ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Is Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that only persons granted asylum with permanent residence be given social assistance in the form of needs-based minimum benefits in full and to the same extent as nationals of the Member State, but provides for the reduction of social assistance from needs-based minimum benefits for those persons granted asylum with only temporary residence, and consequently, in the same amount of social assistance as is awarded to persons eligible for subsidiary protection?
Case C-316/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2017 — Rainer Hadamek and Others v TUIfly GmbH

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2017 — Rainer Hadamek and Others v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-316/17)

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rainer Hadamek, Heike Hadamek, Florian Hadamek, Carina Hadamek

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-307/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 26 May 2017 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 26 May 2017 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-307/17)

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EUflight.de GmbH

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

By decision of the Court of Justice of 8 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/27

Action brought on 6 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-77/18)

(2018/C 112/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers, P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, or by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— impose on the Republic of Austria, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, by reason of the infringement of the obligation to notify the transposition measures, a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 42 377 per day;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Member States were required, under Article 90(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, to adopt the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations under that directive into national law by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Since the Republic of Austria failed to adopt all the required laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive, or failed to give notification of those provisions to the Commission, the Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

By its application, the Commission requests the Court to impose a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 42 377 per day on the Republic of Austria. The amount of that penalty payment has been calculated taking into account the gravity and duration of the infringement and the deterrent effect based on that Member State’s ability to pay.

(1) OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.
1.

Can Article 148(4) of Regulation No 1308/2013 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of strengthening the negotiating powers of raw milk producers and preventing unfair commercial practices, and taking into account certain particular structural features of the milk and milk products sector of the Member State and changes in the market for milk, it does not prohibit the establishment of a national legal regulatory framework which restricts the freedom of contracting parties to negotiate the purchase price of raw milk in the sense that a raw milk buyer is prohibited from paying different raw milk prices to raw milk sellers from the same group, grouped according to the volume of milk sold, who do not belong to a recognised milk producers’ organisation, for raw milk of the same quality and composition as that delivered to the buyer via the same method, and, thus, the parties are unable to agree on a different raw milk purchase price by taking into account any other factors?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Detlef Meyn

(Case C-9/18)

(2018/C 134/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Accused party: Detlef Meyn

Question referred

Does the obligation of recognition under Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (1) — the third driving licences directive (‘the Driving Licences Directive’) — also apply following the exchange of a driving licence by a Member State of the European Union without a test of fitness to drive, in the case where the previous driving licence is not subject to the obligation of recognition (in this case: the previous licence issued by another Member State of the European Union was for its part based on the exchange of a driving licence from a third country (third sentence of Article 11(6) of the Driving Licences Directive))?

(1) OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.
2.

The first ground of appeal alleges that the judgment under appeal is incorrect, since the General Court was incorrect to find that the application for registration of EU trade mark No 13 945 423 EZMIX is descriptive for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of the regulation and was not sufficiently distinctive for the purpose of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of the regulation. Since EZMIX in its entirety is a distinctive sign, the General Court erred in finding that there were grounds for refusal under the regulation. The General Court failed to have regard to all the relevant facts of the case concerning the application’s significance, use and association as regards the relevant public. The General Court thus erred in law.
5.

In the third place, removing the applicant from his post as Governor of the Bank of Latvia was based on a misinterpretation of Union law by the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption in so far as it stated that the applicant did not perform his functions on the Governing Council of the European Central Bank independently and in the interest of the European Central Bank, but rather performed those functions as Governor of the Bank of Latvia and acted in the interest of the Bank of Latvia. However, Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the European Central Bank is an institution of the European Union. In the exercise of their functions, officials of EU institutions may exercise only the powers provided for in Union legislation and may act only in the interest of those institutions. It is not for national legislation to define the functions of officials of EU institutions and, accordingly, when performing the functions of an official of an EU institution, it is not possible to exercise powers conferred by national legal acts. Under Article 130 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which guarantees the independence of the European Central Bank, the Governor of the Bank of Latvia is precluded, in exercising his functions as a member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank, from acting as a representative of the Bank of Latvia and acting (strictly) in the interest of the Bank of Latvia or the Republic of Latvia.
2.

Do goods which have been introduced into the territory of the European Union automatically enter the economic network of the European Union in the case where, contrary to customs law, those goods are not placed under an arrangement within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Directive or, although initially placed under such an arrangement, they later cease to be covered by that arrangement on account of conduct contrary to customs law, or is it the case that, in the event of conduct contrary to customs law, entry into the economic network of the European Union is subject to the condition that it may be presumed that, on account of the conduct contrary to customs law, the goods entered the economic network of the European Union in the fiscal territory of the Member State in which the unlawful conduct was committed and may have been consumed or used?
1.

Must Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?
2.

Is it compatible with the abovementioned provision to regard a debtor’s declaration that it is in a state of insolvency and wishes to submit a preliminary request (the features of which are described above) to enter into an arrangement with creditors as grounds for excluding that debtor from a public tendering procedure, thereby interpreting broadly the term ‘the subject of proceedings’ used in the provisions of Community law (Article 45 of the directive) and of national law (Article 38 of Legislative Decree No 163/2006), cited above?
—

Declare that, by failing to bring into force by 18 April 2016 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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) or, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 90(1) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 182/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-130/18)

(2018/C 182/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 5(1)(c)(iii) 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) (‘the Air Passenger Rights Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that there is no right to compensation in the event of cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure even in the case where the passenger is subject to a loss of time of less than three hours but more than two hours as a result of re-routing, because the actual arrival, in comparison with the scheduled arrival, is delayed by more than two hours but by less than three hours?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 182/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent (Belgium) lodged on 7 March 2018 — Ronny Rohart v Federale Pensioendienst

(Case C-179/18)

(2018/C 182/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ronny Rohart

Defendant: Federale Pensioendienst

Question referred

Must the principle of sincere cooperation as laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, as laid down in Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1) of the Council of 29 February 1968, be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State not permitting the military service which a worker has carried out in a Member State to be taken into account in the calculation of that worker’s retirement pension on the basis of his performance in that Member State, because at the time of his military service and subsequently as well, the person concerned was uninterruptedly an official of the European Union, and consequently, does not satisfy the conditions for equivalence as laid down in the legislation of that Member State?

(1) Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (OJ 1968, L 56, p. 1).
Case C-208/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2018 — Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Ltd

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2018 — Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Ltd

(Case C-208/18)

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jana Petruchová

Defendant: FIBO Group Holdings Ltd

Question referred

Is Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a person, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who engages in trade on FOREX, the international currency exchange market, on the basis of actively placing his own orders, although through a third party who is professionally engaged in that trade, must be regarded as a consumer under that provision?

( 1 ) OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1.
3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: (a) How is the court of origin to proceed, in the case of a judgment which contains an enforceable obligation and against which an ordinary appeal has been lodged in the Member State of origin, or in the case of which the time limit for bringing such an appeal has not yet expired, with regard to the form set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, where that judgment, pursuant to its operative part or pursuant to a statutory provision, may not be enforced until after a security has been provided? (b) In those circumstances, must the court of origin issue the certificate, using the form set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, without furnishing the particulars stipulated in points 4.4.1. to 4.4.4 of that form? (c) In those circumstances, may the court of origin issue the certificate, using the form set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in such a way as to include — in point 4.4.1. or point 4.4.3. of that form, for example — additional information on the required provision of a security and to attach to that form the text of the relevant statutory provision?
1.

Can a livestock wholesaler who purchases live animals from a farmer and transports them within a distance of up to 100 km to a slaughterhouse, to which he sells the animals, rely on the exception provided for in Article 13(1)(p) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport — ‘vehicles used for the carriage of live animals from farms to local markets and vice versa or from markets to local slaughterhouses within a radius of up to 100 km’ — because the purchase from the farmer involves a ‘market’ within the meaning of this provision or the cattle trade enterprise is itself regarded as a ‘market’? If it does not involve a ‘market’ within the meaning of this provision:
2.

Given that the right to equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination constitute a general EU principle enshrined in a directive (in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the light of fundamental social rights [within the meaning of] Articles 151 and 153 TFEU, is it consistent with the framework agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC ( 1 ) to interpret [Clause 4], in such a way as to achieve its objectives, as meaning that the right of an interim civil servant to receive an allowance may be established either by comparison with a temporary contract worker, since his status (as a civil servant or as a contract worker) is determined exclusively by the public-sector employer, or by the direct vertical application to which EU primary law is open?
Case C-178/18 P: Appeal brought on 7 March 2018 by MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet international BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-729/15: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet international BV v European Medicines Agency

Appeal brought on 7 March 2018 by MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet international BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-729/15: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet international BV v European Medicines Agency

(Case C-178/18 P)

Parties

Appellants: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet international BV (represented by: P. Bogaert, advocaat, B. Kelly, Solicitor, J. Stratford QC, C. Thomas, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— grant the appellants’ appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court;

— annul the decision communicated by the EMA to the appellants on 3 December 2015 to release certain information under the Transparency Regulation ( 1 ); and

— order the EMA to pay the appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgment should be annulled for the following reasons:

— the General Court failed to find that the documents in issue were protected by a general presumption of confidentiality;

— the General Court failed to find that the documents in issue in their entirety constitute commercially confidential information that is protected by Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation;

— the General Court failed to find that the documents in issue should be protected by Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation; and

— the EMA failed to carry out a balancing exercise as required by law.

( 1 ) 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).
1.

Taking into consideration the economic consequences, may it be considered that a contractual term is not unfair, that is to say, that it is in plain, intelligible language, where it places the exchange rate risk on the consumer –– the term being drawn up (as a standard contractual term used by the seller or supplier, and not negotiated individually) in fulfilment of an obligation to provide information, necessarily of general character, laid down by law –– but fails to state expressly that the amount of the repayment instalments to be paid in accordance with the loan agreement could be greater than the amount of the consumer’s income as noted in the examination of creditworthiness carried out by the seller or supplier, or that the amount could rise to a much greater proportion of that income [than that envisaged], also taking into account the fact that the relevant national legislation requires a specific description of the risk in writing rather than a mere statement as to the existence of a risk and its allocation, and, in addition, that the Court of Justice declared in paragraph 74 of its judgment in Case C-26/13 that the seller or supplier must not only make the consumer aware of the risk, but that it is also necessary that, on the basis of that information, the consumer be able to assess the potentially significant economic consequences for him resulting from the exchange-rate risks allocated to him and, therefore, the total cost of the sum borrowed?
2.

Infringement of EU law by the General Court — Errors of law and errors in the characterisation of the legal nature of the facts and the evidence by the General Court — Discriminatory and, by extension, fumus persecutionis — Infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legality a. No enquiries in relation to other parties The General Court refused to acknowledge that M. Schulz’s initiative was discriminatory, even though it was directed solely against the Front National and no other parties. Such proceedings should have been initiated in relation to all French parties, other parties in other Member States and dozens of members of the European Parliament. b. Discrimination in relation to M. Schulz’s personal situation and his use of Parliamentary staff The General Court refused to hear M. Schulz and K. Welle, even though the appellant had submitted evidence of unlawful behaviour on the part of the former President of the Parliament without any proceedings having been brought against the latter. The General Court failed to make reference to the documents supplied, which constitutes an error of fact with legal consequences. c. Infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment Contrary to the statement of the General Court, there are a number of cases of violations of the implementing measures in which the Parliament did not seek reimbursement.
1.

Where it is alleged that children have been wrongfully taken from the country of their habitual residence by their parents and/or other family members in breach of a court order obtained by a public authority of that State, may that public authority apply to have any court order directing the return of the children to that jurisdiction enforced in the courts of another Member State pursuant to the provisions of Chapter III Council of Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 ( 1 ) or would this amount to a wrongful circumvention of Article 11 of that Regulation and the 1980 Hague Convention or otherwise amount to an abuse of rights or law on the part of the authority concerned?