ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Do the services provided in France by the company Airbnb Ireland UC via an electronic platform managed from Ireland benefit from the freedom to provide services contemplated in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000? (1)
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 2 July 2018 by Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 April 2018 in Case T-675/15: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v European Commission

(Case C-436/18 P)

(2018/C 341/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd (represented by: E. Vermulst, J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, ASBL

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 in Case T-675/15, Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd. v European Commission;

— annul Commission lmplementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 (1) of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People's Republic of China insofar as it concerns the appellant; and

— order the European Commission to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-675/15.

Alternatively,

— refer the case back to the General Court; and

— reserve the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

ln support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

First, the contested judgment illegally interpreted the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community by reading into that provision a condition that is not in the text of that provision when selecting the analogue country.

Second, by holding that adjustments to the normal value are in principle not possible when applying Article 2(7)(a) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the contested judgment violated this provision.

(1) OJ 2015, L 224, p. 10.

(2) OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51.
1.

If Article 23(1)(c) of the Corporation Tax Code, in the version in force in 2013, and Article 23(1) and (2)(c) of that code, in the version in force in 2014, are interpreted as meaning that, after the ‘reverse merger’ in question, the interest on the loans taken out with third parties (which but for the merger would be deductible by the company now being acquired), in order to purchase the shares of the subsidiary which is now the acquiring company, and transferred as a result of the merger, ceases to be deductible for tax purposes from the profits of the acquiring company, will those provisions be compatible with Community law, in particular having regard to the fact that that non-deductibility of the interest may constitute an impediment or restriction to the merger operations encompassed by Council Directive 2009/133/EC, (1) infringing the principles and objectives of that directive, as well as Article 4 thereof?
Action brought on 29 June 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-430/18)

(2018/C 352/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, J. Rius, G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt, by 18 September 2016, all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features (1), or in any case, by failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29(1) of that directive;

— Impose on the Kingdom of Spain, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 48 919,20, with effect from the date of delivery of the judgment declaring the failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt or, in any case, to notify to the Commission, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2014/92/EU;

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 29(1) of Directive 2014/92/EU, the Member States were required to adopt and publish, by 18 September 2016 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive, and notify those measures to the Commission.

Given that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to transpose Directive 2014/92/EU in full and notify the transposition measures to the Commission, the Commission decided to bring the present action before the Court of Justice.

The Commission suggests that a daily penalty payment of EUR 48 919,20 be imposed on the Kingdom of Spain, with effect from the date of delivery of the judgment, calculated on the basis of the seriousness and duration of the infringement and the dissuasive effect with regard to that Member State’s ability to play.

(1) OJ 2014 L 257, p. 214
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 20 July 2018 — Société de perception et de distribution des droits des artistes-interprètes de la musique and de la danse (SPEDIDAM), PG, GF v Institut national de l’audiovisuel

(Case C-484/18)

(2018/C 352/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Société de perception et de distribution des droits des artistes-interprètes de la musique and de la danse (SPEDIDAM), PG, GF

Respondent: Institut national de l’audiovisuel

Other parties: Syndicat indépendant des artistes-interprètes (SIA-UNSA), Syndicat français des artistes-interprètes (CGT)

Question referred

Must Article 2(b), Article 3(2)(a) and Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those laid down in Article 49 II of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on freedom of communication, as amended by Article 44 of Law No 2006-961 of 1 August 2006, from establishing, for the benefit of the National Audiovisual Institute, the beneficiary of the exploitation rights of national broadcasting companies in the audiovisual archives, derogating provisions under which the terms on which performers’ works can be exploited and the remuneration for that exploitation are governed by agreements concluded between the performers themselves or the employee organisations representing performers and that institute, which must specify, inter alia, the scale of remuneration and the arrangements for payment of that remuneration?

(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
3.

For the purposes of the supervisory functions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Directive, or of the complaint procedures established in Articles 80 to 82 of the Directive, does the competent authority have the power to resolve disputes between a payer and a payment service provider arising from the legal relationships referred to in Article 75 of the Directive, determining who is liable for non-execution or defective execution of a transaction?
5.

If the national courts find that there is abuse arising from the use of successive appointments of temporary regulated staff to cover vacancies in the Madrid Health Service and that they are being used to cover permanent structural needs in the provision of services by permanent regulated employees, given that domestic law contains no effective or deterrent measure to penalise such misuse and eliminate the consequences of the breach of EU legislation, must Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC be interpreted as requiring the national courts to adopt effective deterrent measures to ensure the effectiveness of the Framework Agreement, and therefore to penalise that misuse and eliminate the consequences of the breach of that EU legislation, disapplying the rule of domestic law that prevents it from being effective? If the answer should be affirmative, as held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in paragraph 41 of its judgment of 14 September 2016 in Cases C-184/15 and C-197/15: (4) As a measure to prevent and penalise the misuse of successive temporary appointments and to eliminate the consequence of the breach of EU law, would it be consistent with the objectives pursued by Directive 1999/70/EC to convert the temporary interim/occasional/replacement regulated relationship into a stable regulated relationship, the employee being classified as a permanent official or an official with an appointment of indefinite duration, with the same security of employment as comparable permanent regulated employees, on the basis that the national legislation prohibits absolutely, in the public sector, the conversion into a contract of indefinite duration of a succession of fixed-term employment contracts, since no other effective measure exists to prevent and, where relevant, penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 6 April 2018 by Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-775/16: Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO

(Case C-246/18 P)

(2018/C 392/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (represented by: R. Žabolienė, advokatė, I. Lukauskienė, advokatė)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO

By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 30 July 2018 — AU v Reliantco Investments LTD, Reliantco Investments LTD Limassol Sucursala București

(Case C-500/18)

(2018/C 381/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AU

Defendants: Reliantco Investments LTD, Reliantco Investments LTD Limassol Sucursala București

Questions referred

1. When interpreting the concept of ‘retail client’ in Article 4(1).12 of Directive 2004/39/[EC], (1) can or must the national court use the same interpretive criteria as those which define the concept of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13/EEC? (2)

2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, under what conditions may a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/[39/EC] claim consumer status in a dispute such as that in the main proceedings?

3. In particular, do the facts that a ‘retail client’, within the meaning of Directive 2004/[39/EC], carries out a high volume of transactions within a relatively short period of time and that he invests very large sums of money in financial instruments such as those defined in Article 4[(1)].17 of Directive 2004/39/[EC], constitute relevant criteria for the purpose of assessing whether a ‘retail client’ has consumer status under that directive?

4. When attempting to establish its own jurisdiction, since it has the obligation to determine the impact of Article 17(1)(c) or Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, (3) whichever is applicable, can and/or must the national court take into consideration the legal basis relied on by the applicant (namely non-contractual liability alone) as a remedy for the conclusion of terms alleged to be unfair within the meaning of Directive 93/13/EEC, for which the substantive law applicable has been established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), (4) or does the possible consumer status of the applicant make the substantive legal basis of his request irrelevant?

(1) Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(3) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

(4) Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2018 — AV, BU v Comune di Bernareggio

(Case C-465/18)

(2018/C 399/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: AV, BU

Respondent: Comune di Bernareggio

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination, equal treatment, the protection of competition and freedom of movement for workers, referred to in Articles 45, 49 to 56 and 106 TFEU and in Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the requirements of proportionality and reasonableness inherent in those principles, preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 12(2) of Law No 362/1991, which, in the event of the transfer of ownership of a municipal pharmacy, confers a right of pre-emption on the employees of the pharmacy in question?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 21 June 2018 by Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2018 in Case T-213/17, Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-411/18 P)

(2018/C 408/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG (represented by: S. Hofmann, W. Göpfert, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Hotel Preidlhof GmbH

By order of 3 October 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 17 September 2018 — Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v QC, Comida paralela 12

(Case C-579/18)

(2018/C 427/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants and respondents: Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique

Defendants and appellants: QC, Comida paralela 12

Question referred

Does Article 79 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the EU Customs Code (1) preclude national legislation, such as that implemented by Article 266 of the General Law of 18 July 1977 on customs and excise duties, in the case of the unlawful importation into the customs territory of the European Union of goods subject to import duties, from making the person civilly liable for the person who has committed that offence — in which the person civilly liable did not participate — jointly and severally liable for the customs debt?

(1) OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.
3.

If a payment order under Article 410 GPK is an authentic instrument, must the court issue its decision within the period laid down in Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 if a provision of national law states that periods are suspended during judicial vacations?
1.

The Hungarian Government takes the view that, at the vote on the contested resolution, the European Parliament seriously infringed Article 354 TFEU and its own rules of procedure. Out of the votes cast by the Members of the European Parliament, only the votes for and against were counted, excluding abstentions, which is contrary to Article 354 TFEU and Article 178(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. If the abstentions had been counted, the result of the voting would have been different (first plea in law).
4.

Should Article 2, Article 9 and Article 11 of Directive 2000/78/EC, in conjunction with Article 21 and Article 47 of the CFR, be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of discrimination on grounds of age of the judges of the court of final instance in a Member State, consisting in the lowering of the retirement age from the current 70 years to 65 years, that court — adjudicating in any case with the participation of a judge affected by the effects of such discriminatory national provisions who has not expressed a willingness to take advantage of the new retirement age — is required, when deciding the preliminary issue of the composition of the court, to refuse to apply national provisions that are contrary to Directive 2000/78/EC and Article 21 of the CFR and to continue to adjudicate with the participation of that judge where that is the only effective means of ensuring effective judicial protection of the rights of judges under EU law?
1.

Must Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) of 23 October 2007 be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority which intends directly to award a contract must take the necessary steps to publish or communicate to all operators potentially interested in operating the service the information necessary to allow such operators to submit a serious and reasonable offer?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 6 September 2018 — Société Générale S.A. v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

(Case C-565/18)

(2018/C 436/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Société Générale S.A.

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

Question referred

Should Articles 18, 56 and 63 TFEU preclude national legislation from charging a tax on financial transactions — irrespective of the State of residence of the financial market participants and the intermediary — which is payable by the counterparties to the transaction and consists of a fixed amount which rises incrementally in ranges of trading values and which varies according to the type of instrument traded and the value of the contract, and which is due by virtue of the fact that the taxable transactions concern the trading of a derivative based on a security issued by a company resident in the State imposing that tax?
1.

Does the effect of ‘shall… not be binding’ in Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) mean that a trader and a consumer, by means of a private agreement, cannot modify, by moderating it, a term that does not meet the requirement under Article 4(2) that it must be drafted in plain intelligible language, whether by reducing the amount under that term or by replacing it with a different term that is less detrimental to the consumer? Would the answer to that question be different if the modification at issue were contained in an agreement concluded between the consumer and the trader that is intended precisely to settle a dispute relating to the possible lack of transparency of a term not individually negotiated contained in an earlier agreement between those parties, without resorting to the courts?
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the surrender by the Member State of the issuing judicial authority on the basis of an EAW that refers only to the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not to the legal consequence of the TBS imposed, which has been imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, has the result that actual deprivation of liberty in execution of that legal consequence may be effected in the Member State of the issuing judicial authority?
2.

Is the imposition of a charge equivalent to the value of the goods that were the subject of the customs offence (in this case removal from the customs warehousing procedure) an administrative penalty within the meaning of Article 42(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, and is a national provision regulating such a payment, alongside the imposition of the financial penalty, permissible? Does such a rule meet the criteria of effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of penalties for failure to comply with the EU customs legislation laid down in the second sentence of Article 42(1) of the regulation?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2018 — LG and Others v Rina S.p.A. and Ente Registro Italiano Navale

(Case C-641/18)

(2019/C 25/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: LG and Others

Defendants: Rina S.p.A. and Ente Registro Italiano Navale

Question referred

Should Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 be interpreted — particularly in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and recital 16 of Directive 2009/15/EC (2) — as preventing a court of a Member State from waiving its jurisdiction by granting jurisdictional immunity to private entities and legal persons carrying out classification and/or certification activities, established in that Member State, in respect of the performance of those classification and/or certification activities on behalf of a non-EU State, in a dispute concerning compensation for death and personal injury caused by the sinking of a passenger ferry and liability for negligent conduct?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2009/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (OJ 2009 L 131, p. 47).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 November 2018 — Criminal proceedings against LD, ME, NF, OG, PH and RI

(Case C-704/18)

(2019/C 25/38)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsiliziran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

LD, ME, NF, OG, PH and RI

Question referred

Must Article 267 TFEU be interpreted as authorising a national court not to apply a preliminary ruling in the main proceedings with regard to which it was issued in reliance on the factual circumstances taken into account by the Court when it gave the preliminary ruling?