ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 2 June 2014 — Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security, S.L. and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios, S.A.

(Case C-266/14)

2014/C 282/25

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional — Sala de lo Social

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.)

Defendant: Tyco Integrated Security, S.L. and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios, S.A.

Question referred

Must Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the time spent travelling at the beginning and end of the day by a worker who is not assigned to a fixed place of work but is required to travel every day from home to the premises of a different customer of the employer and to return home from the premises of another, different, customer (following a route or list that is determined for the worker by the employer the previous day), at all times within a geographical area that is more or less extensive, in the conditions of the main proceedings as described in the background to this question, constitutes ‘working time’ as that concept is defined in Article 2 of the directive or, conversely, must it be regarded as a ‘rest period’?

(1) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time

(OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9)
1.

Must the principle of flexibility and of the possibility of amending [recitals] 20 and 27 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (1) and [recitals] 18, 23 and 26 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 (2) be interpreted as precluding a national provision, under which, in the case of the cultivation of a rare plant species, the certificate relating to the rare plant must be attached to the application for payment, having regard to the administrative practice, in accordance with which it was possible to apply for the certificate only before applying for payment between 2 and 15 April 2010, and it was possible to attach it only at the same time as the presentation of the single application, and the provision did not make it possible to remedy the defect in the application constituted by the failure to produce a certificate?
—

Is import VAT for goods which have been reexported under customs supervision as non-Community goods for which, however, a customs debt is incurred due to a breach of obligation under Article 204 of the Customs Code (1) — in this case: failure to discharge in due time the external Community transit procedure by presentation at the competent customs office before the introduction into the third country — to be considered to be not legally owed within the meaning of Article 236(1) of the Customs Code in conjunction with the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) at least where the person used as the debtor is the person on whom the breached obligation was incumbent without him being entitled to dispose of the goods?
–

Can a consumer, pursuant to the second alternative in Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the second alternative in Article 16(1) of the regulation, bring proceedings in the courts for the place where he is domiciled against the other party to the contract, who pursues commercial or professional activities in another Member State of the European Union if, whilst the contract underlying the proceedings does not fall directly within the scope of such activities of the other party to the contract which are directed to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, the contract serves, however, to achieve the economic result that is sought by another contract — previously concluded between the parties and already performed — which falls within the scope of the aforementioned provisions?
1.

Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004? (1)
1.

Does European Union law, and in particular Article 20 TFEU, preclude a Member State from expelling from its territory to a non-Union country, a non-Union national who is the parent and primary carer of a child who is a citizen of that Member State (and, consequently, a citizen of the Union), where to do so would deprive the Union citizen child of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of his or her rights as a European Union citizen?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/41

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 7 July 2014 — SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)

(Case C-325/14)

2014/C 315/67

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SBS Belgium NV

Respondent: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)

Question referred

Does a broadcasting organisation which transmits its programmes exclusively via the technique of direct injection — that is to say, a two-step process in which it transmits its programme-carrying signals in an encrypted form via satellite, a fibre-optic connection or another means of transmission to distributors (satellite, cable or xDSL-line), without the signals being accessible to the public during or as a result of that transmission, and in which the distributors then send the signals to their subscribers so that the latter may view the programmes — make a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) 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) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
1)

Must Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is authorised to provide that after the termination of the contract, the commercial agent has the right to an indemnity for customers of which the amount must not be greater than the amount of remuneration for one year, and that, if that amount does not cover the whole of the loss actually suffered, damages in the sum of the difference between the amount of loss actually suffered and the amount of that indemnity?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 329/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2014 — Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz

(Case C-315/14)

2014/C 329/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Marchon Germany GmbH

Applicant and respondent: Yvonne Karaszkiewicz

Question referred

Must the first indent of Article 17(2)(a) [of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents] (1) be interpreted as precluding the application of a national provision under which ‘new customers’ can also be customers acquired by the commercial agent who have already maintained business relations with the principal for products sold by him from a range of products but not for products whose sole representation the principal has entrusted to the agent?

(1) OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.
1)

For the purposes of Directive 93/13/EEC (1), where authorisation for enforcement has been given in the absence of the consumer, is a national court seised of an objection to enforcement of a credit agreement relating to the issue of a credit card such as an American Express Gold card required, as soon as it has at its disposal the fact and points of laws necessary to that end, to evaluate, including of its own motion, whether the commission provided for in the agreement in question is unfair, namely: (a) — commission for issuing the card; (b) — commission for annual management of the card; (c) — commission for annual management of the additional card; (d) — commission for renewing the card; (e) — commission for replacing the card; (f) — commission for changing the PIN; (g) — commission for withdrawing cash from cash machines and over the counter (the bank’s own or those of other banks in Romania or abroad); (h) — commission for payment of goods and/or services supplied by traders abroad or in Romania; (i) — commission for printing and sending statements of account; (j) — commission for viewing balances on cash machines; (k) — commission for late payment; (l) — commission for exceeding the credit limit; (m) — commission for unjustified refusal to pay — notwithstanding the fact that the amount of such commission is not specified in the agreement?
1.

Do amino acid mixes such as those at issue in the present case (RM0630 and RM0789), from which (in combination with carbohydrates and fats) a foodstuff is manufactured by which a substance that is vital for health and present in normal diet but which can in individual cases trigger an allergic reaction is replaced and, as a result, allergy-induced health impairments can be avoided and existing complaints alleviated, if not cured, constitute medicaments consisting of two or more constituents which have been mixed together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses within the meaning of heading 3003 of the Combined Nomenclature (1)? If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/3

Action brought on 20 August 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-398/14)

2014/C 380/03

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by not ensuring an adequate level of treatment of urban waste water in the 52 listed agglomerations regarding which there is infringement, the Portuguese Republic did not comply with its duties under Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment.

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC establishes in particular that, at the latest by 31 December 2005, discharges of urban waste water to fresh-water and estuaries from agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 2 000 and 10 000 must, before discharge, be subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment.

The Commission considers that there is a systemic problem in Portugal, as the Portuguese State has not taken planning measures, either at national or regional level, to ensure orderly compliance with the provisions of Directive 91/271/EEC.

(1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
3.

Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004?
1.

Must Article 143(1)(h) of Commission Regulation No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as referring not only to situations in which the parties to the transaction are exclusively natural persons, but also to situations in which there is a family or kinship relationship between a director of one of the parties (a legal person) and the other party to the transaction (a natural person) or a director of that party (in the case of a legal person)?
1.

In a case where a person residing in one Member State (Germany) has entitlement to child benefit for children who live in another Member State (abroad) with the other spouse from whom he is separated, is the second sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 (1) to be applied in such a way that the fiction that, for the purpose of applying Articles 67 and 68 of Regulation No 883/2004, (2) the situation of the whole family is to be taken into account as if all the persons involved were subject to the legislation of the Member State concerned and residing there, in particular as regards a person’s entitlement to claim benefits, leads to the parent residing in the other Member State (abroad) being exclusively entitled to child benefit because the national law of the first Member State (Germany) provides that where several persons are entitled to child benefit, the benefit is granted to the parent who has taken the child into his or her household?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

Must Annex IA, No 6, and Annex IB, No 6, to Directive 2002/96/EC and/or Article 3(1)(b) of, and Annex I, No 6, and Annex II, No 6, to, Directive 2012/19/EU be interpreted as meaning that (garage-door) operating devices, as referred to in Question (1), are to be regarded as components of large-scale stationary industrial tools within the meaning of those provisions?
1.

Must Article 3(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 of 10 February 1995 (1), in the version currently in force, be interpreted as meaning that Type I marketing authorisation variations — and, in particular, in respect of the case in the main proceedings, Type IA variations — where an identical variation affecting several authorisations belonging to the same holder are concerned, are subject to a single fee, to the extent specified therein, or to as many fees as there are authorisations affected by the variation?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 448/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 24 September 2014 — SC Star Storage SA v Institutul Național de Cercetare Dezvoltare în Informatică (INCDI)

(Case C-439/14)

(2014/C 448/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Star Storage SA

Defendant: Institutul Național de Cercetare Dezvoltare în Informatică (INCDI)

Question referred

Are the provisions in the third subparagraph of Article 1(1) and Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 (1), as amended by Directive 2007/66 (2), to be interpreted as precluding a rule under which a ‘good conduct guarantee’ must be lodged as a prerequisite for being granted access to procedures for reviewing the decisions of contracting authorities, such as the rule laid down in Article 271a and Article 271b of [Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului] (Emergency Ordinance) No 34/2006?

(1) 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 (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).
1.

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C 77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?
1.

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C 72/10 and C 77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does the application of the requirement described in that question in a procedure for the award of a public contract result in an infringement of provisions of EU law which justifies the necessity to make a financial correction pursuant to Article 98 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (2)?
1)

Should Article 28 and Article 30 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community be interpreted as precluding a regulation of a Member State, in the present case the Flemish Decreet van 17 juli 2000 houdende de organisatie van de elektriciteitsmarkt (Decree of 17 July 2000 on the organisation of the electricity market) read in conjunction with the Decision of the Flemish Government of 4 April 2003‘amending the Decision of the Flemish Government of 28 September 2001 promoting the production of electricity from renewable energy sources’ and restricting free distribution to the feed-in of electricity produced by the generating installations connected to the distribution systems in the Flemish Region and excluding electricity from generating installations which are not connected to distribution systems in the Flemish Region?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 10 November 2014 — VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert v Belgische Staat

(Case C-499/14)

(2015/C 026/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants in cassation: VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert

Respondent in the appeal in cassation: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Are goods put up in sets for retail sale that are presented to customs authorities in separate packages because this is justified, but from which it is clear that they belong together and are intended to be offered as a single unit on the retail market, also to be regarded as goods put up in sets for retail sale, within the meaning of Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 (2) of 20 September 2007, in the case where those goods are packed together after the declaration with a view to being offered for sale on the retail market?

(1) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2007 L 286, p. 1.
6.

If a complaint involving a civil claimant has been lodged but that does not mean that, at the time of lodging, proceedings as referred to in Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 have yet been brought, and where, in the course of examination of the complaint lodged, proceedings may subsequently be brought with retroactive effect to the date of the lodging of the complaint, does Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 have the effect that the court seised of the matter after the complaint involving a civil claimant has been lodged with the Belgian court must stay its proceedings until such time as it has been established whether proceedings as referred to in Article 27(1) [of Regulation No 44/2001] have been brought in the Belgian court?
1)

Must Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘the Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that the concept laid down there of the ‘net cost’ of providing that service precludes a ‘reasonable profit’ of the provider from being included in the amount of the ascertained net cost of that service?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 10 December 2014 — Timberland Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

(Case C-571/14)

(2015/C 073/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Timberland Europe BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Questions referred

1. Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (1) invalid in so far as it relates to [C], established in Vietnam, and [F], established in the People’s Republic of China, because Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) (‘the basic Regulation’) were infringed, given that the Commission did not examine the market economy treatment and individual treatment claims submitted by the aforementioned exporting producers?

2. Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it relates to the producers referred to in question 1 because Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation was infringed, given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation?

3. Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it relates to [A], part of [B], established in Vietnam, and [D], part of [E], established in the People’s Republic of China, because Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation was infringed, given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).
1.

Should heading 2206 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage known as ‘Ferm Fruit’, obtained by fermentation from apple concentrate, which is also used as a beverage base for the production of a variety of other beverages, which has an alcoholic strength by volume of 16 % vol, which, as a result of purification (including ultrafiltration) is neutral with regard to colour, smell and taste, and to which no distilled alcohol has been added, must be classified under that heading? If not, should heading 2208 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that such a beverage must be classified under that heading?
2.

Does Article 198(10) of the 1992 Belgian Income Tax Code, in the version which was applicable for the 2000 and 2001 tax years, constitute a provision for the prevention of fraud or abuse within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive of 23 July 1990 (Council Directive 90/435/EEC), and, if so, does Article 198(10) of the 1992 Income Tax Code go further than is necessary in order to combat such fraud or abuse in so far as it provides that interest is not to be regarded as a business expense up to an amount corresponding to the dividends which are deductible pursuant to Articles 202 to 204 where those dividends are derived from shares by a company which has not held those shares for an uninterrupted period of at least one year at the time of their transfer, in which connection no distinction is made according to whether those interest payments relate to (the financing of) the holding from which the dividends qualifying for exemption were derived or not?