ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 April 2014 — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S

(Case C-187/14)

2014/C 202/13

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: DSV Road A/S

Questions referred

1) Is Article 203(1) of the Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that there is removal from customs supervision in a situation such as that of the main proceedings, if it is assumed that (a) each of the two generated transits in 2007 and 2008 respectively concerned the same goods, or (b) it cannot be documented that they were the same goods?

2) Is the Article 204 of the Customs Code (2) to be interpreted as meaning that customs debt arises in a situation such as that of the main proceedings, if it is assumed that (a) each of the two generated transits in 2007 and 2008 respectively concerned the same goods, or (b) it cannot be documented that they were the same goods?

3) Is Article 859 of the implementing provisions (3) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, there is an infringement of obligations which has had no significant effect on the proper course of the customs procedure, if it is assumed that (a) each of the two generated transits in 2007 and 2008 respectively concerned the same goods, or (b) it cannot be documented that they were the same goods?

4) Can the first Member State into which the goods were imported refuse the taxable person designated by the Member State a deduction of the import VAT pursuant to Article 168(e) of the VAT Directive (4), where the import VAT is charged to a carrier of the goods in question who is not the importer and owner of the goods but has simply transported and been in charge of the customs dispatch of the consignment as part of its freight forwarding operations, which are subject to VAT?

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

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

(3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

(4) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/3

Appeal brought on 11 April 2014 by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2014 in Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-182/14 P)

2014/C 223/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (represented by: A. Nordemann, M.C. Maier, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 as far as it concerns Case T-292/12,

— if necessary, remit the case back to the General Court,

— order the Defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal on a single plea, alleging infringement of article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), of 26 February 2009, on the Community trade mark.

Specifically the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law:

1) in not taking into consideration, or even mentioning, in the framework of a global assessment, that the earlier trade mark, MAGNET 4, consists of the number ‘4’;

2) in considering, at paragraphs 22 and 25 of its judgment, the element MAGNET as the dominant element of the earlier trademark, MAGNET 4;

3) in applying, at paragraph 25, different standards to the assessment of the phonetic and visual similarities of the signs MAGNET 4 and MAGNEXT;

4) by not taking into account, at paragraph 35, in the framework of a global appreciation of the likelihood of confusion, the interdependence of the relevant factors, in particular the low level of distinctiveness of the earlier mark, MAGNET 4, the lack of conceptual similarity of the signs MAGNET 4 and MAGNEXT, and the weak degree of phonetic and visual similarities of the signs;

5) in not providing substantive grounds, in paragraph 35, with regard to the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the signs MAGNET 4 and MAGNEXT

(1) OJ L 78, p. 1
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative, is a video camera recorder able to record sound and images taken by the camera within the meaning of CN subheading 8525 80 91 solely by virtue of the fact that a video or audio file can be copied, via a USB port on the camera, from another device to the interchangeable storage medium required to operate the camera, even though those files cannot be viewed or listened to with the camera alone?
(2)

Do Articles 34, 35, and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013 — under which it is compulsory, in the case of products obtained from working carried out in foreign countries but which use the Italian word ‘pelle’, to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin — to products made of leather obtained from working carried out in non-member countries and not already lawfully placed on the market in the European Union, since that law constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction prohibited under Article [34] TFEU and not justified by Article 36 of that Treaty?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 23 May 2014 — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technie v Skatteverket

(Case C-252/14)

2014/C 235/15

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technie

Defendant: Skatteverket

Question referred

Does Article 63 TFEU constitute an obstacle to national legislation under which dividends from a resident company are taxed at source if the shareholder is resident in another Member State, while such dividends — if paid to a resident shareholder — are subject to a tax calculated as a definitive lump sum and on a fictive yield, which, over time, is intended to correspond to the normal taxation of all yields on capital?
Α-

The importance of the provisions of the legislation which were infringed such as Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/ΕEC (1) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment in respect of the collection, treatment and discharge of urban waste water and the treatment and discharge of sludge from certain industrial sectors and the specified objectives of protecting the environment from the adverse effects of discharge of such waters. The Commission maintains that the discharge of untreated waste (that is, waste that has undergone no treatment, because of a lack of comprehensive systems and/or of treatment plants) into surface waters leads to pollution which is characterised by an oxygen imbalance while the flow of nutrient substances (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus compounds) significantly affects the quality of those waters and their related ecosystems (putting at risk, for example, fish populations). Further, as regards urban waste water which undergoes inadequate treatment (treatment processes which do not implement secondary treatment or which implement non-compliant secondary treatment), the implementation of primary treatment alone is insufficient to prevent any risk of pollution and deterioration in the quality of water and related ecosystems. Moreover the excessive discharge of nutrients (which consist of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds) into surface waters is a basic cause of increased eutrophication (accelerated growth of algae and forms of plant life), which increases the risk of imbalance as regards water oxygen, increased extinction of fish populations and other aquatic organisms, and increased harm suffered by related terrestrial ecosystems. That is precisely why Article 4 of Directive 91/271/ΕEC provides that urban waste water which is produced by agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e. [population equivalent] cannot be discharged, unless it has been subject to secondary or equivalent treatment. The Commission maintains that the collection and treatment of all waste water which is produced by Greek agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e. is of vital importance both for the preservation and improvement of the quality of surface waters, aquatic ecosystems and terrestrial ecosystems which are directly dependent on the waters in question and to securing the full and correct implementation of other European Union directives. However, despite the efforts made and measures taken by the Greek authorities in recent years, it is clear that, to date, six agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e. of the total of 23 which are covered by the judgment of 25 October 2007 (including five in the region of eastern Attica, which is one of the most densely populated in Greece) do not comply with Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC. The equivalent population residing in those six agglomerations is 1 24 000 (16 000 in Lefkimmi, 25 000 in Nea Makri, 17 000 in Markopoulo, 20 000 in Koropi, 18 000 in Rafina and 28 000 in Artemida).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci

(Case C-216/14)

2014/C 253/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Laufen

Parties to the main proceedings

Gavril Covaci

Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Traunstein

Questions referred

1. Are Articles 1(2), 2(1) and 8 of Directive 2010/64/EU (1) to be interpreted as precluding a court order that requires, under Paragraph 184 of the German Law on the Judicial System, accused persons to bring an appeal only in the language of the court, here in German, in order for it to be effective?

2. Are Articles 2, 3(1)(c), 6(1) and 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (2) to be interpreted as precluding the accused from being required to appoint a person authorised to accept service, where the period for bringing an appeal begins to run upon service on the person authorised and ultimately it is irrelevant whether the accused is at all aware of the offence of which he is accused?

(1) Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, OJ 2010 L 280, p. 1.

(2) Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 April 2014 — MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH v Bundesvergabeamt

(Case C-166/14)

2014/C 282/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH

Defendant: Bundesvergabeamt

Other parties: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wirtschaft; Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; Pharmazeutische Gehaltskasse für Österreich

Question referred

Is EU law — in particular the general principles of equivalence and effectiveness and Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts — to be interpreted as precluding a national legal situation in which an application for a declaration of an infringement of public procurement law must be made within six months of the conclusion of the contract, if the declaration of an infringement of public procurement law is a precondition not only of annulling the contract but also of bringing a claim for damages?

(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.

(2) OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/20

Appeal brought on 12 June 2014 by Faci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2014 in Case T-46/10: Faci SpA v European Commission

(Case C-291/14 P)

2014/C 303/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Faci SpA (represented by: Messrs S. Piccardo, Avvocato, S. Crosby, Advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of 20 March 2014 of the General Court in Case T-46/10, or

— in the alternative cancel or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the Appellant, or

— send the case back to the General Court for re-assessment, and

— in any event order the European Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs at first instance and in this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 March 2014 in Case T-46/10. In the judgment the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action of 28 January 2010 brought against Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers) (1).

The Appellant raises two grounds of appeal:

By the first ground of appeal the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law by not examining the gravity of the infringement after November 1996 by reference to the change in the nature of the cartel thereby failing to take all the circumstances into account relevant for the calculation of the fine imposed on the appellant and so infringed Point 20 of the 2006 fining guidelines and/or Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 (2) and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

By the second ground of appeal the appellant alleges that the General Court failed to conduct an effective and in depth judicial review of the decision by holding without examination of the facts that the appellant had behaved exactly like all the other undertakings involved except that its implementation was less rigorous and by dismissing without any assessment that the ground that competition had been illegally distorted to the appellant’s detriment by application of Point 35 of the fining Guidelines to a competitor, Bärlocher.

(1) OJ C 307, 12.11.2010, p. 9

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 04.01.2003, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 June 2014 — Pfotenhilfe-Ungarn e.V. v Ministry of Energy Transition, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas of the Land Schleswig-Holstein

(Case C-301/14)

2014/C 303/32

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfotenhilfe-Ungarn e.V.

Defendant: Ministry of Energy Transition, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas of the Land Schleswig-Holstein

Joined party: The Representative of the Federal interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Questions referred

1. Is there a transport of animals which does not take place in connection with an economic activity within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 (1) where that transport is effected by an animal protection association recognised as charitable and serves to re-home stray dogs with third parties for a remuneration (‘nominal fee’) which: (a) is less than the costs which the association incurs in connection with the animal, the transport and the re-homing, or just covers these; or (b) is greater than those costs but the profit serves to finance the outstanding costs of re-homing other stray animals and the costs connected with stray animals or other animal protection projects?

2. Is it a case of a dealer engaging in intra-Community trade within the meaning of Article 12 of Directive 90/425/EEC (2) where an animal protection association recognised as charitable transports stray dogs to Germany and re-homes them with third parties for a remuneration (‘nominal fee’) which: (a) is less than the costs which the association incurs in connection with the animal, the transport and the re-homing, or just covers these; or (b) is greater than those costs but the profit serves to finance the outstanding costs of re-homing other stray animals and the costs connected with stray animals or other animal protection projects?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra- Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 29).
In accordance with Article 2(2)(i) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, (1) is the entire commercial activity of a chimney sweep excluded from the scope of that directive because chimney sweeps also perform tasks in the field of fire safety regulation (fire safety inspections, expert reports in the course of building approval procedures etc.)?

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
—

Is a farmer who has planted propagating material obtained from a protected plant variety without having concluded a contract for so doing with the plant variety right holder required to pay reasonable compensation, as provided for in Article 94(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (1) of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, and — if he has acted intentionally or negligently — to compensate the holder for any further damage resulting from the infringement of the plant variety right in accordance with Article 94(2) of that regulation, where he has not yet fulfilled his obligation under Article 14(3), fourth indent, of that regulation, in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 (2) of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, to pay an equitable remuneration (planting fee) at the time when he actually made use of the product of the harvest for propagating purposes in the field?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must the principle laid down in Article 4 of 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) (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those which have arisen in the present case, the law to be applied to the dispute between the insurer of the tractor and the insurer of the trailer must be determined in accordance with the law of the country of the place in which the damage resulting from the road accident occurred?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/34

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale della Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 4 February 2014 — 3D I srl v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Cremona

(Case C-107/14)

2014/C 315/55

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale della Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: 3D I srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Cremona

By order of 17 July 2014, the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) declared the request for a preliminary ruling inadmissible.
3.

In view of the foregoing, is it possible to consider that, although an animal holds a pedigree certificate which has been issued by an association of breeders of the Member State and in which the abovementioned phrase is included, such an animal, when it is the subject of intra-Community trade, does not confer on the trader an entitlement to export aids because it is not considered a pure-bred breeding animal despite there being an official document in which the abovementioned phrase is included?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 25 July 2014 — Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner

(Case C-362/14)

2014/C 351/06

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maximillian Schrems

Defendant: Data Protection Commissioner

Questions referred

1. Whether in the course of determining a complaint which has been made to an independent office holder who has been vested by statute with the functions of administering and enforcing data protection legislation that personal data is being transferred to another third country (in this case, the United States of America) the laws and practices of which, it is claimed, do not contain adequate protections for the data subject, that office holder is absolutely bound by the Community finding to the contrary contained in Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 (2000/520/EC (1)) having regard to Article 7, Article 8 and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01 (2)), the provisions of Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC (3) notwithstanding?

2. Or, alternatively, may and/or must the office holder conduct his or her own investigation of the matter in the light of factual developments in the meantime since that Commission Decision was first published?

(1) Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce (notified under document number C(2000) 2441)

OJ L 215, p. 7

(2) Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union

OJ C 364, p. 1

(3) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data

OJ L 281, p. 31