ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Second ground of appeal: Infringement of EU law on account of infringement of the appellant’s fundamental rights The appellant submits that the judgment is also erroneous in so far as the General Court’s decision infringes the appellant’s fundamental rights, in particular Article 15(1) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which protect the right to pursue an occupation and the right to property. It maintains that the General Court erroneously assumes that the essence of those fundamental rights is not affected. The appellant takes the view that this is not, however, the case. It submits that without the allocation on the ground of hardship it will not be able to continue its activities as a producer of lignite wax or continue to use its lignite wax extraction installation.
1.

Is Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, etc. (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) to be interpreted as precluding a national scheme such as that provided for in Paragraph 3 of the Danish Markedsføringsloven, which prohibits misleading marketing practices, including in connection with invitations to purchase, but which neither in Paragraph 3 or elsewhere in the law refers to the limitations arising as a result of Article 7(1) of the Directive, under which account is to be taken of whether a marketing practice omits material information, that the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision, and as a result of Article 7(3), under which account should be taken of the fact that the communications medium used imposes limitations of time and space?
1.

Does Article 1 of Directive 2003/96/EC (1) preclude national tax relief for energy products used for thermal exhaust air treatment or does the directive not apply to such energy products pursuant to the second indent of Article 2(4)(b) of Directive 2003/96/EC because use for thermal exhaust air treatment is a purpose other than as motor fuels or as heating fuels and this therefore constitutes dual use of energy products within the meaning of that provision?
2.

Is Article 107 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU and Article 4(1) and (2) of the Decision of the European Commission of 25 September 2007, interpreted in the light of points 3.3 and 4.2 of the Stranded Costs Methodology, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the implementation of a State aid programme which the European Commission has found to be compatible with the common market, the annual adjustment of the stranded costs incurred by group-affiliated power generators is carried out on the assumption that the position with respect to the group affiliation of the power generator as recorded in the annexes to the legislative measure examined by the Commission is alone decisive, or is it necessary to verify in respect of every year for which stranded costs are adjusted whether, during that period, the beneficiary of the State aid programme linked to the stranded costs actually belongs to the group to which the other power generators covered by the aid programme also belong?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 30 December 2014 — Virpi Komu, Hanna Ruotsalainen, Ritva Komu v Pekka Komu, Jelena Komu

(Case C-605/14)

(2015/C 081/11)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Virpi Komu, Hanna Ruotsalainen, Ritva Komu

Respondents: Pekka Komu, Jelena Komu

Question referred

Is Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that in a case in which some of the co-owners of immoveable property apply for the property to be sold for the purpose of the dissolution of the co-ownership relationship and for the trustee to carry out the sale is a question concerning rights in rem in immovable property?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 29 December 2014 by El Corte Inglés, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2014 in Case T-515/12 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — English Cut (The English Cut)

(Case C-603/14 P)

(2015/C 107/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: El Corte Inglés, S.A. (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2014 in Case T-515/12 in its entirety;

— order the party or parties opposing this appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The first ground of appeal is based on distortion of the facts, in that the General Court, in its judgment of 15 October 2014, categorised the conceptual similarity between the signs as low, whereas the Board of Appeal of OHIM took the view that there is conceptual similarity.

2. The second ground of appeal is based on infringement of Community law, in that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 (1) was applied incorrectly.

3. The third ground of appeal is based on infringement of Community law, in that Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 was applied incorrectly.

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

Should Article 18 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as that figuring in the main proceedings according to which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the authorities of that Member State may be used on the roads in the Member State, and a person resident in the Member State who is not a worker within the meaning of EU law and who seeks exemption from that provision on the grounds that he is using a vehicle made available to him by an undertaking established in another Member State is required to prove on the spot the lawfulness of its use under the law of the Member State concerned, during a police inspection, on pain of an immediate fine from which no exemption is possible, the amount of which is equivalent to the fine that may be imposed for failure to register the vehicle?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/11

Appeal brought on 29 December 2014 by AQ against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2014 in Case T-168/11 AQ v European Parliament

(Case C-615/14 P)

(2015/C 398/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: AQ

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 17 September 2015, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) ordered that the case be removed from the Register as being manifestly inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Sofia (Municipal Court Sofia) (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2014 — Rumyana Asenova Petrus v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-451/14)

(2015/C 138/33)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Sofia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rumyana Asenova Petrus

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

By order of 5 February 2015, the Court ruled that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Rayonen sad Sofia (Bulgaria)
2.

Does Article 11.7 of the Order of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance of the Community of Madrid of 28 January 2013 infringe the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and is it therefore inapplicable, because it provides that ‘at the end of the appointment period, termination of service and payment of all outstanding remuneration corresponding to the period of services provided must be carried out in all cases, including those in which the person concerned is subsequently to be reappointed’, irrespective, therefore, of whether or not the specific, objective reasons justifying the appointment have come to an end, as required under Clause 3.1 of the Framework Agreement?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2015 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v Innova Vital GmbH

(Case C-19/15)

(2015/C 127/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.

Defendant: Innova Vital GmbH

Question referred

Must Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of that regulation apply also to nutrition and health claims made in commercial communications in advertisements for foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer if the commercial communication or advertisement is addressed exclusively to the professional sector?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods; OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.
2.

Exercise its full jurisdiction and, based on the elements available to it: Principally — Award Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. an amount of EUR 5 6 62 737,40, plus interest, for the material damages suffered as a result of a serious breach of a rule of law and illegal conduct by the Council of the European Union. — Award Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. an amount of EUR 2 0 00 000, plus interest, for the non-material damages suffered as a result of a serious breach of a rule of law and illegal conduct by the Council of the European Union. — Order the Council of the European Union to pay the appellant’s legal and other costs incurred in connection with this appeal, including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure before the General Court, plus interest. Alternatively — Award Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. an amount determined ex aequo et bono, plus interest, for the material damages suffered as a result of the serious breach of a rule of law and illegal conduct by the Council of the European Union. — Award Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. an amount determined ex aequo et bono, but not less than EUR 50 000, plus interest, (as already awarded by the referenced judgment of the General Court), for the non-material damages suffered as a result of the serious breach of a rule of law and illegal conduct by the Council of the European Union. — Order the Council of the European Union. to pay Safa Nicu Sepahan Co.’s legal and other costs incurred in connection with this appeal, including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure before the General Court, plus interest. More alternatively
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/31

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2015 — Gicacomo Bolasco di Gianni Bolasco S.a.s. v Comune di Monastir, Equitalia Centro SpA

(Case C-37/15)

(2015/C 138/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gicacomo Bolasco di Gianni Bolasco S.a.s.

Defendants: Comune di Monastir, Equitalia Centro SpA

Question referred

Does Community law preclude the rules laid down in Article 188 of Legislative Decree No 152/2006 and the Decree of the Minister for the Environment of 17 December 2009, under which the entry into force of the legislation transposing Directive 2008/98/EC (1) into national law is to be deferred pending the adoption of a ministerial decree laying down the related technical rules and specifying the time-limits within which that implementing legislation is to enter into force?

(1) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2003 L 312, p. 3).
3.

Does Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 7(2)(a), of Directive 2008/118/EC preclude a national provision under which the competence of the Member State of destination to levy duty (apart from being excluded in the cases provided for in Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/118/EC) is made subject only to the detection of the occurrence of an irregularity and the impossibility of determining the place where that irregularity occurred, or is it also necessary to establish that, by being removed from the duty suspension arrangement, the excise goods have been released for consumption?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdoenst/Douane

(Case C-91/15)

(2015/C 146/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kawasaki Motors Europe NV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdoenst/Douane

Question referred

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1051/2009 (1) of 3 November 2009 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid?

(1) OJ 2009 L 290, p. 56.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/13

Appeal brought on 4 February 2015 by BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 December 2014 in Case T-595/13 BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-43/15 P)

(2015/C 146/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 December 2014 in Case T-595/13;

— annul the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 September 2013 and 3 December 2013 (Case R 1176/2012-1);

in the alternative,

— refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court by which that court dismissed the action brought by the appellant against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 September 2013 in opposition proceedings R 1176/2012-1.

The appellant relies upon two grounds of appeal:

First, it alleges an infringement of Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), in that the General Court failed to observe the fact that the Board of Appeal was not allowed to vary the decision of the Opposition Division to the detriment of the appellant, since no admissible complaint had been brought by the respondent and Article 8(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal does not provide for cross-appeals.

Second, the appellant relies on an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. Where an earlier trade mark presents an easily recognisable alteration of a descriptive indication and the more recent trade mark itself contains that descriptive indication, even a high degree of similarity of the signs and identity of the goods cannot lead to a finding of a likelihood of confusion if the similarities of the signs are limited to the descriptive indication and relate only to goods which are described by that indication.

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

Must the last paragraph of Note 5(C) to Chapter 84 of the CN — whether or not having regard to Attachments A and B to the Information Technology Agreement — be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the screenplays described in this judgment are to be classified as ‘hard disk drives’ in subheading 8471 70 50 of the CN, even though the apparatus has features and characteristics such that it is capable of reproducing on a television set or video monitor multimedia files stored on the hard disks, after converting those files into analogue signals?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 20 March 2015 — María Pilar Plaza Bravo v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. Dirección Provincial de Álava

(Case C-137/15)

(2015/C 178/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: María Pilar Plaza Bravo

Respondent: Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. Dirección Provincial de Álava

Question referred

Is it contrary to Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC (1) of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (‘the Directive’), in circumstances such as those of this case, for national legislation under which, in order for the amount of the benefit for total unemployment to be received by an employee following the loss of her only part-time employment to be calculated, a reduction coefficient for part-time work that corresponds to the percentage represented by the part-time working hours in relation to the hours completed by a comparable worker employed full-time is applied to the maximum amount [of unemployment benefit] generally laid down by law, regard being had to the fact that in that Member State the vast majority of part-time workers are women?

(1) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Pau (France) lodged on 6 March 2015 — Association des Utilisateurs et Distributeurs de l’Agro Chimie Européenne (Audace), Phyteron 2000 SAS, Association des éleveurs solidaires, Cruzalebes EARL, Des deux rivières EARL, Mounacq EARL v GAEC Reconnu La Vinardière, Ministère public

(Case C-114/15)

(2015/C 171/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Pau

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Association des Utilisateurs et Distributeurs de l’Agro Chimie Européenne (Audace), Phyteron 2000 SAS, Association des éleveurs solidaires, Cruzalebes EARL, Des deux rivières EARL, Mounacq EARL

Respondents: GAEC Reconnu La Vinardière, Ministère public

Questions referred

1. Does national legislation comply with Articles 34 to 36 TFEU in so far as it reserves access to parallel imports of veterinary medicinal products exclusively to wholesale distributors in possession of the authorisation provided for under Article 65 of Directive 2001/82/EC (1), thus excluding those with retail distribution rights and livestock farmers?

2. On a proper construction of Article 65 of Directive 2001/82/EC and Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC (2) (the ‘services’ Directive), is a Member State entitled not to recognise authorisations for the wholesale distribution of veterinary medicinal products that are issued by the competent authorities of other Member States to their own nationals and to require that those nationals additionally hold wholesale distribution authorisations issued by its own competent authorities in order to be entitled to apply for and to use authorisations for the parallel importation of veterinary medicinal products within that Member State?

3. Does national legislation comply with Articles 34, 36 and 56 TFEU and Article 16 of Directive 2006/123 in so far as it assimilates parallel importers of veterinary medicinal products to holders of an operating licence which is not required under Directive 2001/82/EC, as amended, establishing a Community Code for veterinary medicinal products, and which consequently requires such importers to have available to them an establishment in the territory of the Member State concerned and to have successfully completed all the pharmacovigilance operations provided for under Articles 72 to 79 of Directive 2001/82/EC?

(1) Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 3 April 2015 — Samira Achbita, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV

(Case C-157/15)

(2015/C 205/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Samira Achbita, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding

Defendant: G4S Secure Solutions NV

Question referred

Should Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on wearing, as a female Muslim, a headscarf at the workplace does not constitute direct discrimination where the employer’s rule prohibits all employees from wearing outward signs of political, philosophical and religious beliefs at the workplace?

(1) OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
—

whether a bank guarantee, provided in order to obtain an advance on export refunds, may not be enforced where it is only during inspections carried out after the actual export and customs clearance of the goods at issue that it is established that ‘other conditions’ have not yet been satisfied;
2)

Is an injunction that may be issued to desist from using a particular term (in accordance with Articles 6(1) and 7(1)) in an individual action brought by a consumer when such a declaration is made compatible with a limitation of the effects of a declaration of nullity? May (the courts) alter the reimbursement of any sums paid by the consumer — which the seller or supplier is obliged to reimburse — under the term subsequently declared void ex tunc, for want of information and/or of transparency?
1.

Is a national provision, such as Article 5(3) of Law No 1387/1983, which lays down as a condition in order for collective redundancies to be effected in a specific undertaking that the administrative authorities must authorise the redundancies in question on the basis of criteria as to (a) the conditions in the labour market, (b) the situation of the undertaking and (c) the interests of the national economy compatible with Directive 98/59/EC (1) in particular and, more generally, Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU?
1)

Is it the case that certain products in relation to which the results of an examination of samples taken from various batches of goods do not disclose the presence of denaturing agents or of other noxious substances rendering them unfit for human consumption but which, according to the information supplied by the producer, cannot be used for food (food production and food chain) since, owing to the characteristics of the production process, the presence of noxious substances in the product cannot be ruled out, must be generally classified under one of the CN headings of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, which are intended to cover non-food products or, on the contrary, must such products be generally classified under one of the CN headings intended to cover food products?