ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Must the general indicator of control referred to in Paragraph 20.15 of [Annex A to] Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 (‘the ESA 2010’) (‘the ability to determine the general policy or programme of [a non-profit institution]’) be interpreted in a substantive sense as the ability to manage, constrain and influence the management activity of the non-profit institution or can it be understood in a non-technical sense as also covering powers of external supervision other than those defined by the specific indicators of control referred to in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Paragraph 20.15 (such as, for example, powers to approve budgets, appoint auditors, and approve statutes and certain types of regulations, sports guidelines or recognition for the purposes of sport)?
5)

Does art. 20(3) of regulation 604/2013 have the effect that in the absence of any evidence to displace a presumption that it is in the best interests of a child to treat his or her situation as indissociable from that of the parents, the national decision maker is not required to consider such best interests separately from the parents as a discrete issue or as a starting point for consideration of whether the transfer should be take place?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/11

Appeal brought on 1 August 2017 by Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio Ss against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2017 in Case T-172/17, Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio v Parliament and Council

(Case C-467/17 P)

(2018/C 032/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio Ss (represented by: F. Longo, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

By order of 29 November 2017, the Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Società agricola Taboga Leandro e Fidenato Giorgio Ss to bear its own costs.
2.

Is it not therefore sufficient for the requirements of Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 if the product in question satisfies the general functional definition of a class of active ingredients in the claims, but is not otherwise indicated in individualised form as a specific embodiment of the method protected by the basic patent?
1)

Does the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) preclude national legislation — in the present case, the provision in Article 2(1)(i) of the Código de Direitos de Autor e Direitos Conexos (CDADC) — which confers copyright protection on works of applied art, industrial designs and works of design which, in addition to the utilitarian purpose they serve, create their own visual and distinctive effect from an aesthetic point of view, their originality being the fundamental criterion which governs the grant of protection in the area of copyright?
3.

If the parties liable are determined on the basis of national provisions of a Member State, are national rules under which a company which, after acquiring the entire share capital of a company which took part in a cartel contrary to Article 101 TFEU, has dissolved the company in question and continued its activity is not liable for compensation for the damage caused by the anti-competitive conduct of the company in question, even though obtaining compensation form the dissolved company is impossible in practice or unreasonably difficult, contrary to the EU law requirement of effectiveness? Does the requirement of effectiveness preclude an interpretation of a Member State’s domestic law making it a condition of compensation for damage that a transformation of the kind described has been implemented unlawfully or artificially in order to avoid liability for compensation for damage under competition law or otherwise fraudulently, or at least that the company knew or ought to have known of the competition infringement when implementing the transformation?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 28 December 2017 — Edward Reich, Debora Lieber, Ella Reich, Ezra Bernard Reich v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

(Case C-730/17)

(2018/C 104/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Edward Reich, Debora Lieber, Ella Reich, Ezra Bernard Reich

Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

Question referred

Are Articles 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) (‘Regulation No 261/2004’) to be interpreted as meaning that — in the case where an operating Community air carrier, for the purposes of Regulation No 261/2004, concludes a contract for the carriage of passengers by air with consumers that includes a train journey from a railway station located in the territory of a Member State in which those consumers reside to an airport located in the territory of a second Member State from which the consumers will take their flight to their final destination, namely an airport located in the territory of a non-Member country, and those consumers have no legal connection with the company carrying out the train journey but the air carrier clearly has agreements with that company, and there was a long delay in the train journey, which is included in the contract, that resulted in those consumers being unable to catch their flight from the airport located in the territory of the second Member State — those consumers may rely on the rights provided for by Regulation No 261/2004 and demand compensation in accordance with Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that regulation?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
1.

Does a situation whereby an heir inherits a forest area located outside Belgium, which is managed in a sustainable manner, and which is not exempt from inheritance tax under Article 55c of the Flemish Code on Inheritance Tax (now Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Tax Code), whereas an heir who inherits a forest area in Flanders which is managed in a sustainable manner is exempt from inheritance tax under Article 55c of the Flemish Code on Inheritance Tax (now Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Tax Code), constitute an impediment to the free movement of capital as laid down in Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA)

(Case C-697/17)

(2018/C 112/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Telecom Italia SpA

Respondents: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA)

Question referred

Must the first sentence of Article 28(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) be interpreted as requiring pre-qualified operators and those who submit tenders in the context of a restricted procedure to be completely legally and economically identical and, in particular, must that provision be interpreted as precluding the conclusion of an agreement between the holding companies which control two pre-qualified operators at some point between pre-qualification and the submission of tenders, where: (a) that agreement has as its purpose and effect (inter alia) the completion of a merger by the absorption of one of those pre-qualified undertakings into the other (a transaction which, however, is authorised by the European Commission); (b) the effects of that merger were fully realised after the submission of a tender by the absorbing undertaking (for which reason, at the time the tender was submitted, its composition had not changed from that which existed at the time of pre-qualification); (c) the undertaking then absorbed (whose composition had not changed at the time of the deadline for submitting tenders) has however stated that it is not taking part in the restricted procedure, probably in implementation of the contractual schedule established by the agreement drawn up between the holding companies?

(1) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Unareti SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

(Case C-702/17)

(2018/C 112/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Unareti SpA

Respondents: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento per gli Affari Regionali, Autorità Garante per l’Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idrico — Sede di Milano, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Conferenza Stato Regioni ed Unificata, Ministero per gli affari regionali, Dipartimento per gli affari regionali e le autonomie, Conferenza Unificata Stato Regioni e Enti Locali

Questions referred

In particular, the Court is asked to establish whether those principles and laws preclude national legislation, as described above, that provides for retrospective application of criteria for determining the amount of the reimbursements payable to former concession holders, thus affecting previous contractual relationships, or whether the application of those criteria can be justified, including in view of the proportionality principle, by the requirement of protecting other public interests of European importance, relating to the necessity of improving protection for competition within the market in question and of giving greater protection to service users, who could indirectly bear the cost of an increase in the sums payable to former concession holders.
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-386/15, Jordi Nogués v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)

(Case C-652/17 P)

(2018/C 190/06)

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.
2.

Should Article 15(2)(a) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (2) … be interpreted as meaning that a statutory provision which introduces a restriction on the location of wind farms by establishing a minimum distance between a wind farm and a residential building or mixed-use building used for residential purposes, stating that this distance is to be equal to or greater than ten times the height of the wind farm measured from ground level to the highest point of the structure, including technical elements, in particular the rotor and rotor blades, is a provision that makes access to a service activity or the exercise of it subject to territorial restrictions, in particular in the form of limits fixed according to a minimum geographical distance between providers, of which a Member State is to notify the Commission pursuant to Article 15(7) of that directive?
Case C-357/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Lydia Wieczorek and Paul Wieczorek v TUIfly GmbH

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Lydia Wieczorek and Paul Wieczorek v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-357/17)

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Lydia Wieczorek, Paul Wieczorek

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

By decision of the Court of Justice of 17 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.
Case C-353/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Iris Michardt and Detlef Michardt v TUIfly GmbH

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Iris Michardt and Detlef Michardt v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-353/17)

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Iris Michardt, Detlef Michardt

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

By decision of the Court of Justice of 17 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of DIREKTexpress Holding AG v Finanzamt Ulm

(Case C-4/18)

(2018/C 123/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of DIREKTexpress Holding AG

Defendant: Finanzamt Ulm

Question referred

Is an undertaking which effects the formal service of documents pursuant to provisions of public law a ‘universal service provider’, within the meaning of Article 2.13 of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997, (1) providing a universal postal service in whole or in part, and is such service exempt from tax under Article 132(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (2)

(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

(2) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/21

Action brought on 9 January 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-20/18)

(2018/C 104/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, J. Samnadda and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— find that, by failing to adopt, by no later than 10 April 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72), or in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43(1) of that directive;

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 12 920 per day, from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case, for failure to comply with the obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/26/EU;

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Member States were required, under Article 43(1) of Directive 2014/26/EU, to adopt the national measures required to transpose the obligations under that directive by no later than 10 April 2016. As Luxembourg failed to notify any measures transposing that directive, the Commission decided to bring the present action before the Court of Justice.

In its application, the Commission proposes that Luxembourg should be ordered to pay a penalty payment of EUR 12 920 per day. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated by taking into account the gravity and duration of the infringement, as well as the deterrent effect in the light of that Member State’s ability to pay.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 19 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Massimo Gambino and Shpetim Hyka

(Case C-38/18)

(2018/C 142/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Bari

Parties to the main proceedings

Massimo Gambino, Shpetim Hyka

Question referred

Must Articles 16, 18 and 20(b) of Directive 2012/29/EU (1) be interpreted as precluding the victim of a crime from having to give evidence again before the court sitting in a new composition when one of the parties to the proceedings, in accordance with Articles 511(2) and 525(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as consistently interpreted by the case-law of the Supreme Court of Cassation), does not consent to that court reading the written record of the oral evidence previously given by that victim, in accordance with the audi alteram partem rule, before a different bench in the same proceedings?

(1) Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ 2012 L 315, p. 57).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki upravni sud (Croatia) lodged on 8 February 2018 — Hrvatska banka za obnovu i razvitak (HBOR) v Povjerenik za informiranje Republike Hrvatske

(Case C-90/18)

(2018/C 134/22)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Visoki upravni sud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hrvatska banka za obnovu i razvitak (HBOR)

Defendant: Povjerenik za informiranje Republike Hrvatske

Question referred

Must the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU and Articles 4(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) be interpreted as precluding national legislation providing that access to information regarding the use of public funds must always be permitted, without exceptions, even when access to that information is restricted on account of its constituting a trade (banking) secret?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 24 January 2018 — Finanzamt Trier v Cardpoint GmbH, as successor in law of Moneybox Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-42/18)

(2018/C 152/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt Trier

Respondent on a point of law: Cardpoint GmbH, as successor in law of Moneybox Deutschland GmbH

Question referred

Is technical and administrative assistance provided by a supplier of services to a bank operating a cash point (ATM) for cash withdrawals from the bank exempt from tax under Article 13.B(d)(3) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) in the case where technical and administrative assistance of the same nature provided by a supplier of services for payments by card in connection with the sale of cinema tickets is, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26 May 2016, Bookit, C-607/14, (EU:C:2016:355), not exempt from tax under that provision?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/36

Action brought on 14 February 2018 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-116/18)

(2018/C 142/47)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda, L. Nicolae and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— find that, by failing to adopt, by 10 April 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, (1) or, in any event, because it did not communicate such measures to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43(1) of that directive;

— order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 42 377,60 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure full transposition of Directive 2014/26/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

— order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 43(1) of Directive 2014/26/EU, the Member States are under an obligation to adopt and implement the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 10 April 2016, and to communicate those measures to the Commission. Therefore, it is for the Member States to adopt the measures necessary to transpose a directive into national law within the prescribed time limit and to communicate those measures to the Commission.

The Commission also proposes that a penalty of EUR 42 377,60 be applied to Romania for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure full transposition of Directive 2014/26/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case. The amount of that penalty has been determined by taking into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement, as well as the need to ensure that the penalty has a deterrent effect, according to that Member State’s ability to pay.

The time limit for transposing the directive into national law expired on 10 April 2016.

(1) OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72.
5.

If the place where the consumer must offer goods acquired under a distance contract to an undertaking for examination and to enable repair is — in all cases or in this specific case — the undertaking’s place of business and a requirement for the consumer to pay costs in advance is compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, in conjunction with Article 3(4) thereof: Is the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC, in conjunction with the second indent of Article 3(5) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer who has merely notified a defect to the undertaking is not entitled to have a contract rescinded without offering to transport the goods to the place where the undertaking is located?