ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 388/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 August 2014 — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank, S.A.

(Case C-381/14)

2014/C 388/03

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jorge Sales Sinués

Defendant: Caixabank, S.A.

Questions referred

Given that the Spanish system provides in Article 43 of the LEC (1) that, where an individual action is brought concurrently by a consumer, the effect is that that action must be stayed and treated as a preliminary issue pending final judgment in collective proceedings, and that the consumer is bound by the decision in those proceedings without having had the opportunity to put forward the appropriate pleas or adduce evidence with full equality of arms:

1. Can it be considered [that the Spanish legal system provides for] an effective means or mechanism pursuant to Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 (2)?

2. To what extent does the effect of a stay of proceedings preclude a consumer from complaining that the unfair terms included in the contract concluded with him are void, and, therefore, infringe Article 7(1) of the directive?

3. Does the fact that a consumer is unable to dissociate himself from collective proceedings constitute an infringement of Article 7(3) of Directive 93/13?

4. Or, on the other hand, is the effect of a stay of proceedings provided for in Article 43 of the LEC compatible with Directive 93/13 on the grounds that the rights of consumers are fully safeguarded by a collective action, because the Spanish legal system provides for other equally effective procedural mechanisms for the protection of consumers’ rights and by the principle of legal certainty?

(1) Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Spanish Code of Civil Procedure).

(2) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
3.

Does the concept of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned’, as referred to in the last subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 98/59, cover the termination of a contract between the employer and the worker which, although initiated by the worker, comes about in response to a previous change in working conditions that was initiated by the employer on account of the critical difficulties being experienced by the undertaking and for which compensation is ultimately to be awarded in an amount equivalent to that payable for unfair dismissal?
1)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR I-0000] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?
1.

Is Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (‘the Habitats Directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that a construction project for a bridge which does not directly serve the management of the site and which was authorised before that site was included in the list of sites of Community importance must be the subject of an impact assessment prior to its implementation if the site was included in that list after authorisation was granted but before the project was implemented and only a risk assessment/preliminary assessment was undertaken before the authorisation was granted?
—

Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under: — Article 6(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/43/ΕEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, (a) by failing to take the appropriate measures to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species, and the disturbance of the species for which a site had been designated, and (b) having permitted (without carrying out any appropriate assessment of the implications, as is laid down in Article 6(3)) activities which are likely to have a significant effect on the site at issue, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, reducing and destroying the nesting area of the priority species Caretta caretta, which is present there, causing disturbance to the species concerned and, ultimately, reducing and destroying the sand dune habitats 2110, 2220 and the priority habitat 2250; — Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of that directive, by failing to take the requisite measures to establish and implement an effective system of strict protection for the sea turtle Caretta caretta (a priority species) in Kyparissia Bay in a way which avoids any disturbance of the species concerned during its breeding period and any activity which can cause deterioration or destruction of its breeding sites.
1.

Is the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products determined according to Community law or does that provision refer to the date on which the authorisation takes effect under the law of the Member State in question?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/19

Appeal brought on 21 November 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2014 in Case T-425/11 Greece v Commission

(Case C-530/14 P)

(2015/C 026/23)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.J. Loewenthal)

Other party to the proceedings: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014, notified to the Commission on 12 September 2014, in Case Τ-425/11 Greece v Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2014:768);

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

— reserve the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on a single ground: the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(1) TFEU in ruling that the contested measure did not provide any advantage for the public casinos. The single ground of appeal advanced by the Commission has three parts.

First, in paragraphs 52 to 58 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in ruling that the public casinos did not enjoy an advantage from the payment of a lower tax for each entering customer on the basis of the contested measure, since the amounts paid represented 80 % of the mandatory entry fees which were charged by both the private and public casinos.

Second, in paragraphs 59 to 68 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in ruling that it was not sufficient for the Commission to define the advantage of the contested measures as direct (de jure) tax discrimination, but that the Commission was obliged to base the existence of an advantage on an economic analysis of the effects of the contested measure.

Third, in paragraphs 74 to 80 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in ruling that (i) the practice of free entry could not confirm the advantage of the contested measure since that measure did not provide any advantage and (ii) before that argument could be effective the Commission was bound to provide evidence that in practice the number of free entries granted was excessively high in comparison with the objectives of the Greek legislation which permitted that practice, so as to be incompatible with the conditions of that national legislation.
3.

Must Article 8(3) of Directive 2002/19, read in conjunction with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22 and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, or Article 8(3) of Directive 2002/19, read in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/19 and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure that the end-users of a national public communications network operator have access to services using non-geographic numbers supplied on the network of another national operator, the national regulatory authority may lay down rules governing the payment of operators for call origination by having recourse to the call termination rates set in respect of one of those operators which are cost orientated pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 2002/19, where the operator proposed that such a rate be applied during failed negotiations held to fulfil the obligation laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2002/19?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 17 November 2014 — Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-516/14)

(2015/C 034/11)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Must Article 226(6) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as permitting the Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira [Portuguese Tax and Customs Authority] to regard as insufficient a description on an invoice which states ‘legal services rendered from such a date until the present date’ or merely ‘legal services rendered until the present date’, where that body may, in accordance with the principle of collaboration, obtain the additional information which it deems necessary to confirm the existence and detailed characteristics of the relevant transactions?

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

OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/20

Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by Vadzim Ipatau against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2014 in Case T-646/11 Ipatau v Council

(Case C-535/14 P)

(2015/C 026/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Vadzim Ipatau (represented by: M. Michalauskas, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 (Case T-646/11),

— give final judgment in the matter or refer the case back to the General Court for judgment,

— order the Council to pay the costs, including the costs before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

In the first place, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed the right to effective judicial protection by denying the filing of an application for legal aid any suspensory effect on the period prescribed for bringing an action for annulment against the contested measure.

In the second place, the appellant complains that the General Court infringed his rights of defence. The General Court held that the Council was not required to disclose to the appellant the evidence against him, nor required to give him the opportunity to be heard before the adoption of Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1) and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012 (2).

In the third place, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the grounds set out in the contested measures were sufficient.

In the last place, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the contested measures were not disproportionate.

(1) Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 7).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/27

Appeal brought on 1 December 2014 by Canon Europa NV against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2014 in Case T-34/11: Canon Europa NV v European Commission

(Case C-552/14 P)

(2015/C 046/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Canon Europa NV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, P. Muñiz, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside, in whole, the order delivered by the EU General Court in case T-34/11;

— rule that the appeal is admissible;

— return the case to the EU General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

— order the Defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on the following two grounds:

First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of Article 263 TFUE, when it concluded that the Regulation ‘entailed implementing measures’ within the meaning of that provision.

Secondly, the General Court infringed the Appellant’s right to be heard, erred in the legal characterisation of the evidence submitted by the Appellant, and alternatively distorted such evidence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/18

Appeal brought on 9 December 2014 by Jean-Charles Marchiani against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2014 in Case T-479/13 Marchiani v Parliament

(Case C-566/14 P)

(2015/C 034/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean-Charles Marchiani (represented by: C.-S. Marchiani, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 October 2014 in Case T-479/13 Jean-Charles Marchiani v European Parliament.

Pleas and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant raises five grounds of appeal.

Firstly, he believes that the General Court erred in law in refusing to apply to him the texts implementing the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. The decision of 4 July 2013 was taken following proceedings which were irregular since they ran counter to the decision of the European Parliament Bureau of 19 May and 9 July 2008 implementing the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. In addition, that decision was adopted, more generally, in breach of the adversarial principle and the principle of respect for the rights of the defence.

Secondly, the General Court erred in law and vitiated its reasoning by a contradiction in the grounds by referring to the PEAM Rules to validate the contested decision of 4 July 2013. On the one hand, the decision of 4 July 2013 is the result of an incorrect application of the PEAM Rules, repealed in 2009. On the other, the General Court, which initially referred to those PEAM Rules, then abandoned all reference to them in the course of the proceedings, putting forward as the sole legal basis the Financial Regulation of the European Union published in 2012.

Thirdly, the appellant complains that the General Court erred in law by making him alone bear the burden of proof.

Fourthly, the General Court committed a gross breach of the principle of impartial treatment required of all authorities of the European Union in the exercise of their tasks. The General Court failed entirely to take account of the political functions previously exercised by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, the author of the contested decision.

Finally, the appellant complains that the General Court erred in law by accepting that the decision of 4 July 2013 rules on sums the recovery of which is in any event time-barred. The appellant thus submits that the failure by the General Court to have regard to the rules of limitation led to an infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity of Community acts, the principle of legitimate expectations and an infringement of the reasonable time principle.
1.

Is the Directive invalid in whole or in part because Article 114 TFEU does not provide an adequate legal basis? In particular: (a) In relation to Article 24(2) of the Directive: (i) on its proper interpretation, to what extent does it permit Member States to adopt more stringent rules in relation to matters relating to the ‘standardisation’ of the packaging of tobacco products; and, (ii) in light of that interpretation, is Article 24(2) invalid because Article 114 TFEU does not provide an adequate legal basis? (b) Is Article 24(3) TPD2, which allows Member States to prohibit a category of tobacco or related products in specified circumstances, invalid because Article 114 TFEU does not provide an adequate legal basis? (c) Are the following provisions invalid because Article 114 TFEU does not provide an adequate legal basis: (i) the provisions of Chapter II of Title II TPD2, which relate to packaging and labelling; (ii) Article 7 TPD2, insofar as it prohibits menthol cigarettes and tobacco products with a characterising flavour; (iii) Article 18 TPD2, which allows Member States to prohibit cross-border distance sales of tobacco products; and, (iv) Articles 3(4) and 4(5) TPD2, which delegate powers to the Commission in relation to emission levels?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/27

Appeal brought on 1 December 2014 by Kyocera Mita Europe BV against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2014 in Case T-35/11: Kyocera Mita Europe BV v European Commission

(Case C-553/14 P)

(2015/C 046/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Kyocera Mita Europe BV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, P. Muñiz, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside, in whole, the order delivered by the EU General Court in case T-35/11;

— rule that the appeal is admissible;

— return the case to the EU General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

— order the Defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on the following two grounds:

First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of Article 263 TFUE, when it concluded that the Regulation ‘entailed implementing measures’ within the meaning of that provision.

Secondly, the General Court infringed the Appellant’s right to be heard, erred in the legal characterisation of the evidence submitted by the Appellant, and alternatively distorted such evidence.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2014 — Marianne Parigger v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-510/14)

(2015/C 073/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marianne Parigger

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 9 December 2014.
—

order the Commission to make good damage suffered by the Appellant as a result of the Commission’s failure to comply with contractual obligations in the context of the performance of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract relating to the project entitled ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’. More particularly, order the Commission to pay the amount of 1 72 588,62 EUR, representing all the costs incurred by the Appellant concerning all the work which was engaged by the Appellant before the termination of the contract of 16 May 2003 and delivered by the Appellant in compliance to its contractual obligations. Subsidiarily, in case the Court of Justice considers that the Appellant had to cease any work as of 16 May 2003, order the Commission to pay at least the amount of 1 27 076,48 EUR, representing all the costs incurred or engaged to by the Appellant lawfully and in strict compliance to the terms of its contract, until such date.
2.

Does the answer to question (1) depend on: - (a) whether the safety assessment carried out in accordance with Article 10 of that Regulation to demonstrate that the cosmetic product is safe for human health prior to it being made available on the Community market would involve the use of data resulting from the animal testing performed outside the European Union; (b) whether the legislative or regulatory requirements of the third countries for which the animal testing was undertaken relate to the safety of cosmetic products; (c) whether it was reasonably foreseeable, at the time that an ingredient was subjected to animal testing outside the European Union, that any person might seek to place a cosmetic product including that ingredient at some stage on the Community market; and/or (d) any other factor, and if so, what factor?
2)

In the light of Emergency Government Order No 9/2013 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?