ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-333/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 May 2018 — Lombardi Srl v Comune di Auletta and Others

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 May 2018 — Lombardi Srl v Comune di Auletta and Others

(Case C-333/18)

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lombardi Srl

Respondents: Comune di Auletta, Delta Lavori SpA, Msm Ingegneria Srl

Question referred

Can the third paragraph of Article 1(1) and Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC 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, ( 1 ) as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, ( 2 ) be interpreted as allowing, where several undertakings have participated in the tendering procedure and have not been joined to the legal proceedings (and in any event no objection has been lodged in respect of the tenders submitted by some of them), it to be left to the court concerned, by virtue of the procedural autonomy accorded to the Member States, to assess whether the interest claimed in the main action by the candidate against whom an ‘excluding’ counterclaim, considered to be well-founded, has been brought, is a vested interest, using the procedural instruments available to it under the national legal order and thus ensuring that the protection of that subjective position is in line with the consolidated national principles: (i) that the court must address all the parties’ claims but can grant only the relief sought by them (Article 112 of the Code of Civil Procedure); (ii) relating to proof of the interest alleged (Article 2697 of the Civil Code); and (iii) that a judgment having the force of res judicata has effect only as between the parties to the proceedings and cannot concern the position of persons not involved in the dispute (Article 2909 of the Civil Code)?

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

( 2 ) Directive 2007/66/EC 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 (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).
—

Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, be interpreted as meaning that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, strike action by the employees of the handling company at the departure airport of the flight concerned, must be found to be an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of an air carrier and, accordingly, cannot be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ exonerating the air carrier from its obligation to compensate passengers where a flight operated by the aircraft concerned is cancelled?
1.

Must Article 2(2) of the Decision of 11 January 2016 of the European Commission (SA.37667) according to which ‘any sums (of the aid measure, deemed to be unlawful, of Belgium to Tekelec International BVBA, consisting of a tax exemption for so-called “excess profit” for the financial years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, granted by the Ruling Commission of the Belgian tax administration by decision of 1 July 2008) that remain unrecoverable from the recipients of the aid, following the recovery described in the paragraph 1, shall be recovered from the corporate group to which the recipient belongs’, be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the acquisition of the recipient of the aid measure (Tekelec International BVBA) by a new corporate group (the Oracle Group) after the end of the aid measure (the aid measure applicable to the financial years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, and the acquisition dated 10 June 2013) and before the start of the European Commission's investigation into the lawfulness of the aid measure (launched by letter of 19 December 2013), ‘the corporate group to which the recipient belongs’ becomes the corporate group of the buyer, or does it remain the corporate group of the seller?
Case C-443/18: Action brought on 4 July 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

Action brought on 4 July 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-443/18)

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers, D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) find that the Italian Republic — by failing to ensure, in the containment area, the immediate removal of at least all the plants which have been found to be infected by Xylella fastidiosa if situated in the infected zone within a distance of 20 km of the border of that infected zone with the rest of the territory of the Union, has failed to meet its obligations under Article 7(2)(c) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789; ( 1 ) — by failing to ensure, in the containment area, the monitoring of the presence of Xylella fastidiosa by annual surveys at appropriate times of the year, has failed to meets its obligations under Article 7(7) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789; — by also continuously failing to intervene immediately to prevent the spread of Xylella fastidiosa, by successive infringement of the specific obligations referred to in Decision (EU) 2015/789 concerning the respective affected areas, which allowed the further spread of the disease, has failed to meet its obligations under Article 6(2), (7) and (9) and Article 7(2)(c) and (7) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789, its obligations under Article 16(1) of Directive 200/29/EC ( 2 ) and the obligation of sincere cooperation as set out in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union;

(2) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The evidence in the Commission’s possession, which is based on the information provided by the Italian Republic, the audits carried out by the Commission and the scientific opinions of EFSA and of other bodies, reveal late inspections, considerable delays and deficiencies in the removal of the plants found to be infected, not only up to the date the reasoned opinion was delivered but even up to the date on which the present action was brought. The Commission therefore considers that Italy’s persistent and general non-compliance with the obligation to prevent the spread of the disease under the articles mentioned above has been established.

( 1 ) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (notified under document C(2015) 3415) (OJ 2015 L 125, p. 36)

( 2 ) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (OJ 2000 L 169, p. 1)
Case C-399/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 18 June 2018 — Vereniging Gasopslag Nederland, TAQA Onshore BV, TAQA Piek Gas BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 18 June 2018 — Vereniging Gasopslag Nederland, TAQA Onshore BV, TAQA Piek Gas BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt

(Case C-399/18)

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Vereniging Gasopslag Nederland, TAQA Onshore BV, TAQA Piek Gas BV

Respondent: Autoriteit Consument en Markt

Question referred

Is a uniform capacity tariff which is not differentiated according to the type of network user but is, rather, differentiated according to the contracted capacity, compatible with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (the Gas Regulation)?

( 1 ) OJ 2009 L 211, p. 36.
4.

Are the directives cited in the third question referred for a preliminary ruling, the case-law of the Court of Justice arising in particular from the judgments in Impresa Pizzarotti (C-213/13), Kapferer (C-234/04), Kühne & Heitz (C-453/00) and Transportes Urbanos y Servicios Generales (C-118/08), concerning the admissibility of an action for review, and the basic principles established by the Court of Justice in Cases C-470/99, C-327/00 and C-241/06, concerning the time-limits laid down by national law for review procedures relating to public procurement, to be interpreted as meaning that national courts act properly in not taking into consideration — because relied on out of time by the party in the proceedings at second instance — the judgment of the Court of Justice delivered at the request of the court of second instance in the proceedings pending before it or a judgment of the Court of Justice which was not available in the official language of the Member State in question until the second instance, and in nonetheless dismissing as inadmissible the action for review brought by that party on the basis of judgments of the Court of Justice on which the party had relied but which were not taken into consideration, and facts relevant for the purposes of such judgments?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 June 2018 — Tedeschi Srl, acting in its own behalf and as agent of a temporary association of undertakings, Consorzio Stabile Istant Service, acting in its own behalf and as principal of a temporary association of undertakings v C.M. Service Srl, Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

(Case C-402/18)

(2018/C 301/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Tedeschi Srl, acting in its own behalf and as agent of a temporary association of undertakings, Consorzio Stabile Istant Service, acting in its own behalf and as principal of a temporary association of undertakings

Respondent: Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

Respondent and cross-appellant: C.M. Service Srl

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services referred to in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 25 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (1) and Article 71 of Directive 2014//24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (2) which do not contemplate any limits on the proportion of the contract that may be subcontracted or on the reduction in prices that may be applied to subcontractors, and the EU-law principle of proportionality preclude the application of national rules on public procurement, such as the Italian rules contained in Article 118(2) and (4) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 12 April 2006, pursuant to which no more than 30 % of the total value of the contract may be subcontracted and the successful contractor must apply in respect of the subcontracted services the same unit prices as those stipulated in the decision awarding the contract, with a reduction of not more than 20 %?

(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).

(2) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Appeal brought on 26 June 2018 by the European External Action Service against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2018 in Case T-119/17, Alba Aguilera v EEAS

(Case C-427/18 P)

(2018/C 341/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents, M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogado, F.-M. Hislaire, avocat, S. Moya Izquierdo, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ruben Alba Aguilera, Simone Barenghi, Massimo Bonannini, Antonio Capone, Stéphanie Carette, Alejo Carrasco Garcia, Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Carl Daspect, Nathalie Devos, Jean-Baptiste Fauvel, Paula Cristina Fernandes, Stephan Fox, Birgitte Hagelund, Chantal Hebberecht, Karin Kaup-Laponin, Terhi Lehtinen, Sandrine Marot, David Mogollon, Clara Molera Gui, Daniele Morbin, Charlotte Onraet, Augusto Piccagli, Gary Quince, Pierre-Luc Vanhaeverbeke, Tamara Vleminckx, Birgit Vleugels, Robert Wade, Luca Zampetti

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

— consequently, set aside the General Court’s judgment of 13 April 2018 in Case T-119/17;

— grant the form of order sought by the EEAS at first instance;

— order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs and expenses incurred in the various proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the General Court’s interpretation of Article 1 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations. According to the General Court, that provision imposes an obligation to adopt general implementing provisions (GIPs) in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations which applies to the whole of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, and in particular Article 10 thereof (paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment under appeal). The legislature, however, expressly formulated, in Annex X, an obligation to adopt GIPs only in Article 3. By contrast, in other provisions, such as the second paragraph of Article 2, Article 5(2), the first paragraph of Article 8, and Articles 10 and 21, that legislature has provided only for ‘conditions’ or ‘implementing rules’ adopted by the appointing authority.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the General Court’s interpretation of Article 10 of Annex X, in so far as it constitutes a provision lacking clarity and precision to such an extent that it lends itself to arbitrary application making the adoption of GIPs necessary (paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment under appeal). The appellant takes the view that Article 10 of Annex X provides a sufficiently detailed legal framework, placing precise limits on the appointing authority’s discretionary power.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 9 July 2018 — UB v Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

(Case C-447/18)

(2018/C 328/37)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UB

Respondent: Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

Question referred

In the circumstances of the main proceedings, is it possible to interpret Article 1(w), Article 4 and Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, considered in conjunction with the right to social security benefits and social advantages, as enshrined in Article 34(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as precluding the application of a provision of national legislation pursuant to which the Slovak social security body is to take into consideration an applicant’s citizenship as a fundamental condition for the purposes of determining the right of national sports representatives to a benefit in addition to the old-age pension, even if another statutory requirement, namely the fact of having represented the legal predecessors of the State, including the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, is also part of that provision of national legislation?

(1) OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.
1.

Is the national legislation set out in the Prime Ministerial Decree of 9 September 2008, in implementation of the third paragraph of Article 748 of the Navigation Code, which regulates the limitations on employment for DQ aircrew and in particular provides for the automatic termination of the employment relationship once a pilot reaches the age of 60, contrary to Regulation No 1178/2011 (1) in so far as that regulation sets 65 years as the age limit for employing pilots in commercial air transport, and would that regulation, if the special national legislation were to be disapplied, be applicable to the present case?
2.

Is Article 7(2)(e) of Regulation No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 (2) to be construed as meaning that that provision does not preclude a creditor institution from being required to submit documents substantiating its claim based on a consumer loan entered into between a seller or a supplier and a consumer, where the court considers it essential to examine the documents in order to determine whether there are unfair terms in the contract between the parties, thereby complying with the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the case-law interpreting that directive?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza (Spain) lodged on 29 June 2018 — María Pilar Bueno Ruiz, Zurich Insurance PL, Sucursal de España v Irene Conte Sánchez

(Case C-431/18)

(2018/C 373/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: María Pilar Bueno Ruiz, Zurich Insurance PL, Sucursal de España

Defendant: Irene Conte Sánchez

Question referred

Does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, (1) preclude an interpretation whereby the compulsory insurance cover includes the loss or injury caused by the dangerous situation created by the leakage of fluid from a vehicle onto the parking space in which it is parked or while the vehicle is being parked, in a private parking space situated in a housing complex, in respect of third party users of that complex?

(1) OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-213/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO

(Case C-151/18 P)

(2018/C 392/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: El Corte Inglés SA (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH

By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v TC

(Case C-492/18)

(2018/C 381/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: TC

Question referred

In a case in which:

— the executing Member State has transposed Article 17 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) in such a way that the detention pending surrender of the requested person must in all cases be suspended once the 90-day period for taking a final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant has expired and

— the courts of that Member State have interpreted domestic law as meaning that the decision period is suspended as soon as the executing judicial authority decides to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or to await the reply to a question referred for a preliminary ruling by another executing judicial authority or to postpone the decision on surrender owing to a real danger of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in the issuing Member State,

does the maintenance of the detention pending surrender of a requested person who represents a flight risk once that detention has continued for more than 90 days after that person’s arrest contravene Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

(1) Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Appeal brought on 18 July 2018 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2018 in Case T-283/15, Esso Raffinage v European Chemicals Agency

(Case C-471/18 P)

(2018/C 399/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: P. Klappich and C. Schmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Esso Raffinage, European Chemicals Agency, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 May 2018 in Case T-283/15;

— dismiss the action;

— order the applicant to pay the costs incurred before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal on the following grounds:

First, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in attributing legal significance to the letter entitled ‘Statement of Non-Compliance following a Dossier Evaluation Decision under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006’ which ECHA addressed to the French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing on 1 April 2015 (‘the letter’) and classifying it as an act which could be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU.

Secondly, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in applying Article 42(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) and disregarding Article 22(2) of the REACH Regulation.

Thirdly, the appellant does not share the General Court’s view on the general division of areas of competence between Member States and ECHA, according to which ECHA alone is competent to decide whether registration information complies with the REACH requirements.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).