ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/31

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 8 July 2015 — J. Klinkenberg v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu

(Case C-343/15)

(2015/C 311/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: J. Klinkenberg

Respondent: Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu

Questions referred

1. Must Article 1 of Directive 1999/63/EC (1) and Clause 1(1) of the Annex to that directive, entitled ‘European Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers’, be interpreted as meaning that that directive and that agreement are applicable to a public official who works for the Netherlands National Maritime Company and who is a member of the crew of a ship engaged in carrying out fisheries inspections?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative, must Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC (2), Article 1(3) and Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 93/104/EC (3), and Article 1(3) and Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/88/EC (4) be interpreted as meaning that Directive 93/104/EC and Directive 2003/88/EC are applicable to the public official referred to in Question 1?

3. Must Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 93/104/EC and Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC be interpreted as precluding a regulation of a Member State on the basis of which the hours during which the public official referred to in Question 1 does not perform any work during the voyage but during which he is obliged to be available on call in order to remedy problems in the engine room are regarded as constituting rest periods?

4. Must Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 93/104/EC and Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC be interpreted as precluding a regulation of a Member State on the basis of which the hours during which the public official referred to in Question 1 does not perform any work during the voyage but during which he is obliged, on the instructions of the master of the ship, to perform work if that is necessary for the immediate safety of the ship, of the persons on board, of the cargo or of the environment, or for the purpose of giving assistance to other ships or persons in distress, are regarded as constituting rest periods?

(1) Council Directive of 21 June 1999 concerning the Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers concluded by the European Community Shipowners’ Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers’ Unions in the European Union (FST) — Annex: European Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers (OJ 1999 L 167, p. 33).

(2) Council Directive of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).

(3) Council Directive of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18).

(4) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/26

Action brought on 20 July 2015 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-392/15)

(2015/C 302/34)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and Talabér-Ritz K., acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

— Declare that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by making the exercise of the profession of notary public subject to a nationality requirement.

— Order Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that a nationality requirement for the exercise of the profession of notary public is discriminatory and constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the freedom of establishment. Hungary has failed thereby to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The Commission considers that the tasks conferred by Hungarian legislation on notaries public, by their nature, are not related to the exercise of the powers of a public authority, so that the derogation provided for in Article 51 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union cannot justify nationality as a requirement for access to the profession of notary public.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Balș (Romania) lodged on 28 May 2015 — SC Casa Noastră SA v Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul Transportului Rutier ISCTR

(Case C-245/15)

(2015/C 337/03)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Balș

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Casa Noastră SA

Defendant: Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul Transportului Rutier ISCTR

Questions referred

1) To what extent may the expression ‘by whomsoever organised’ used in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1073/2009 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a regular transport service can be organised by an economic operator for the purpose of carrying its own employees to and from work?

2) To what extent may the expression ‘carriage of passengers on regular services where the route covered does not exceed 50 kilometres’, used in Article 3(a) of Regulation No 561/2006 (2) be interpreted as meaning that it applies to workers in connection with their travel to and from the workplace?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 88).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (Text with EEA relevance) — Declaration (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).
2.

(i) Does a person who ceases to be entitled to UK Disability Living Allowance as a matter of UK domestic law, because she has moved to live in another member state, and who has ceased all occupational activity before such move, but remains insured against old age under the UK social security system, cease to be subject to the legislation of the UK for the purpose of article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71? (ii) Does such a person in any event remain subject to the legislation of the UK in the light of Point 19(c) of the United Kingdom's annex VI to the Regulation? (iii) If she has ceased to be subject to the legislation of the UK within the meaning of article 13(2)(f), is the UK obliged or merely permitted by virtue of Point 20 of annex VI to apply the provisions of Chapter 1 of Title III to the Regulation to her?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil (Slovenia) lodged on 18 June 2015 — Medisanus d.o.o. v Splošna Bolnišnica Murska Sobota

(Case C-296/15)

(2015/C 346/02)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Medisanus d.o.o.

Defendant: Splošna Bolnišnica Murska Sobota

Question referred

1) Must Directive 2004/18/EC (1), in particular Article 23(2), Article 23(8) and Article 2 thereof, read in conjunction with — Directive 2001/83/EC (2), in particular Article 83 thereof, — Directive 2002/98/EC (3), in particular Article 4(2) thereof, — the TFEU, in particular Article 18 thereof,

be interpreted as precluding a specification that industrially manufactured medicinal products must be ‘obtained from Slovenian plasma’, (a specification based on the domestic legislation of the Republic of Slovenia, namely Article 6(71) of the ZZdr-2)?

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

(2) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(3) Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC (OJ 2003 L 33, p. 30).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/11

Appeal brought on 28 August 2015 by Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-95/14 Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) v Council

(Case C-459/15 P)

(2015/C 346/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 June 2015 in Case T-95/14;

— give final judgment in the proceedings by granting the form of order sought by the applicant, now the appellant, at first instance; that is to say, annul Article 1 of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP (1) of 15 November 2013 and Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 (2) of 15 November 2013 in so far as they refer to, or could affect, IOEC, and remove its name from the respective annexes to those provisions;

— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal:

Error of law, in so far as the judgment erroneously states that the Council fulfilled its obligation to state reasons and did not infringe the right to an effective remedy.

Error of law, in that the judgment states that the measures against the appellant are based on evidence, when in reality they lack any factual basis and the judgment is based on presumptions. This also gave rise to a misuse of powers and infringement of the applicable legal provisions and of the principle of equal treatment.

Error of law, in that the judgment erroneously states that IOEC’s property rights and the principle of proportionality were respected.

(1) Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against A, B

(Case C-453/15)

(2015/C 363/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

A, B

Question referred

Is Article 56(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that an allowance under Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (2) which confers a right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent during a specified period is a ‘similar right’ within the meaning of that provision?

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

(2) OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/27

Appeal brought on 3 September 2015 by PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-26/12: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union

(Case C-468/15 P)

(2015/C 354/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, Sasol Germany GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare this appeal admissible and well founded;

— set aside the Judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 June 2015 in case PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union, T-26/12;

— give final judgment, upholding PT Musim Mas’ claims before the General Court and, accordingly, annul the antidumping duty imposed on the Appellant under Council Implementing Regulation (EC) No 1138/2011 (1) of 8 November 2011 imposing the definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1241/2012 (2) of 11 December 2012 amending Implementing Regulation No 1138/2011,

— order the Council and the interveners, in addition to paying their own costs, to bear all costs occasioned to the Appellants in the course of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the four grounds of appeal summarized below.

Firstly, the General Court infringed Article 2(10)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (the ‘Basic Regulation’) by wrongly applying the single economic entity (‘SEE’) concept and concluding that the Appellant and ICOFS do not form a SEE.

Secondly, the General Court infringed Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously ruling that the Council sufficiently demonstrated that the functions carried out by ICOFS were similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. The General Court carried out an insufficient and discriminatory reasoning on the basis of the evidence available.

Thirdly, the General Court infringed the first subparagraph of Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously ruling that the Council did not unduly affect the symmetry between the normal value and the export price.

Fourthly, the General Court misapplied the principle of good administration by erroneously accepting that the Council used only the Council’s evidence while ignoring relevant evidence and information presented before it by the Appellant throughout the anti-dumping investigation.

(1) OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2012 L 352, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/16

Action brought on 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-481/15)

(2015/C 371/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and F. Wilman, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to ensure the regular monitoring of certain common basic standards on aviation security to the extent necessary and with the required frequency and to appoint a sufficient number of auditors to implement quality control measures, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 (1) and paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 7.5 and 14 of Annex II to that regulation;

— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following in support of its action:

Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 and paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 7.5 and 14 of Annex II to that regulation require each Member State to ensure the regular monitoring of certain common basic standards on aviation security to the extent necessary and with the required frequency and to appoint a sufficient number of auditors to implement quality control measures.

Germany fails to comply with that requirement.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (OJ 2008 L 97, p. 72), as amended by Commission Regulation No 18/2010 of 8 January 2010 (OJ 2010 L 7, p. 3).
1.

Which information belongs to the relevant information within the meaning of Article 24(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU? (1) Is the restriction to be understood qualitatively or quantitatively; is, in particular, information about any planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of an installation which does not directly result in the repeal or adaptation of the allocation decision pursuant to Articles 19 to 21 of Decision 2011/278/EU and does not trigger any obligation to submit under Article 24(2) of Decision 2011/278/EU also included?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 August 2015 — Ivo Muladi v Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje

(Case C-447/15)

(2015/C 389/16)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ivo Muladi

Defendant: Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje

Question referred

Do the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 2003/59/EC (1) preclude national legislation which imposes further conditions for exemption from the requirement on drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers to obtain an initial qualification?

(1) OJ 2003 L 226, p. 4.
2.

The General Court infringed Article 108 TFEU and Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (1) in relation to the concepts of new and existing aid. In particular, it erred in considering that aid may be considered to be existing aid even though a condition laid down by the decision declaring that aid compatible was infringed. Accordingly, the General Court ignored the settled case-law to the effect that mere failure to comply with such conditions is sufficient for it to be found that there is new aid and, in the absence of new facts enabling a different assessment to be made, justifies a new decision declaring the aid incompatible. Furthermore, after correctly rejecting the claims concerning an alleged failure to give reasons, the General Court contradicted that assessment by criticising the Commission for failing to demonstrate that the breach of the condition altered the substance of the scheme adopted by the Council and, on that basis, erred in considering that it could partially annul the decision on the ground of an error of law. The General Court failed to take due account of the institutional balance between the Council and the Commission provided for in Article 108 TFEU. When the Council, acting unanimously, uses its authority to declare aid, exceptionally, to be compatible with the internal market but makes the declaration of compatibility subject to compliance with certain conditions, the Commission may not decide whether those conditions are in fact essential or whether their infringement may be overlooked.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/20

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Paolo Conti

(Case C-504/15)

(2015/C 406/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Frosinone

Party/parties to the main proceedings

Antonio Paolo Conti

Question referred

Are Article 49 et seq. and Article 56 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as also expanded upon by the principles laid down in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10] to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which imposes an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the right to use the tangible and intangible assets constituting the network for managing and collecting bets upon cessation of that activity due to the expiry of the relevant licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/8

Appeal brought on 26 January 2015 by Cantina Broglie 1 Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-153/11 Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM

(Case C-33/15 P)

(2015/C 429/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (represented by: A. Rizzoli, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona

By order of 15 October 2015 the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/18

Appeal brought on 22 September 2015 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-24/13: Cactus S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-501/15 P)

(2015/C 414/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Cactus S.A.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Uphold the Appeal in its entirety

— Annul the Contested Judgment

— Order Cactus S.A. to pay the costs incurred by the Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the ‘IP Translator’ Judgment, the designation of a class heading may cover all the goods or services included in the alphabetical list of this class. However such a designation cannot amount to a claim to the totality of all goods and services of a particular class. The General Court misapplied the ‘IP Translator’ Judgment and violated Article 28 CTMR (1) and Rule 2 CTMIR in equating the coverage of the class heading in class 35 with all the services belonging to this class. Since neither the retail services as such nor the services of ‘retailing of natural plants and flowers, grains; fresh fruits and vegetables’ are included in the alphabetical list of class 35, the earlier Community trademarks are not protected in respect of such services. The requirement to specify the goods or types of goods to which the retail services relate, which applies to all trademarks including to those filed before the ‘Praktiker’ Judgment, is a further bar to the General Court’s conclusion that the abstract designation of the class heading in class 35 extends to retail services in respect of all possible goods.

The finding that use only of the stylised cactus does not alter the distinctive character of the earlier figurative mark, within the meaning of Article 15(1)(a) CTMR, is vitiated by four errors in law. In basing its conclusion only on the semantic concordance between the logo and the word element, the General Court failed to examine to which extent the word element ‘Cactus’ was distinctive and important in the earlier composite mark. The General Court failed to have regard to the visual and (possible) phonetic differences between the logo and the composite mark, it wrongly based its finding on the prior knowledge that the public in Luxembourg has of the earlier composite mark and it failed to consider the perception of the European public as a whole.

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