ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/6

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 14 December 2012 — Lyreco Belgium NV v Sophie Rogiers

(Case C-588/12)

2013/C 79/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lyreco Belgium NV

Defendant: Sophie Rogiers

Question referred

Do the provisions of Clause 1 and Clause 2, paragraph 4, of the framework agreement concluded on 14 December 1995 by the general cross-industry organisations, UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, on parental leave, contained in the Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC (1) of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, preclude the protective award which is payable to the worker who was bound to his employer by a full-time employment contract of indefinite duration, and whose employment contract is terminated unilaterally by that employer without urgent cause or sufficient ground during a period of reduction of working hours, on the grounds of the taking of parental leave, by 20 % or 50 %, from being calculated with reference to the salary payable during that period of reduction, where the same worker would be entitled to a protective award calculated by reference to the full-time salary if he had reduced his working hours by 100 %[?]

(1) OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/11

Action brought on 17 January 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-23/13)

2013/C 79/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to make provision for the collection and treatment of urban waste water in 8 agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 in what are regarded as normal areas, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment; (1)

— order French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the Commission claims that France has failed to implement correctly, in 8 agglomerations, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment.

Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 91/271 required agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more than 15 000 to be provided with collecting systems and to subject waste water to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment at the latest by 31 December 2000.

As regards urban waste water treatment obligations, Article 4(1) of the directive requires the Member States to ensure that waste water entering collecting systems is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before being discharged.

Lastly, the control procedures laid down in Annex I D to the directive make it possible to ascertain whether discharges from urban waste water treatment plants comply with the requirements of the directive pertaining to the discharge of waste water.

(1) OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
1.

Having regard to Article 6(3) of the [Treaty on European Union], does the right to protection against unjustified dismissal constitute a fundamental right which, as a general principle, forms part of European Union law and is to be regarded as a rule of primary law?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Strojírny Prostějov, a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-53/13)

2013/C 141/18

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Strojírny Prostějov, a.s.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Question referred

Do Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude the application of national legislation which, where an undertaking supplying workers to another undertaking (the supplier) has its seat in the territory of another Member State, imposes on the undertaking using the workers the obligation to deduct income tax in respect of those workers and pay it into the State budget, whereas if the supplier has its seat in the territory of the Czech Republic that obligation is on the supplier?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku (Poland) lodged on 25 January 2013 — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy

(Case C-38/13)

2013/C 141/15

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Małgorzata Nierodzik

Defendant: Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy

Question referred

Must Article 1 of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, (1) clause 1 of the annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, clause 4 of the annex to Directive 1999/70/EC and the general principle of European Union law prohibiting discrimination based on the type of employment contract be construed as meaning that they preclude provisions of national law establishing rules for determining the length of the notice period for the termination of fixed-term employment contracts concluded for a period exceeding six months which are different (less favourable for workers employed on fixed-term contracts) from the rules determining the length of the notice period for the termination of open-ended employment contracts; more specifically, do they preclude provisions of national law (Article 33 of the Law relating to the Labour Code of 26 June 1974 — Dz. U. 1998, No 21, Position 94, as subsequently amended) which, irrespective of a worker’s length of service, establish a fixed two-week notice period for the termination of fixed-term contracts concluded for a period exceeding six months, whereas the length of the notice period for the termination of open-ended contracts is dependent on the worker’s length of service and may range from two weeks to up to three months (Article 36(1) of the Law relating to the Labour Code)?

(1) OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
1.

Can it be considered that a material — which is white, — has a rectangular shape, — consists of a woven fabric, — is made with a weave of twisted thread, — whose wefts are composed of two threads which, — crossing each other, surround the warps, — whose openings are 4 × 4 mm, — measures up to 100 cm × 201 cm, — is made of glass fibres which possess a styrene acrylic copolymer plastic coating, — is not made from rovings, — weighs 136 g/m2, — with a warp density of 415 tex, — and a weft density of 132 tex, complies with the material characteristics set out in recital 14 of the preamble and in Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 (1) of 16 February 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China, which consist of — open mesh fabrics — of glass fibres, — of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width, — and weighing more than 35 g/m2, and, consequently, that TARIC code 7019590010 must be interpreted so that the material described above is included as such in that TARIC code, taking into account also the tariff classification and the various linguistic versions of Community law?
7.

Must the general principles of [European Union] law presently in force concerning legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, procedural equality, effective judicial protection, the right to an independent court or tribunal and, more generally, the right to due process, guaranteed by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by Article 1.8 of the Treaty of Lisbon and as referred to by Article 46 TEU), read in conjunction with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and with Articles 46, 47 and 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000, as incorporated in the Treaty of Lisbon, be interpreted as precluding, within the scope of Directive 1999/70/EC, the adoption by the Italian State, after a significant period of time (three and a half years), of a legislative provision such as Article 9 of Decree-Law No 70 of 13 May 2011, converted by way of Law No 106 of 12 July 2011, [which] added to Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 368/01 a paragraph 4a which is liable to alter the consequences of ongoing proceedings by directly placing at a disadvantage the worker and benefiting the State in its capacity as employer, and by eliminating the possibility conferred by the national legal system of penalising the abusive repeated renewal of fixed-term contracts?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 4 March 2013 — Francesco Fierro and Fabiana Marmorale v Edoardo Ronchi and Cosimo Scocozza

(Case C-106/13)

2013/C 141/26

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Tivoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Francesco Fierro and Fabiana Marmorale

Defendants: Edoardo Ronchi and Cosimo Scocozza

Question referred

Does the national legislation of the Italian Republic — in particular, Article 33 of Law No 1150/42, which allows the municipalities to regulate the urban development of land and/or building works on that land within the boundaries of each municipality in accordance with the general principles laid down in that Law, in Article 1 of Law No 10/77 and in various laws adopted by the individual regions, read in conjunction with Article 2 of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 6 June 2001‘consolidating the legislative and regulatory provisions on building’ and with lower-ranking local rules (general land use plans, implementing rules) and Article 46 of Presidential Decree No 380/2001, which renders sales transactions void in the event of alterations to immovable property being made without proper authorisation — constitute a disproportionate and unreasonable encroachment on the right to property, albeit regulated by law, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 [TEU] and Articles 17 and 52(3) of the [Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union]?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 147/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 22 February 2013 — Philippe Gruslin v Citibank Belgium SA

(Case C-88/13)

2013/C 147/17

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Philippe Gruslin

Respondent: Citibank Belgium SA

Question referred

Is Article 45 of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘payments to unit-holders’ also refers to the delivery to unit-holders of certificates for registered units?

(1) OJ 1985 L 375, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgique) lodged on 27 March 2013 — Jean Devillers

(Case C-167/13)

2013/C 164/21

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jean Devillers

Question referred

Must Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and Annex I thereto, Chapter I, entitled ‘Fitness for transport’, (1) paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, which provide that in cases of doubt veterinary advice is to be sought regarding the fitness for transport of an injured animal and, more specifically, regarding the assessment of the additional suffering that the transport would cause, be interpreted as precluding Article 11(4) of the Royal Decree of 9 July 1999 concerning the protection of animals during transport, (2) which allows the transport of an injured animal only where that transport does not cause unnecessary suffering?

(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) Royal Decree of 9 July 1999 concerning the protection of animals during transport and the conditions of registration of transporters and certification of traders, starting points and assembly centres (Moniteur belge, 2 September 1999, p. 32437).
Furthermore, if the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006?
1.

Does denying the appellants the opportunity to have the Netherlands fiscal unity regime applied to the activities and assets of the sister companies X3 Holding, D1 and D2, established in the Netherlands, constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 43 EC in conjunction with Article 48 EC? In that context, in the light of the objectives pursued by the Netherlands fiscal unity regime …, is the situation of X3 Holding, D1 and D2 objectively comparable … to (i) the situation of sister companies, established in the Netherlands, which have not elected to be integrated in a fiscal unity with their common parent company (-ies), established in the Netherlands, and which therefore, jointly as sister companies, similarly to the appellants, have no access to the fiscal unity regime, or to (ii) the situation of sister companies, established in the Netherlands, which, together with their common parent company (-ies), established in the Netherlands, have elected to form a fiscal unity with their parent company (-ies) and whose activities and assets therefore, in contrast to those of the appellants, are consolidated for tax purposes?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/28

Appeal brought on 22 February 2013 by 1. garantovaná a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2012 in Case T-392/09: 1. garantovaná a.s. v European Commission

(Case C-90/13 P)

2013/C 114/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: 1. garantovaná a.s. (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt, P. Lasok QC, J. Holmes, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the General Court’s decision of 12 December 2012 in Case T-392/09 as it relates to the second pleas in the Appellant’s Application before the General Court;

— uphold that plea as well-founded;

— reduce the level of the fine to EUR 2.1 million, representing 10 % of the Appellant’s turnover in 2008 as recoded at paragraph 84 of the Contested Judgment; and

— order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s second plea in law.

Article 23(2) of regulation No. 1/2003 (1) provides: ‘…the fine shall not exceed 10 % of its [the undertaking in question] turnover in the preceding business year’. The ‘preceding business year’ is the last full business year immediately preceding the date of adoption of the Commission decision finding that there has been an infringement of the competition rules and imposing a fine.

In the present case the ‘turnover in the preceding business year’ was that for 2008, not the turnover taken into account by the Commission. The effect of using the turnover for 2007 was to inflate the fine imposed on Garantovaná to just under 100 % of its turnover in the business year preceding the date of adoption of the Commission decision (22 July 2009).

The appellant submits that the Commission’s use of the 2007 turnover was contrary to the clear wording and purpose of article 23(2) and unlawful. As claimed in Garantovaná’s second plea in law in the proceedings before the General Court, the fine should therefore be reduced either in compliance with Article 23(2) or in the exercise of the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction under article 261 TFUE and article 31 of regulation no 1/2003.

(1) 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, p. 1
2.

(a) May the authorities of a Member State, in the context of an investigation into whether an immovable property situated in another Member State may be designated as an estate for the purposes of the Natuurschoonwet 1928, rely on Council Directive 2010/24/EU (1) of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, for assistance from the authorities of the Member State in which the immovable property is situated, when the designation as an estate pursuant to that law will result in an exemption being granted from the recovery of the gift tax which will be payable upon donation of that immovable property? (b) If question 2(a) must be answered in the affirmative, must the concept of ‘administrative enquiry’ in Article 3(7) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU (2) of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that it also covers an on-site investigation? (c) If question 2(b) must be answered in the affirmative, may clarification of the term ‘administrative enquiries’ in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, be sought in the definition of the term ‘administrative enquiry’ in Article 3(7) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/21

Action brought on 14 March 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-124/13)

2013/C 156/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, I. Liukkonen and R. Kaškina, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 of 19 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (1); and

— order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament raises a single plea of annulment of the contested Regulation on the grounds that Article 43(3) TFEU is not the appropriate legal basis for the contested Regulation and that it should have been adopted on the basis of Article 43(2) TFEU, as the latter provision gives the European Union legislature the necessary powers for adopting an act with the aim and content of the contested Regulation. The legal basis used excluded Parliament from taking part in the adoption of the act, whereas Article 43(2) TFEU provides for the ordinary legislative procedure to be followed. The erroneous legal basis must lead to the annulment of the contested Regulation.

Under the first limb of its plea Parliament asserts that each multiannual plan, such as that at stake in the present case, as a fish stocks conservation and management tool, forms a whole which only contains provisions in the pursuit of the sustainability and conservation objectives of the CFP and must therefore be adopted in its entirety under Article 43(2) TFEU.

The second limb of Parliament's plea consists of the assertion that the adoption of the contested Regulation separately from the remainder of the Commission proposal constitutes in any event an abuse of the procedure and empties the established case-law on the choice of legal basis according to the centre of gravity of the act, of its contents. Splitting the proposal enabled the Council to artificially choose a separate legal basis for certain elements of the proposed act, whereas these would have been absorbed by the single legal basis of Article 43(2) TFEU had the act been adopted in the form of the initially proposed whole.

(1) OJ L 352, p. 10
3.

Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, having regard to the protection of the safety and health of workers, the employer is obliged, when organising working time, actually to grant the worker leave by the end of the calendar year or, at the latest, by the end of a carry over period applicable to the employment relationship, regardless of whether or not the worker has submitted an application for leave?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — B v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-149/13)

2013/C 171/33

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Question referred

What limits do Article 4 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 3 and 7 thereof, impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and are those limits different from the limits which apply to the assessment of the credibility of the other grounds of persecution and, if so, in what respect?

(1) OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.