C 317/29

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Finanzamt Deggendorf

Respondent: Markus Stoppelkamp in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the assets of Harald Raab

Question referred

Is a taxable person to be regarded as ‘a taxable person established abroad’ within the meaning of Article 21(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) simply because the place where he has established his business is abroad, or is it an additional requirement that his personal residence also be abroad?

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1
3.

Are the limitations and conditions governing the exercise of the freedom of movement of citizens of the European Union and the measures adopted to give them effect under European Union law, including Article 71(1), (2) and (5) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement in conjunction with Recitals 5 and 20 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), under the circumstances of the main proceedings, to be interpreted as meaning that the conviction of a national of a Member State by a court in a third country for acts concerned with narcotic drugs which, under the law of that Member State, are classified as a serious intentional criminal offence, is sufficient ground for holding, on grounds of general and specific prevention, including guaranteeing a higher level of protection of the health of others in accordance with the precautionary principle, that the personal conduct of that national represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society for a future period of time, which is precisely defined by law and is not connected with the term served for the sentence imposed, but falls within the rehabilitation period?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/12

Action brought on 2 August 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-387/10)

()

2010/C 328/20

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement by adopting and retaining provisions under which only national financial institutions or national business trustees may be appointed as tax representatives of investment or real property investment funds;

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that provisions under which only national financial institutions or national business trustees may be appointed as tax representatives of investment or real property investment funds constitute an establishment requirement which restricts the freedom to provide services.

Contrary to the view taken by Austria, the disputed provisions are neither suitable for improving the quality of tax representation nor for protecting the interests of investors and the fiscal administration in proper compliance with tax obligations. It is thus not possible to discern a justification for the restriction on the freedom to provide services.
1.

The Appellant argues that the General Court committed an error in law by adopting a wrong interpretation or by not applying Art.97 of the Financial Regulation (1) and Art.138 of the Implementing Rules, since the announcement of the sub-criteria before the submission of the tenders is essential so that tenderers can present their best offer. The General Court erroneously rejected the Appellant's argument concerning the mixing of the selection and award-criteria on the grounds that it was introduced out of time. It is submitted that even if the approach of the General Court was correct it misinterpreted the content of the tender specifications when examining whether the use of the individual CVs in the award phase infringed the tender specifications.
Does Article 10 have a continuing application after the courts of the requested Member State have rejected an application for the return of the child under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention on the basis that Articles 3 and 5 are not made out?

In particular, how should a conflict between a determination of the requested state that the requirements of Articles 3 and 5 of the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention are not met and a determination of the requesting state that the requirements of Articles 3 and 5 are met be resolved?
7.

Is Article 5(3) to be interpreted as meaning that acts of observing, testing or studying of the functioning of the First Program are to be regarded as being done in order to determine the ideas or principles which underlie any element of the First Program where they are done: (a) to ascertain the way in which the First Program functions, in particular details which are not described in the Manual, for the purpose of writing the Second Program in the manner referred to in question 1 above; (b) to ascertain how the First Program interprets and executes statements written in the programming language which it interprets and executes (see question 3 above); (c) to ascertain the formats of data Files which are written to or read by the First Program (see question 4 above); (d) to compare the performance of the Second Program with the First Program for the purpose of investigating reasons why their performances differ and to improve the performance of the Second Program; (e) to conduct parallel tests of the First Program and the Second Program in order to compare their outputs in the course of developing the Second Program, in particular by running the same test scripts through both the First Program and the Second Program; (f) to ascertain the output of the log file generated by the First Program in order to produce a log file which is identical or similar in appearance; (g) to cause the First Program to output data (in fact, data correlating zip codes to States of the USA) for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not it corresponds with official databases of such data, and if it does not so correspond, to program the Second Program so that it will respond in the same way as the First Program to the same input data.
2.

the second ground of appeal, in the alternative, alleging that the General Court misapplied the concept of ‘undertaking’ in Article 81 EC, in rejecting, by means of contradictory and erroneous reasoning, the appellant’s plea in law alleging the failure to apply to Deltafina the same reduction in fine granted to the sister company Taes following the joint application for leniency submitted by Taes and Deltafina under the auspices of their parent company, Universal. In support of that ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court misapplied the concept of ‘undertaking’ in Article 81 EC, departing from the case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court in the matter, in particular that resulting from Case C-97/08 P Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission [2009] ECR I-8237. The Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases of 1996 (OJ 1996 C 207, p. 4) ought to have been applied to the undertaking Taes/Deltafina as a whole, and not to the two companies separately, since that notice applies to ‘undertakings’ and not to individual legal entities. Lastly, the appellant submits that the arguments put forward by the Commission with the aim of denying Deltafina the benefit of the reduction in fine granted to Taes are unfounded. The appellant submits that, in the light of such arguments, Deltafina and Taes constituted a single undertaking and, therefore, Deltafina ought to have received the same reduction in fine granted to Taes.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/20

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 2 November 2010 — Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v Sewar spol. s r. o.

(Case C-514/10)

()

2011/C 13/37

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH

Respondent: Sewar spol. s r. o.

Question referred

Must Article 66(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels I Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that for that regulation to take effect it is necessary that at the time of delivery of a judgment the regulation was in force both in the State whose court delivered the judgment and in the State in which a party seeks to have that judgment recognised and enforced?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
(a)

Must the reasonable compensation which a farmer must pay to the holder of a Community plant variety right in accordance with Article 94(1) of the CPVR Regulation because he has used propagating material of a protected variety obtained through planting and has not fulfilled the obligations laid down in Article 14(3) of the CPVR Regulation and Article 8 of the Community Planting Regulation, be calculated on the basis of the average amount of the fee charged for the licensed production of a corresponding quantity of propagating material of protected varieties of the plant species concerned in the same area, or must the (lower) remuneration which would be payable in the event of authorised planting under the fourth indent of Article 14(3) of the CPVR Regulation and Article 5 of the Community Planting Regulation be taken as a basis for the calculation instead?
1.

In the case of an alleged infringement by a person established in another Member State of a trade mark granted in the State of the court seised through the use of a keyword (AdWord) identical to that trade mark in an internet search engine which offers its services under various country-specific top-level domains, is the phrase ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (‘Brussels I’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that: 1.1. jurisdiction is established only if the keyword is used on the search engine website the top-level domain of which is that of the State of the court seised; 1.2. jurisdiction is established only if the search engine website on which the keyword is used can be accessed in the State of the court seised; 1.3. jurisdiction is dependent on the satisfaction of other requirements additional to the accessibility of the website?
2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: (a) To what extent is homosexual activity protected? (b) Can a homosexual person be told to live with his or her sexual orientation in his or her home country in secret and not allow it to become known to others? (c) Are specific prohibitions for the protection of public order and morals relevant when interpreting and applying Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2004/83/EC or should homosexual activity be protected in the same way as for heterosexual people?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/22

Action brought on 16 November 2010 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-531/10)

()

2011/C 30/37

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Zadra and J. Javorský, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, inasmuch as the Ministry of Transport, Postal Services and Telecommunications of the Slovak Republic concluded an agreement for the provision of consultancy services having a cross-border dimension without issuing a call for tenders, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations of non-discrimination and transparency under Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1)

— order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Ministry of Transport, Postal Services and Telecommunications of the Slovak Republic concluded an agreement for the provision of consultancy services which had a cross-border dimension on grounds of the value of the contract, of the technical information required and of the fact that the previous provider of the services was a company from another Member State. The contract was concluded without a call for tenders. There was thus a clear breach of the principle of transparency, since entities other than those notified by the ministry at its own discretion were not informed of that contract, and did not have the opportunity to submit tenders. By its breach of the principle of transparency, the ministry simultaneously breached the prohibition on discrimination, since it dealt differently with the group of undertakings which it notified of the public contract and the group — including undertakings established outside the Slovak Republic — which were not notified but could have had an interest therein. By the fact that the award of the contract was not made subject to open competition, the ministry itself renounced the advantages arising in that situation from the existence of the internal market, and which would enable the ministry to receive the most advantageous tender for the provision of consultancy services from amongst a large number of undertakings from the European Union.

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC 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 (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
3.

If the second question is answered in the affirmative, what are the characteristics of a product which make it similar, within the meaning of Article 110 TFEU, to a motor vehicle which has all the following characteristics: (a) it is new (or has not previously been sold for a purpose other than resale or supply and therefore has never been registered) or it is second-hand and has been registered in a Member State of the European Union during the period from 15 December 2008 to 31 December 2009 inclusive; (b) it was designed and built for the transport of passengers and has, in addition to the driver's seat, at most eight seats (vehicles in category M1, under the Romanian legislation) or was designed and built for the transport of goods with a maximum weight of 3.5 tons (vehicles in category NI, under the Romanian legislation); (c) it falls within pollution class Euro 4; (d) it has a cylinder capacity of less than 2 000 cc (a characteristic to be taken into account only in the case of vehicles in category MI).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/10

Appeal brought on 14 October 2010 by Dimitris Platis against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-311/10 Dimitris Platis v Council and Greece

(Case C-513/10 P)

2011/C 80/18

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Dimitris Platis (represented by P. Theodoropoulos, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Hellenic Republic

By order of 17 December 2010 the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismisses the appeal in part as clearly unfounded and in part as clearly inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 13 December 2010 — The United States of America v Christine Nolan

(Case C-583/10)

2011/C 89/08

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The United States of America

Defendant: Christine Nolan

Question referred

Does the employer's obligation to consult about collective redundancies, pursuant to Directive 98/59/EC (1), arise (i) when the employer is proposing, but has not yet made, a strategic business or operational decision that will foreseeably or inevitably lead to collective redundancies; or (ii) only when that decision has actually been made and he is then proposing consequential redundancies?

(1) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies

OJ L 225, p. 16
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 6 December 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v L.A.C. van Putten

(Case C-578/10)

2011/C 72/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party: L.A.C. van Putten

Question referred

In the light of Article 18 EC (now Article 21 TFEU), does Community law govern a situation in which a Member State levies a tax on the first use on the road network in its territory of a vehicle which is registered in another Member State, has been borrowed from a resident of that other Member State and has been driven by a resident of the first Member State in the territory of that Member State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/2

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2010 — Südzucker AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-608/10)

2011/C 113/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Südzucker AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Questions referred

1. Is the holder of an export licence entitled to an export refund (Article 5(7) of Regulation No 800/1999) (1) only if he is registered as exporter in box 2 of the export declaration lodged with the competent customs office?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Does Article 78(1) and (3) of the Customs Code (2) allow post-clearance revision of the export declaration in order to change the exporter in box 2 of the export declaration, and are the customs authorities obliged in a case such as that in the main proceedings to regularise the situation and to grant the export refund?

3. If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative: Can the customs authorities directly regularise the situation described in Article 78(3) of the Customs Code in such a way that the exporter can be granted the export refund, without the need for prior correction of the export declaration?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
4.

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, does the EU law principle of effectiveness require a member state to disapply national law restrictions (such as sections 78 and 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994) on any domestic claims or remedies that would otherwise be available to the taxable person to vindicate the EU law right established in the Court of Justice's answer to the first 3 questions, or is it sufficient that the national court disapplies such restrictions only in respect of one of these domestic claims or remedies? What other principles should guide the national court in giving effect to this EU law right so as to accord with the EU law principle of effectiveness?
3.

If the answer to question 2 is no, are Articles 5 and 9 invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?