ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2019 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v D.-H. T., acting as insolvency administrator in relation to the assets of J & S Service UG (limited liability)

(Case C-620/19)

(2019/C 383/51)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law, appellant in the first appeal and defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law, respondent in the first appeal and applicant: D.-H. T., acting as insolvency administrator in relation to the assets of J & S Service UG (limited liability)

Interested party: the representative of the federal interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Questions referred

1. Does Article 23(1)(j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) also serve to protect the interests of financial authorities?

2. If so, does the wording ‘the enforcement of civil law claims’ also cover the defence of the financial authority against civil law claims and must such claims already have been submitted?

3. Does the provision of Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 relating to the protection of an important financial interest of a Member State in taxation matters allow a restriction of the right of access under Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2016/279 in relation to the defence of civil law insolvency avoidance claims against the financial authority?

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).
6.

Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (as amended) provides that the individual anti-dumping duty rate of 64.4% applicable to the company Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd., Ningbo City, is conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which conforms to the requirements set out in Annex II, and that, if no such invoice is presented, the anti-dumping duty rate applicable to all other companies will apply. Can the individual anti-dumping duty rate still be granted to the declarant in good faith, in the context of an additional claim for anti-dumping duties following an Olaf investigation, if Olaf has established that the disputed fasteners are not of the indicated Indonesian origin, but were actually manufactured in China by the company Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd., but an invoice with the required particulars for the individual anti-dumping duty cannot be submitted because it was the intention of the exporters to mislead the authorities of the Member States?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 26 August 2019 — Y v CAK

(Case C-636/19)

(2019/C 383/56)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Y

Defendant: CAK

Questions referred

1. Must Directive 2011/24/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that persons referred to in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, (2) who receive benefits in their country of residence at the expense of the Netherlands but who are not insured in the Netherlands under the statutory health insurance scheme can rely directly on that directive for the reimbursement of costs of care provided? If not,

2. Does it follow from Article 56 TFEU that, in a case such as the present one, not granting reimbursement for care provided in a Member State other than the country of residence or the country providing the pension is an unjustified obstacle to the free movement of services?

(1) Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (OJ 2011 L 88, p. 45).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Órgano Administrativo de Recursos Contractuales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi (Spain) lodged on 26 August 2019 — Confederación Sindical Comisiones Obreras de Euskadi v Ayuntamiento de Arrigorriaga

(Case C-635/19)

(2019/C 406/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Órgano Administrativo de Recursos Contractuales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Confederación Sindical Comisiones Obreras de Euskadi

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Arrigorriaga

Question referred

Does Directive 2014/24/EU (1) preclude national legislation, such as Article 122(2) of the LCSP, (2) which compels contracting authorities to include in the procurement documents governing a public contract a special condition of performance imposing on the successful tenderer an obligation to guarantee that the pay conditions applicable to workers under the relevant sectoral collective agreement will at least be honoured, even if that sectoral collective agreement is not binding on the undertaking to which the contract is awarded under the rules governing collective bargaining and collective agreements, which establish the primacy of the company agreement on pay and provide for the possibility of not applying a collective agreement in force for economic, technical, organisational or production reasons?

(1) 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).

(2) Law 9/2017 of 8 November 2017 on Public Sector Contracts.
2.

Are Articles 15 and 31 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, (1) Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the general principles of primacy of EU law and effectiveness of directives, to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the national courts of the host Member State are required, in the context of an action for annulment brought against a decision refusing to recognise a right of residence of more than three months of an EU citizen, to have regard to new facts and matters arising after the decision of the national authorities, where such facts and matters are capable of altering the situation of the person concerned in such a way that it is no longer permissible to restrict his right of residence in the host Member State?
Action brought on 20 September 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-704/19)

(2019/C 413/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to take, within the time limits prescribed, all the measures necessary to recover from the principal beneficiary, Telecom Castilla-La Mancha SA., the State aid declared illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1385 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.27408 (C 24/10) (ex NN 37/10, ex CP 19/09) granted by the authorities of Castilla-La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha (1) (published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 222 of 17 August 2016, p. 52), by failing to establish the cancellation of all outstanding payments of that aid, and by failing to communicate to the Commission, within the time limit prescribed, the measures adopted to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 288(4) TFEU and Articles 3 and 4 of that decision;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Kingdom of Spain has not implemented the decision within the time limits prescribed in Article 4(2) and (3) of the decision.

The Kingdom of Spain has failed to recover the total amount of aid from the principal beneficiary of the aid, Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, SA.. The Kingdom of Spain has failed to establish that all pending aid payments were cancelled following adoption of the decision. The failure to completely recover the amount of the aid to which the decision relates and which was granted to Telecom CLM, and the failure to submit reliable proof of the cancellation of all outstanding payments constitutes a breach on the part of the Kingdom of Spain of its obligation under Article 3 of the decision.

In addition, the Kingdom of Spain has not communicated to the Commission, within the time limit prescribed, the information regarding implementation of the decision, as required under Article 4(3) and (4) thereof.

(1) OJ 2016 L 222, p. 52.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 16 August 2019 — Ge.Fi.L. — Gestione Fiscalità Locale SpA v Regione Campania

(Case C-618/19)

(2019/C 413/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ge.Fi.L. — Gestione Fiscalità Locale SpA

Defendant: Regione Campania

Question referred

Does a provision of regional legislation, such as Article 1(121) of Law No 16 of the Campania Region of 7 August 2014 which awards directly to the [Automobile Club d’Italia], without a tender procedure, a contract for services relating to the management of the tax on vehicles of the Campania Region infringe [European Union] law and, in particular, the principle of free movement of services and the principle of opening up to competition as far as possible in the field of public service contracts?
1.

Must EU law, in particular Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation according to which the provisions that apply to EU citizens and members of their families are similar to those which, in respect of third-country nationals, transpose Article 7(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, that is to say, provisions according to which EU citizens and members of their families can be obliged to comply with preventive measures designed to prevent any risk of absconding during the period given to those persons in which to leave the territory following adoption of a decision to terminate residence on grounds of public policy or during an extension of that period?
2.

In any event, notwithstanding the foregoing, does the practice of the Spanish State of automatically applying the rule laid down in Article 7 of Royal Decree 240/2007, and refusing to grant a residence permit to a family member of an EU citizen where that EU citizen has never exercised freedom of movement, on the ground that the EU citizen does not satisfy the conditions laid down in that provision, without having examined specifically and individually whether there exists a relationship of dependency between that EU citizen and the third-country national of such a nature that, for any reason and in the light of the circumstances, it would mean that were the third-country national refused a right of residence, the EU citizen could not be separated from the family member dependent on him and would have to leave the territory of the European Union, infringe Article 20 TFEU in the terms set out above? All of this is in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including, inter alia, the judgment of 8 May 2018, C-82/16, K.A. and Others v Belgische Staat. (1)
3.

Is EU law, and in particular the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 49 et seq. and 56 et seq. TFEU), the [EU-law] principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, transparency and impartiality, freedom of competition, proportionality, legitimate expectations and consistency, and — where deemed applicable — Articles 3 and 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that contained in the legislation implementing the aforementioned Decree, and in particular in Customs and Monopolies Agency Notice No 0133677 of 1 December 2017, which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 20(1) of Decree-Law No 148 of 16 October 2017, and on the basis of the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 4 of the concession agreement for the management of instant lotteries, which provides for the renewal of the same no more than once, changes the expiry date of the concession to 30 September 2028 — without prejudice to the provisions of Article 4 regarding the division of the concession period into two periods of five and four years respectively (therefore, once the first period of five years commencing on 1 October 2019 has expired, the continuation for the next four years until the expiry date of 30 September 2028 is contingent on a positive appraisal of the management performance by the Customs and Monopolies Agency, to be indicated by 30 March 2024) — and requires the company to arrange payment of EUR 50 million by 15 December 2017, EUR 300 million by 30 April 2018 and EUR 450 million by 31 October 2018; — providing for this before the original expiry date of the concession (Customs and Monopolies Agency Notice No 0133677 was issued on 1 December 2017, whereas the concession contract would have expired on 30 September 2019); — thereby ensuring […] the advance payment of EUR 800 million (EUR 50 million by 15 December 2017, EUR 300 million by 30 April 2018 and EUR 450 million by 31 October 2018) prior to that expiry date (30 September 2019); — thereby […] potentially changing the overall amount of the payment due, with regard to its onerousness, taking into account — according to the [appellant’s] submissions — the objective and well-known fact of the value of time in financial terms?
2.

Do the provisions of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC preclude national legislation pursuant to which time spent by workers in the defence sector at their place of work or at some other designated place (but not at home) on stand-by, and time during which military personnel in the defence sector performing guard duty are physically present in barracks but not actually working, is not counted as ‘working time’?
Appeal brought on 14 November 2019 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 4 September 2019 in Case T-308/18 Hamas v Council

(Case C-833/19 P)

(2020/C 10/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by B. Driessen and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Hamas

Form of order sought

The Council submits that the Court of Justice should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-308/19;

— give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal; and

— order the applicant in Case T-308/18 to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in the context of the present appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In the first place, the Council takes the view that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the eighth plea for annulment, alleging ‘failure to authenticate the statement of reasons’, by finding that the statement of reasons relating to the contested measures ought to have been signed.

In the second place, the Council submits that the General Court erred in not finding that the decisions of the American authorities constituted a sufficient basis for including Hamas in the list annexed to the contested measures.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 22 October 2019 — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v GB

(Case C-783/19)

(2020/C 19/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne

Defendant: GB

Questions referred

1. Does the scope of protection of a designation of origin make it possible to protect that designation of origin not only as against similar products but also as against any services which may be associated with the direct or indirect distribution of those products?

2. Does the risk of infringement by evocation, to which the articles in question of the Community regulations (1) (2) refer, necessitate in the first instance a nominal analysis, to determine the effect that this has on the average consumer, or, in order to examine that risk of infringement by evocation, is it necessary to establish first of all that the products at issue are the same or similar or are complex products whose components include a product protected by a designation of origin?

3. Must the risk of infringement by evocation be defined using objective criteria when the names are exactly the same or highly similar or must that risk be calibrated by reference to the products and services which evoke and are evoked in order to conclude that the risk of evocation is tenuous or irrelevant?

4. In cases where there is a risk of evocation or exploitation, is the protection provided for in the legislation referred to specific protection related to the special features of the products concerned or must the protection be connected to the provisions on unfair competition?

(1) Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

(2) Article 103 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).
1.

Is Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011, (1) with regard to recital 50 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘amount [to be paid by the consumer] which is in proportion to what has been provided until the time the consumer has informed the trader of the exercise of the right of withdrawal, in comparison with the full coverage of the contract’ is to be calculated on a purely pro rata temporis basis in the case of a contract according to the content of which an overall service made up of several sub-services, rather than a single service, is to be provided, if the consumer pays for the overall service on a pro rata temporis basis, but the sub-services are provided within different intervals?
1.

Does the concept of a ‘restaurant service’ to which a reduced rate of VAT applies (Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) read in conjunction with point (12a) of Annex III thereto and with Article 6 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, (2) cover the sale of prepared dishes under conditions such as those in the main proceedings, that is to say, in a situation where: — the seller makes available to the buyer the infrastructure which enables him or her to consume the purchased meal on the premises (separate dining space, access to toilets); — there is no specialised waiter service; — there is no service in the strict sense; — the ordering process is simplified and partly automated; and — the customer’s ability to customise the order is limited?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 October 2019 — The North of England P & I Association Ltd., at the same time acting as legal successor for Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Case C-786/19)

(2020/C 45/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The North of England P & I Association Ltd., at the same time acting as legal successor for Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Question referred

Is the second indent of Article 2(d) in conjunction with the first clause of Article 25(1) of Directive 88/357/EEC (1)and/or Article 46(2) of Directive 92/49/EEC (2) with regard to the determination of the Member State where the risk is situated to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of safeguarding against risks in connection with the operation of a seagoing vessel, the State concerned is the State in whose territory a seagoing vessel is entered in an official register for the purposes of proof of ownership, or the State whose flag is flown by the seagoing vessel?

(1) Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC (OJ 1988 L 172, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 28 March 2019 by WB against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2019 in Case T-329/18 WB v Commission

(Case C-271/19 P)

(2020/C 27/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: WB (represented by: N. Ciocea, avocată)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 3 December 2019, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.
1.

Must Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 (1) be interpreted as precluding Member State from authorising the use of means, devices, methods of capture or killing capable of leading, even minimally and on a strictly temporary basis, to by-catch? Where appropriate, what criteria, relating in particular to the limited proportion or size of such by-catch, to what is in principle the non-lethal nature of the authorised hunting process and to the obligation to release without serious harm the specimens captured accidentally, may be applied in order for the selectivity criteria laid down in that provision to be considered to be satisfied?