ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2014 — Degano Trasporti S.a.s. di Ferruccio Degano & C., in liquidazione

(Case C-546/14)

(2015/C 081/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Udine

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Degano Trasporti S.a.s. di Ferruccio Degano & C., in liquidation

Question referred

On a proper construction of the principles and rules contained in Article 4(3) TEU and Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1), as already interpreted in the judgments of the Court of Justice of 17 July 2008 in C-132/06, of 11 December 2008 in C-174/07, and of 29 March 2012 in C-500/10, must those principles and rules also be interpreted in such a way that a national rule (and, therefore, in respect of the case in the main proceedings, an interpretation of Articles 162 and 182(b) of the Bankruptcy Law) is incompatible [with EU law] where, under that rule, a proposal for an arrangement with creditors with the liquidation of the debtor’s assets, permits only partial payment of the State’s claim in respect of VAT, where there is no tax settlement and where, in respect of that claim, a larger payment in the event of bankruptcy is not foreseeable on the basis of an assessment by an independent expert and following the formal review of the court?

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

Appeal brought on 2 July 2014 by Ms Galina Meister against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2013 in Case T-390/13 Galina Meister v European Commission

(Case C-327/14 P)

(2015/C 107/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Galina Meister (represented by: W. Becker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

The Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 12 February 2015 and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96/4

Appeal brought on 22 December 2014 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 21 October 2014 in Case T-453/11 Szajner v OHIM

(Case C-598/14 P)

(2015/C 096/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gilbert Szajner, Forge de Laguiole

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment under appeal,

— order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by the Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forwards to grounds in support of its appeal, namely, the infringement of Article 65 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1) and the infringement of Article 8(4) of that regulation read in conjunction with Article L 711-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code.

According to the appellant, the General Court may annul or amend the decision only where, at the time it was adopted, it was vitiated by one of the grounds for annulment or amendment set out in Article 65(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. The General Court infringed Article 65(2) of that regulation by misconstruing the scope of its review of legality, which must be restricted to matters of law (including the case-law existing at the time when the decision was adopted) and of fact put forward before the Board of Appeal. The General Court failed to establish that the Board of Appeal had committed an error at the time when the contested decision was adopted. The General Court substituted its own assessment for that of the Board of Appeal and carried out an assessment of the judgment of the French Court of Cassation of 10 July 2012 about which that Board was unable to take a position.

Furthermore, the General Court distorted the judgment of the French Court of Cassation of 10 July 2012 by declaring that it was ‘devoid of any ambiguity regarding the scope of protection afforded to a company name and which may be applied generally’ and by granting it a scope that it clearly did not have in relation to the other documents in the file, in the context of Article L 711-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code.

Finally, the General Court committed an error by assessing the areas of activity of Forge de Laguiole in the light of the criteria of trade mark law. The General Court should have assessed the areas of activity of Forge de Laguiole with reference to the purpose and use of the goods sold by that company, and not only in the light of the criterion of the nature of the product.

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 February 2014 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Aquapur Multiservizi SpA

(Case C-307/14)

(2016/C 027/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant: Aquapur Multiservizi SpA

Questions referred

By order of 18 November 2015 the President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/25

Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-687/13 Unibail v OHIM

(Case C-513/14 P)

(2015/C 138/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: Unibail Management

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment under appeal,

— Rule on the dispute pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and

— Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises a single ground of appeal in support of its appeal. OHIM submits that the General Court infringed the first sentence of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation. The General Court misconstrued not only the scope of the concept of general reasoning, but also its own case-law. Finally, the appellant criticises the General Court for having reversed the burden of proof.

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 12 January 2015 — AK (*1) v Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand

(Case C-5/15)

(2015/C 107/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AK (*1)

Defendants: Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand

Question referred

Must the term ‘inquiry or proceedings’ in Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC (1) of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance be interpreted as also covering the objection stage before the CIZ [Netherlands Medical Care Assessment Centre], in which any person who has received a negative decision from the CIZ on a request for an assessment may lodge a notice of objection with the CIZ, requesting that the decision be reviewed?

(*1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1) OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77.
—

primarily, authorise the applicant to maintain and continue the attachment order already served and to serve other attachment orders on the European Union/European Commission for all sums, funds, assets or objects generally that it has or will subsequently have in its possession, owes or will subsequently owe for any reason and on any grounds whatever to the Democratic Republic of Congo;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/19

Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-426/10 and T-575/10 and in Case T-440/12 Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission

(Case C-53/15 P)

(2015/C 118/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-426/10 and T-575/10 and in Case T-440/12 Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.

The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in assessing the legal interest of Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. in bringing proceedings, as regards both the action for annulment in Case T-575/10 against the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel), and the amendment of the pleas in law and forms of order sought in Case T-426/10 in relation to the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel).
2.

When assessing whether to prohibit the use of the name Verlados used to market nationally a spirit drink distilled from apples in order to protect the geographical indication Calvados, what importance should be given to the following facts in the interpretation of the concept of ‘evocation’ in Article 16(b) of Regulation No 110/2008 and the application of that regulation: a) the first part of the name Verlados, Verla, is a village in Finland whose name may be recognised by Finnish consumers; b) the first part of the name Verlados, Verla, refers to the producer of Verlados Viiniverla Oy; c) Verlados is a local product produced in Verla village of which a few hundred litres are sold each year in the winery’s own restaurant and a limited amount by order from the State-owned alcohol business referred to in the Law on Alcohol; d) the words Verlados and Calados have only one syllable in common (dos) out of three, although the last four letters (ados) of the words, that is half of the total number of letter in each word, are identical?
2.

If this question is to be answered in the negative: Should it be deduced from the listing of the devices in the Explanatory Notes to the HS concerning CN heading 9025 that devices which do not function in ways that are incorporated in those devices (measuring of temperature by means, for example, of the mechanical expansion of liquids or metals, physical changes or electrical impulses, etc.) cannot be classified as falling under CN heading 9025?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/30

Action brought on 6 March 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-116/15)

(2015/C 146/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola, M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— join the present case with the case registered under number C-14/15 for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure or of the judgment;

— annul Council Decision 2014/911/EU of 4 December 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Latvia (1);

— order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament invokes two pleas in law in support of its action based on Article 263 TFEU.

By its first plea in law, the Parliament claims that the Council used an incorrect legal basis in order to adopt Decision 2014/911/EU. In the context of that first plea in law, the Parliament puts forward two limbs of reasoning. The Parliament claims in particular that the Council should have found a legal basis for the contested decision amongst the provisions of the TFEU and that, in any event, the Council relied on an unlawful provision for the adoption of Decision 2014/911/EU. It used a derived legal basis, which, as such, is unlawful, in accordance with the Court’s case-law. Under that plea, the Parliament raises a plea of illegality relating to Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2).

By its second plea in law, the Parliament complains that the Council used an incorrect decisional procedure in order to adopt that decision. The Parliament thus derives therefrom an infringement of the Treaties and an infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

(1) OJ 2014 L 360, p. 28.

(2) OJ 2008 L 210, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 2 March 2015 — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

(Case C-102/15)

(2015/C 171/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

Defendant: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

Question referred

Does the concept of a claim in matters relating to quasi-delict under Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 [on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters] cover a claim which has its origin in the reimbursement of a fine imposed in competition proceedings and paid by a party domiciled in another Member State — the reimbursement to whom was subsequently held to be unjustified — which the competition authority makes against that party in order to obtain the return of interest which must legally be paid on reimbursement and which was paid by the authority concerned?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
1.

With regard to the exemption from VAT in Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive (Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment) (1) as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Case C-2/95 Sparekassernes Datacenter v Skatteministeriet (ECLI:EU:C: 1997:278; [1997] ECR I-3017), what are the relevant principles to be applied for determining whether or not a service has ‘the effect of transferring funds and entail[s] changes in the legal and financial situation’ within the meaning of paragraph 66 of that judgment? In particular: 1.1. Is the exemption applicable to a service, such as that performed by the taxpayer in the present case, which does not involve the taxpayer debiting or crediting any accounts over which it has control, but which is, where a transfer of funds results, the cause of a transfer of funds made by an independent financial institution? 1.2. In a case where payment is made by credit or debit card, does the answer to Question 1.1 depend on whether the service provider itself obtains authorisation codes directly from the cardholder's bank, or alternatively obtains those codes via its merchant acquirer bank? 1.3. What factors distinguish (a) a service which consists in the provision of financial information without which a payment would not be made but which does not fall within the exemption (such as in Case C-350/10 Nordea Pankki Suomi (ECLI:EU:C:2011:532; [2011] ECR I-7359), from (b) a data handling service which functionally has the effect of transferring funds and which the Court of Justice has identified as therefore being capable of falling within the exemption (such as in SDC at paragraph 66)?
The order under appeal is in error in that the General Court for the making of the order failed to examine the legal and actual association of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup and also failed to examine the fact that, on the basis of the principle of legal causation and the true author test, the acts of the Eurogroup constituted acts of the European Central Bank and the European Commission, which ought to have acted in a way compatible with the Treaty and the Protocols of the European Union and on the basis of secondary and derivative law.

In consequence, the General Court failed to examine the substance of the appellants’ arguments and case, and thus erred in dismissing the action for annulment.
i)

Is the concept of the communication of works to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (1) to be interpreted as encompassing the transmission of broadcast works in commercial premises such as bars, cafes, restaurants or other such establishments with similar characteristics, via television receiving apparatus, where the transmission of such works is amplified by speakers or amplifiers, thus constituting, in that context, a new use of copyright-protected works?
2.

Must Article 8 and Article 3 of Directive 2002/47/EC, having regard to recitals 3 and 5 in the preamble thereto, be interpreted as meaning that the purpose of that directive is to ensure especially favourable priority treatment for credit institutions in the event of the insolvency of their customers, in particular, over other creditors of those customers, such as workers, in respect of wages owing to them, the State, in respect of its tax claims, and secured creditors, whose claims are secured by securities protected by the presumption of authenticity resulting from registration in a public register?
1.

Is the rule laid down in Article 285 of the Belgian 1992 Income Tax Code (Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992), implicitly endorsing the double taxation of foreign dividends in the case of a natural person residing in Belgium, consistent with the principles of Community law enshrined in Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union, in so far as it enables Belgium to give advantage as it sees fit — according to the provisions of Belgian law to which the double taxation convention negotiated by Belgium refers (Article 285 which lays down the conditions for tax credits or Article 286 which merely prescribes the fixed percentage of tax that may be allowed as a credit) — to investment in third countries (United States), to the detriment of possible investment in the Member States of the European Union (Poland)?
1.

Must the first paragraph of Article 183 of Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2006/138/EC (1), be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in determining the conditions for refunding an excess deduction of value added tax, makes the award of default interest (on the delayed refund of value added tax) conditional on the expiry of a period of 10 days from completion of the tax inspection for ascertaining whether the claim to the refund of the excess deduction is justified?
2)

Does EU law, and in particular Articles 11 and 17 of Directive 2003/96/EC, preclude a regulatory and administrative system (such as that in force in Italian law and described in the present order) which, first, opts to introduce a system of concessions on the consumption of energy products (electricity) by ‘energy-intensive businesses’ within the meaning of the above-mentioned Article 17 and, secondly, restricts the possibility of benefitting from those concessions to ‘energy-intensive’ businesses operating in the manufacturing sector only, thereby excluding businesses operating in other production sectors?
2.

Are the Member States obliged to apply the rounding-up rule in Article 175(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax in the case of an input tax adjustment made in accordance with Article 184 et seq. of that directive in cases where the deductible proportion within the meaning of Article 175(1) of that directive is calculated in accordance with one of the special methods set out in headings (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Article 173(2) of that directive or in accordance with headings (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 20 April 2015 — Alicja Sobczyszyn v Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie

(Case C-178/15)

(2015/C 245/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alicja Sobczyszyn

Defendant: Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie

Question referred

Must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1), according to which Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that every worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks in accordance with the conditions for entitlement to, and granting of, such leave laid down by national legislation and/or practice, be interpreted as meaning that a teacher who has taken convalescence leave as provided for in the Law of 26 January 1982 — Teachers’ Charter (Karta Nauczyciela) (Dz. U. 2014 headings 191 and 1198) also obtains a right to the annual leave provided for in the general provisions of labour law in the year in which he exercised the right to convalescence leave?

(1) OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
4.

In the light of the objective of Regulations Nos 1257/99 and 817/2004 and the limits laid down therein on the discretion allowed to the Member States, is it acceptable for the court examining the substance of the case not to apply in its full scope Article 84 of Decree No 295 of the Council of Ministers of 23 March 2010‘on the grant, administration and supervision of agricultural development support from the State and from the European Union for the improvement of the agricultural and natural landscape’, a provision which concerns the repayment of aid, where the application of that provision in the specific circumstances could lead to infringement of the principle of proportionality, as that principle is interpreted in the legal system of the Member State?