ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/16

Appeal brought on 09/08/2013 by T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-279/11: T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda v European Commission

(Case C-456/13 P)

2013/C 325/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, avocat, D. Slater, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union, French Republic

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— declare the present appeal admissible and well founded;

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 in Case T-279/11 (‘the Contested Judgment’) to the extent it dismisses as inadmissible the Appellants' action for annulment and rejects its related pleas of illegality;

— refer the case back to the General Court for examination of the substance;

— order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants put forward the following grounds in support of their Appeal:

1. the GC committed an error of law in concluding that the Contested Regulations entailed implementing measures within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU;

2. the GC committed an error of law in concluding that Regulation 393/2011 (1) was not of individual concern to the Appellants;

3. the GC committed an en-or of law in rejecting the plea of illegality, as a result of errors (1) and (2) above.

As a result, the Appellants request your Court (i) to set aside the Contested Judgment to the extent that it declares inadmissible the Application for Annulment and rejects the plea of illegality; and (ii) refer the case back to the GC.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 393/2011 of 19 April 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences

OJ L 104, p. 39
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/43

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, and Others v Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.

(Case C-458/13)

2013/C 344/74

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants on a point of law: Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, Jürgen Reiser, Dirk Seidler

Respondents on a point of law: Nintendo Co. Ltd., Nintendo of America Inc.

Question referred

Does Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) preclude the application of a provision (in this case Paragraph 95a(3) of the UrhG [Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, Law on copyright and related rights]) which transposes Article 6(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC into national law if the technological measure in question protects not only works or other subject-matter but also computer programs?

(1) Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).
1.

Is there also a right to compensation analogous to Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) where the arrival of the flight originally booked by the passengers is delayed by more than three hours, the passengers however in the meantime –after a long flight departure delay had already occurred — voluntarily, autonomously and on their own account arranged replacement transportation with another airline company and therefore do not travel on the originally booked flight, the passengers arriving at the destination airport, on the replacement transportation, at a time which is more than three hours after the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 16 September 2013 — Gmina Międzyzdroje v Minister Finansów

(Case C-500/13)

2013/C 367/39

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gmina Międzyzdroje

Respondent: Minister Finansów

Question referred

Must Articles 167, 187 and 189 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and the principle of tax neutrality be interpreted as permitting provisions of national law such as Article 91(7) and (7a) of the Polish Law of 11 March 2004 on the tax on goods and services (Dz. U. No 177 of 2011, item 1054, as amended), which provide that, in the event of a change in the purpose of capital goods from use in activities not conferring entitlement to deduct input tax to use in activities which do confer such entitlement, the adjustment of deductions may not be effected on a one-off basis but must be spread over the subsequent five years, and, in the case of immovable property, over ten years, following the year in which the capital goods were surrendered for use?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
1.

Must Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (1) be interpreted to mean that it precludes legislation of a national or local authority which imposes, for budgetary purposes outside the purposes of that authorisation, a tax on mobile communications infrastructures used in the context of performing activities covered by a general authorisation granted pursuant to that directive (as the case may be, distinguishing the situation in which those infrastructures are established on private property from the situation in which they are established on public property)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/21

Appeal brought on 31 October 2013 by Planet AE Anonymi Etaireia Parochis Symvouleftikon Ypiresion against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2013 in Case T-489/12 Planet v Commission

(Case C-564/13 P)

2014/C 9/33

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Planet AE Anonymi Etaireia Parochis Symvouleftikon Ypiresion (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the General Court delivered on 9 September 2013 in Case T-489/12;

— refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the substance;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the order of the General Court delivered on 9 September 2013 in Case T-489/12 contains findings as to the law which are contrary to the rules of European Union law and challenges them by this appeal.

In the appellant’s opinion, the order under appeal should be set aside, because the court misinterpreted and misapplied European Union law, as regards the content of the interest in bringing proceedings which is required, under European Union law, for the bringing of declaratory proceedings the subject-matter of which is determining a breach of contractual obligations and as regards whether that [interest in bringing proceedings] is vested and present.
1.

Must Articles 2(e) and (f), 15, 18, 28 and 29 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC 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’ (1) be interpreted as meaning that not only a person who has been granted, at his request, subsidiary protection status by an independent authority of the Member State must be entitled to benefit from the social welfare and health care referred to in Articles 28 and 29 of that directive, but also a foreign national who has been authorised by an administrative authority of a Member State to reside in the territory of that Member State and who suffers from an illness occasioning a real risk to his life or physical integrity or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the case where there is no appropriate treatment in his country of origin or in the country in which he resides?
2.

Does Article 11(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 provide that all the specimens covered by the permits or certificates deemed void in accordance with Article 11(2)(a) must be seized, and may be confiscated, or only those which are actually affected by the ground for invalidity?
4.

The General Court erred in law in holding that EIH could not rely upon Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 in contesting its designation and in holding that the sanctions imposed on EIH ensured a preventative effect that could not be achieved by the Bundesbank no longer approving the Third Way or authorising such transactions: — On the hypothesis (which is denied) that EIH acted unlawfully, Article 32(2) precluded the designation of EIH, because EIH acted in accordance with the advice and directions of the Bundesbank in every respect and did not know nor did it have reasonable cause to suspect that it had acted unlawfully. — The imposition of restrictive measures on EIH was disproportionate because more proportionate measures existed, since if the Council considered that the German regulatory regime required review and perhaps modification, it could have suggested such a review to the German authorities, and the German authorities would have been bound to cooperate under their duty of sincere cooperation, which the General Court wrongly failed to take into account. — The General Court also erred in law and reached a conclusion inconsistent with the documents in the file in concluding that the restrictive measures were proportionate because in EIH’s case the relevant transactions only came to light after the event. In the first place, the Bundesbank approved the Third Way before EIH acted in accordance with that approval. In the second place, if a review of its approval of Third Way transactions by the Bundesbank had led to a change in the Bundesbank’s position that would have had a preventative effect for all future transactions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 22 November 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani v Polixeni Guletsou

(Case C-598/13)

2014/C 24/21

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani

Defendant: Polixeni Guletsou

Question referred

Is Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope a bilateral agreement which two Member States entered into before the date on which that regulation became applicable and by which those States agreed to the termination of obligations relating to social security benefits owed by one State to nationals of the other State who had been political refugees in the territory of the first State and who have been repatriated to the territory of the second State, in exchange for a payment by the first State of a lump sum for the payment of pensions and to cover periods during which social security contributions were paid in the first Member State?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/8

Appeal brought on 15 November 2013 by Intra-Presse against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-448/11: Golden Balls Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-581/13 P)

2014/C 24/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Intra-Presse (represented by: P. Péters, advocaat, T. de Haan, avocat, M. Laborde, avocate)

Otherparties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); Golden Balls Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Court of 16 September 2013 in Case T-448/11;

— refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union to rule on the action brought by Intra-Presse under Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1);

— order that the costs be reserved.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the following grounds.

Firstly, the General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in defining the relevant public, in assessing the degree of conceptual similarity between marks by adding a requirement of ‘intellectual process of translation’, ‘begin by translating’ or ‘prior translation’, and in omitting to take the reputation of the earlier mark for services in Class 41 into account. Secondly, the General Court infringed Article 8(5) CTMR by failing to carry out a global assessment and omitting to examine the relevance of the reputation of Appellant’s earlier mark and the existence of a possible link.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1
1.

Does Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests or Article 53b(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (2) of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (3) of 13 December 2006, provide national authorities with a legal basis on which they may alter, to the detriment of a grant recipient, and seek to recover from that recipient a grant already determined and provided from the European Refugee Fund?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/24

Appeal brought on 5 December 2013 by Villeroy & Boch against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch Austria and Others v Commission

(Case C-644/13 P)

2014/C 45/41

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch (represented by: J. Philippe, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10, in so far as it dismisses the appellant’s action;

— in the alternative, annul in part the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013;

— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of 23 June 2010;

— also in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant puts forward four grounds of appeal.

By the first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that there is a contradiction in the General Court’s assessment of the evidence relating to all of the facts concerning France. The General Court assessed, in the judgment under appeal, three items of evidence in a manner which was contrary, even diametrically opposed, to its findings in relation to that same evidence in the parallel Joined Cases T-379/10 and T-381/10 Sanitec, and T-380/10 Wabco, Ideal Standard and Others, in which the applicants were acquitted in respect of the allegations relating to France. According to the appellant in the present case, such a fundamental contradiction — as evidenced by the opposite conclusions reached in respect of the same evidence — infringes the principle of equal treatment and the principle of in dubio pro reo and also adversely affects the logical and legal consistency of the General Court’s judgment.

By the second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law. The General Court, it submits, artificially grouped together acts that were legally distinct and factually unrelated in order to classify them as constituting one continuous and complex infringement. Moreover, the General Court failed to take account of the fact that the measures in question, which it had nevertheless examined together, were not complementary.

By the third ground of appeal, the appellant criticises the extent of the review carried out by the General Court, which confined itself to a limited review and, by so doing, failed to exercise in full its powers of judicial review and revision. The appellant takes the view that this amounts to an infringement of its right to a fair hearing.

By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the fine imposed is disproportionate.
—

in the alternative, since Roca Sanitario did not participate directly in the infringement and its liability arises purely from the attribution to it of its subsidiaries’ conduct, in the event that the Court rules on the parallel appeals which Laufen Austria and Roca France intend to bring against the judgments of the General Court of 16 September 2013 in Cases T-411/10 and T-412/10 and reduces the fine imposed on those subsidiaries jointly and severally with Roca Sanitario, apply an equivalent reduction of the fine to Roca Sanitario, in accordance with the principles established in paragraph 203 of the judgment under appeal;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/5

Action brought on 19 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-678/13)

2014/C 61/08

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and D. Milanowska, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare, on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 258 TFEU, that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT to, inter alia, supplies of: — medical equipment, aids and other appliances which are not intended for the exclusive personal use of disabled persons and/or which are not normally intended to alleviate or treat disability; — products such as, inter alia, disinfectants, products and preparations for pharmaceutical use, as well as spa products, which are not pharmaceutical products of a kind normally used for health care, prevention of illnesses or as treatment for medical and veterinary purposes, or products used for contraception and sanitary protection, mentioned in Annex 3 to the Polish Law on VAT with reference to medical equipment, medical goods and pharmaceutical products, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 98 of the VAT Directive, (1) in conjunction with Annex III to that directive;

— order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action the Commission submits that the Republic of Poland applies a reduced rate of VAT to goods which do not belong in any of the categories of goods mentioned in Annex III to the VAT Directive. Those goods must, however, be made subject to tax at the standard rate as they cannot come within the scope of the exception provided for in Article 98(2) of the Directive.

In the Commission’s view, the goods in issue cannot be classified as being either pharmaceutical products of a kind normally used for health case, prevention of illnesses and as a treatment for medical and veterinary purposes, or as equipment normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, for the exclusive personal use of disabled persons. Furthermore, several categories of goods covered by the reduced rate of VAT pursuant to the Polish provisions are unclear or formulated imprecisely, thereby making it impossible to determine which goods are in fact involved.

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
1.

Must the legislation of a Member State under which no provision is made for a right of appeal to a higher court in the event of the dismissal of an application, made in the course of mortgage enforcement proceedings, to have a contractual term disapplied on the ground that it is unfair, be interpreted as failing to provide adequate and effective means to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers, and as failing to observe the right to take action before the competent national courts for a decision as to whether contractual terms drawn up for general use are unfair, so that those courts can apply appropriate and effective means to prevent the continued use of such terms?
2.

Is the first sentence of Article 13 of Directive 2003/109 to be interpreted as meaning that one of the more favourable terms on which Member States may issue a ‘long-term resident’s EC residence permit’ of permanent or unlimited validity is that, where a person has already acquired long-term resident status, having satisfied the pre-condition laid down in Article 4(1) of that directive, under which legal and continuous residence in the Member State concerned for five years is required, members of that person’s family for the purposes of Article 2(e) of the directive are to be deemed also to have satisfied that condition, irrespective of the length of time for which they have resided in the national territory of the Member State in which the application is submitted?
1.

Must Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Article 186 thereof, Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation and practice of a Member State which prevent the payment of default interest on amounts of value added tax which could not be claimed under legislation which the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled to be contrary to Community law, although in other cases the Member State’s legislation provides for the payment of interest in the event of the delayed repayment of value added tax which can be claimed back?
First ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law, through the application of an erroneous interpretation of the terms ‘investigation’ and ‘undermine the protection of (…) the purpose of (…) investigations’ as set out in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 (1).

The General Court erred in law when it stated, categorically, that ‘the studies at issue are part of an investigation conducted by the Commission, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001’.

As a first branch of this ground of appeal, the General Court misinterpreted the term ‘investigation’.

Second branch: even considering that an investigation took place, the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the term ‘undermine’. The General Court linked the concept of disclosure with the concept of undermining, without providing a concrete demonstration of how exactly disclosure would have undermined the ‘purpose’ of investigations.