ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/3

Appeal brought on 25 July 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2017 in Case T-673/15: Guardian Europe v European Union

(Case C-447/17 P)

(2017/C 369/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and K. Sawyer, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Guardian Europe Sàrl; European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Annul paragraph (1) of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

— Dismiss as unfounded Guardian Europe’s claim, made at first instance, seeking to obtain a sum of EUR 936 000 in respect of bank guarantee costs in compensation for damage that it allegedly suffered because of an infringement of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time in Case T-82/08; or, and purely in the alternative, reduce that compensation to an amount of EUR 299 251,64, together with compensatory interest calculated having regard to the fact that that amount is composed of different amounts that became due at different points in time;

— Order Guardian Europe to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant raises four grounds.

1) The first ground alleges that there was an error of law in the interpretation of the rules applicable as regards limitation where there is a continuous loss, in that the General Court considered that alleged material damage consisting of the payment of bank guarantee costs that materialised more than five years before the action for damages was lodged was not time-barred.

2) The second ground alleges that there was an error of law in the interpretation of the notion of a causal link, in that the General Court held that the infringement of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time was the determining cause of the alleged material damage consisting of the payment of bank guarantee costs, whereas, under a settled line of case-law, an undertaking’s own decision not to pay a fine during proceedings before the European Union courts constitutes the determining cause of the payment of such costs.

3) The third ground alleges that there was an error of law in the determination of the period during which the alleged material damage occurred and a failure to state reasons in that the General Court held, without setting out the reasons, that the period during which the alleged material damage consisting of the payment of bank guarantee costs occurred could be different from the period during which it had situated the existence of the unlawful conduct that allegedly caused that damage.
—

declare that by failing to adopt before 21 March 2016 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 42(1) of Directive 2014/17/EU;
3.

is an abstract rule like that contained in the Thirteenth Additional Provision of Ley 5/2012, de 12 de julio, de Presupuestos Generales de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha para 2012 (Regional Law 5/2012 of 12 July 2012, on General Budgets of the Government of the Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha for 2012), which, among other measures, for reasons of budgetary savings and the fulfilment of deficit objectives, suspended the application of an Agreement dated 10 March 1994 between the Ministry of Education and Science and the ANPE Trade Union, published by means of a Resolution of 15 March 1994 of the Directorate General of Personnel (BOMEC of 28 March 1994), so far as concerns paid leave in July and August for replacements of more than five-and-a-half months and for coverage of vacant posts, and required payment to be made to interim non-university teaching staff in respect of leave corresponding to 22 working days if the interim appointment was for a full academic year, or for the days corresponding thereto on a proportional basis, compatible with the principle that there should be no discrimination against such staff, who fall within the category of fixed-term workers?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 September 2017 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Amar Omar

(Case C-541/17)

(2017/C 402/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Amar Omar

Questions referred

1. Does EU law preclude a Member State (in this case, Germany) from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that refugee status has been granted in another Member State (in this case, Bulgaria), in implementation of the power under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) or under the rule in Article 25(2)(a) of Directive 2005/85/EC (2) that preceded it, if the form which the international protection takes, and, more specifically, the living conditions of persons qualifying as refugees, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant international protection (in this case, Bulgaria), (a) does not meet the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU (3) and/or (b) infringes Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

2. If Question 1(a) or (b) is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where (a) persons qualifying as refugees in the Member State in which they so qualify (in this case, Bulgaria) do not receive any subsistence benefits at all, or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, but they are to that extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State, (b) persons qualifying as refugees are, admittedly, formally treated in the same way as nationals of that State with regard to the conditions relating to subsistence but in fact have greater difficulty in accessing the corresponding benefits and there is no integration programme appropriately tailored and addressing the special needs of the persons concerned such as to ensure de facto equivalent treatment to that of nationals of that State?

(1) Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

(2) Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13).

(3) Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).
3.

If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, should the courts of the Member State where the insolvency proceedings were opened then take account, whether or not by analogy, of: (a) the provisions of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, in the sense that the defendant can defend itself against a claim brought by the liquidator for the benefit of the joint creditors by proving that its conduct did not result in it being liable, if assessed on the basis of the law which would have been applicable to the claim if it had not been brought by the liquidator, but by an individual creditor as a result of a wrongful act; (b) the provisions of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 ( 3 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’), in conjunction with Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, that is to say, with the security regulations and codes of conduct applicable at the site of the alleged wrongful act, such as financial rules of conduct for banks?
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Article 15 of Directive 2011/64/EU, in laying down the principle that the price of tobacco products must be determined freely, be interpreted as prohibiting a rule setting the price of those products per 1 000 items or 1 000 grams which, in effect, prohibits manufacturers of tobacco products from adjusting their prices on the basis of potential differences in the cost of packaging those products?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/18

Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-180/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-523/17 P)

(2017/C 424/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot

Form of order sought

— set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-180/16, EU:T:2017:451;

— refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

— reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, p. 1).
3.

Moreover, the General Court’s decision under review is based on a distortion of facts in as much as the Court did not asses the absolute grounds for refusal on the basis of the applied-for goods and services but on the basis of a presumed specification claim being the result of an interpretation, i.e. distortion, of the actual specification of goods and services.
4.

Error of law concerning the scope of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and the judicial review of the principle of proportionality, and breach of the principle of sound administration of justice The General Court did not carry out the judicial review incumbent upon it by virtue of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and the principle of proportionality, and which consists in determining whether the State fulfilled the obligation to show that the Commission erred as regards the financial consequences to be attached to that infringement. Nor did it examine the information adduced by the Kingdom of Spain demonstrating the Commission’s error. Moreover, the General Court’s reasoning entails a breach of the principle of the sound administration of justice since it disregards the fact that the Kingdom of Spain determined the number of farms subject to the obligation to count livestock, and since it deviates from the subject-matter of the dispute as defined by the parties.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2017 — Teresa Coria Garcia and Others v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-470/17)

(2018/C 022/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Teresa Coria Garcia, Marina Velasco Coria, Miriam Coria Garcia

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 25 October 2017.
1.

Must Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, contained in the Annex to Directive 1999/70, (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation that does not provide for any compensation for termination of a temporary replacement contract, to replace another worker who has a reserved right to his post, when such termination is due to the reinstatement of the replaced worker, but does provide for compensation when the contract of employment is terminated on other legal grounds?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/2

Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2017 in Case T-470/16, X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-520/17 P)

(2018/C 042/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: H. Hillers, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 30 November 2017, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.
2.

May Article 10(2), (3) and (4) of the Directive, as well as the remaining provisions of the Directive or general principles of EU law applicable, be interpreted as precluding, as incompatible therewith, a national provision, such as Article 498(1) of the Portuguese Civil Code which, when applied to facts which occurred before the publication of the Directive, before its entry into force and before the date laid down for its transposition, in an action also brought before that last date: (a) lays down a three-year limitation period for a right to compensation based on non-contractual civil liability; (b) lays down that that three-year period starts to run from the date on which the injured party was aware of its right, even if unaware of the identity of the person liable and the full extent of the damage; and (c) does not include any provision requiring or authorising the suspension or interruption of that period simply because a competition authority has taken measures in the context of an investigation or a process relating to an infringement of competition law to which the action for compensation relates?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 20 November 2017 — Skatteverket v Srf konsulterna AB

(Case C-647/17)

(2018/C 052/27)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Srf konsulterna AB

Question referred

Must the expression ‘admission to events’ in Article 53 of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that it covers a service in the form of a five-day course on accountancy which is supplied solely to taxable persons and requires advance registration and payment?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brindisi (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Gianluca Moro

(Case C-646/17)

(2018/C 052/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Brindisi

Defendant in the main proceedings

Gianluca Moro

Question referred

Must Article 2(1), Article 3(1)(c) and Article 6(1), (2) and (3) of Directive 2012/12/EU, (1) and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well, be interpreted as precluding procedural rules under the criminal law of a Member State on the basis of which the safeguards for the rights of the defence following a change to the charge are guaranteed in terms that differ, both in quality and in quantity, depending on whether that change relates to the factual elements of the charge or to its legal classification, in particular allowing the accused person only in the first case to request the alternative and beneficial procedure of the imposition of a negotiated penalty (the ‘patteggiamento’ procedure)?

(1) Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 83/10

Appeal brought on 21 September 2017 by Cafés Pont SL against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-309/16: Cafés Pont v EUIPO — Giordano Vini

(Case C-559/17 P)

(2018/C 083/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Cafés Pont SL (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Giordano Vini SpA

By order of 11 January 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
1.

Having regard to Article 3(2)(c) of Directive 2003/86/EC (1) and to the Nolan judgment (EU:C:2012:638), does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction to answer questions referred for a preliminary ruling by courts in the Netherlands on the interpretation of provisions of Directive 2003/86/EC in proceedings concerning the right of residence of a member of the family of a person with subsidiary protection status, if that directive has, under Netherlands law, been declared directly and unconditionally applicable to persons with subsidiary protection status? (see the order for reference made by the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Chamber for Contentious Administrative Proceedings of the Council of State) of 21 June 2017, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1609; registered with the Court of Justice as Case C-380/17);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 8 November 2017 — Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v Orange Polska S.A.

(Case C-628/17)

(2018/C 104/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

Respondent: Orange Polska S.A.

Questions referred

Is Article 8, in conjunction with Articles 9 and 2(j), of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the use of standard forms for the conclusion of distance contracts relating to the provision of telecommunications services, under which a consumer is required to make the final business decision in the presence of the courier handing over the standard-form contract (general terms and conditions), an aggressive commercial practice by a trader owing to undue influence:

(a) always, where the consumer, during the courier’s visit, is unable freely to take cognisance of the content of the standard-form contract;

(b) only where the consumer has not previously and individually received all standard forms (for example, at his e-mail address or home address), even if he himself had the opportunity, prior to the courier’s visit, to take cognisance of their content on the trader’s website;

(c) only if additional findings were to point to unfair actions on the part of the trader, or on his behalf, for the purpose of restricting the consumer’s decision-making freedom in regard to the business decision which he has to make?

(1) OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.
2.

Second ground of appeal: infringement of Article 288 TFEU, of Articles 3 and 13(1) of the GBER 2008 and of the prohibition of discrimination The judgment infringes Article 288 TFEU and Articles 3 and 13(1) of the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER 2008), since the General Court, had it not erred in law in its assessment, should have conferred on the respondent no renewed competence to examine aid and declare its incompatibility by decision, in so far as that aid, up to the threshold level under Article 6(2) of the GBER 2008, had already been declared substantively compatible with the internal market on the basis of higher-ranking, secondary European Union law. Furthermore, as a consequence of the judgment under appeal, the prohibition on receiving aid in excess of EUR 17 million, up to the threshold level of the GBER 2008, discriminates against the appellant in comparison with its competitors, since it would have been possible for any — even a dominant — competitor in a comparable situation to receive aid, up to the threshold, for a comparably high level of investment under the German Investment Allowance Law.
(1)

Must the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC, (1) in particular the principles of proportionality, fiscal neutrality and effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding a practice whereby, in circumstances not involving tax fraud, the national tax authorities, when calculating the tax, refuse the right to deduct that may be exercised on the basis of a VAT invoice issued in accordance with the ordinary taxation regime, because they consider that the invoice for the transaction ought to have been issued in accordance with the reverse charge procedure, and fail, before refusing the right to deduct, to examine — whether the issuer of the invoice can reimburse the recipient of the invoice the amount of VAT paid in error, or — whether the issuer of the invoice may lawfully (within the national legal framework) correct and regularise that invoice, and in this way obtain from the tax authorities reimbursement of the tax paid by him in error?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

(Case C-625/17)

(2018/C 112/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

Defendant: Finanzamt Feldkirch

Question referred

Is legislation which imposes a charge on the basis of the balance sheet total of credit institutions contrary to the freedom to provide services under Article 56 et seq. TFEU and/or to the free movement of capital and payments under Article 63 TFEU if, for the purposes of the charge, banking transactions with clients in other Member States are taken into account for a credit institution with its seat in Austria whereas the same does not apply to a credit institution with its seat in Austria which enters into such transactions as the parent company of a group of credit institutions through a credit institution belonging to the group with its seat in another Member State, the balance sheet of which must, since it belongs to a group of companies, be consolidated with that of the credit institution acting as a parent company, because the charge is levied on the basis of the unconsolidated (that is to say, not included in a group financial statement) balance sheet total?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/4

Appeal brought on 21 November 2017 by Grupo Osborne S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2017 in Case T-350/13, Jordi Nogués v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)

(Case C-651/17 P)

(2018/C 190/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Grupo Osborne S.A. (represented by: J.M. Iglesias Monravá, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Jordi Nogués S.L. and European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 12 April 2018, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Grupo Osborne S.A. to bear its own costs.