ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 8 August 2018 — Engie Cartagena, S.L. v Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica (formerly, Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo)

(Case C-523/18)

(2018/C 408/53)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Engie Cartagena, S.L.

Defendant: Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica (formerly, Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo)

Questions referred

1. Does the statutory provision laid down in the third additional provision of Real Decreto-Ley 14/2010 Financiación de planes de ahorro y eficiencia energética para los años 2011, 2012 y 2013 (Royal Decree-Law 14/2010 on the funding of savings and efficiency plans for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013) constitute a public service obligation for the purposes of Article 3(2) of Directives 2003/54/EC (1) and 2009/72/EC (2): ‘1. The amounts payable from the electricity system for the purpose of funding the 2008-2012 Action Plan, approved [by] Acuerdo de Consejo de Ministros de 8 de julio de 2005, por el que se concretan las medidas del documento de “Estrategia de ahorro y eficiencia energética en España 2004-2012” aprobado por Acuerdo de Consejo de Ministros de 28 de noviembre de 2003 (Decision of the Council of Ministers of 8 July 2005 giving concrete expression to the measures referred to in the document entitled “Savings and Energy Efficiency Strategy in Spain, 2004-2012”, approved by Decision of the Council of Ministers of 28 November 2003), forecast for the years 2011 and 2012 as EUR 270 million and EUR 250 million respectively, shall be financed through a contribution from each generating undertaking in the proportions set out in the following table: Undertaking Percentage Endesa Generación, S.A. 34,66 Iberdrola Generación, S.A. 32,71 GAS Natural S.D.G, S.A. 16,37 Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. 4,38 E.ON Generación, S.L. 2,96 AES Cartagena, S.R.L. 2,07 Bizkaia Energía, S.L. 1,42 Castelnou Energía, S.L. 1,58 Nueva Generadora del Sur, S.A. 1,62 Bahía de Bizkaia Electricidad, S.L. 1,42 Tarragona Power, S.L. 0,81 Total 100,00 ’

2. If that provision does actually constitute a public service obligation, is that obligation clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable?

(1) Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC — Statements made with regard to decommissioning and waste management activities (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37).

(2) Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).
1.

Is Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a person who is a consumer customer of a network company and who has brought a case concerning the network company before the national regulatory authority is to be regarded as an ‘affected party’ within the meaning of paragraph 17 of the article mentioned, which is affected by the decision of the regulatory authority and is therefore authorised to file an appeal at a national court against a decision affecting the network company made by the national regulatory authority?
2.

How is the applicable provision of that decision to be interpreted specifically for the purposes of determining the amount of differential child allowance, which is dependent on the exchange rate? (a) If Paragraph 2 of Decision No H3 is to be applied: within the meaning of that provision, which day is the day ‘when the operation is performed by the institution’? (b) If Paragraph 3(b) (where necessary, in combination with Paragraph 4) of Decision No H3 is to be applied: within the meaning of that provision, which month is the month ‘when the provision must be applied’? (c) If Paragraph 5 of Decision No H3 is to be applied: is the saving clause relating to national law compatible with the enabling provision in Article 90 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009? (2) If yes: in order for it to be ‘provided for differently’ in national legislation, is legislation under a formal statute necessary or is an administrative instruction from the national administrative authorities sufficient?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 August 2018 — AS v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-541/18)

(2018/C 436/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AS

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Question referred

Does a sign have distinctive character when there are in practice significant and obvious possibilities for it to be used as an indication of origin in respect of goods or services, even if this is not the most likely form of use of the sign? (1)

(1) Interpretation of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 13 September 2018 by thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2018 in Case T-577/17: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v European Commission

(Case C-572/18 P)

(2018/C 436/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo (represented by: M. Günes, L. C. Heinisch, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the 2 July 2018 order of the General Court in Case T-577/17 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission;

— give a ruling declaring the action for annulment to be admissible;

— refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings going to the substance of the case;

— order the Commission to bear the costs of the present appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants challenge the contested order upon the grounds that it is based upon significant errors in law. The appellants raise five arguments concerning errors in law:

— First, the General Court erred in holding that the UCC (1) and related delegated and implementing regulations do not confer on the Commission the power to adopt decisions that are binding on the national customs authorities in the examination of the economic conditions.

— Second, the General Court erred in holding that the role of the Commission during the examination of economic conditions is purely procedural in nature.

— Third, the General Court erred in treating the judgment of 11 May 2006 in Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods (C-11/05) as binding legal precedent for the interpretation of Article 259(5) UCC IA (2).

— Fourth, the General Court erred in failing to consider the September 2016 administrative arrangement concerning the application of Article 211(6) UCC & Article 259 UCC IA as evidence of the binding nature of the Commission’s conclusions on the economic conditions.

— Fifth, the General Court erred in failing to consider that the appellants were directly and individually concerned by the Commission’s conclusion on the economic conditions.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (UCC) (OJ 2013, L 269, p. 1).

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (UCC IA) (OJ 2015, L 343, p. 558).
2.

On a proper construction of Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/78/EC, does a statement expressing a negative opinion with regard to homosexuals, whereby, in an interview given during a radio entertainment programme, the interviewee stated that he would never appoint an LGBTI person to his law firm nor wish to use the services of such persons, fall within the scope of the anti-discrimination rules laid down in that directive, even if that statement does not relate to any current or planned recruitment procedure by the interviewee?
Is Article 2(6) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (1) to be interpreted to mean that it also covers contracts by means of which the trader is not directly obliged to supply a service, but rather the consumer acquires the right to receive a discount for services ordered in the future?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is EU law, in particular Directive 2012/13 and Articles 21, 45, 49 and 56 TFEU, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which makes it possible, in the course of criminal proceedings, solely because the accused is not resident in that State but in another Member State, to make an order that the accused has to appoint a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, with the result that the penalty order would acquire the force of res judicata and thus form the legal prerequisite for the criminal liability of any later action taken by the accused (‘Tatbestandswirkung’) and, given that he has to make sure that he actually learns of the penalty order, the accused is subject to more stringent subjective obligations in the prosecution of that criminal offence than he would have been had he been resident in that Member State, resulting in a possible prosecution for negligence on the part of the accused?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 24 October 2018 — IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS

(Case C-666/18)

(2019/C 4/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: IT Development SAS

Respondent: Free Mobile SAS

Question referred

Does a software licensee’s non-compliance with the terms of a software licence agreement (by expiry of a trial period, by exceeding the number of authorised users or some other limit, such as the number of processors which may be used to execute the software instructions, or by modifying the source code of the software where the licence reserves that right to the initial rightholder) constitute:

— an infringement (for the purposes of Directive 2004/48 of 29 April 2004 (1)) of a right of the author of the software which is reserved by Article 4 of Directive 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (2)

— or may it comply with a separate system of legal rules, such as the system of rules on contractual liability under ordinary law?

(1) Directive 2004/48/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

(2) Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 2009 L 111, p. 16).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 22 October 2018 — Sundair GmbH v WV and Others

(Case C-660/18)

(2019/C 25/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sundair GmbH

Defendant: WV, XU, YT, represented by XU and ZS

Question referred

Is Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 5(1)(c), 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) to be interpreted as meaning that affected passengers are entitled to compensation for the cancellation of a flight even when the air carrier does not hold a valid operating licence within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation (EU) No 261/2004, the cancellation is at least in part attributable to the absence of a valid operating licence and the passengers had no knowledge of the fact that there was no operating licence at the time of booking?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 November 2018 — Criminal proceedings against TX and UW

(Case C-688/18)

(2019/C 25/35)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

TX and UW

Question referred

Is the right of a defendant to be present at the trial pursuant to Article 8(1) and (2) in conjunction with recitals 35 and 44 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 (1) infringed if one of the hearings in criminal proceedings took place in the absence of the defendant, who was duly summoned, informed of the consequences of non-appearance and defended by a lawyer chosen by him, if:

(a) he did not appear for a reason within his control (namely he decided not to participate in that specific hearing);

(b) he did not appear for a reason beyond his control (namely illness), if he was subsequently informed of the acts carried out in his absence and, with full knowledge of the situation, decided and declared that: — he does not call the legality of those acts into question by relying on his non-appearance and does not request that they be repeated in his presence; — he wishes to participate in these acts, whereupon the court conducted an additional examination of the person specified by the defendant and gave the defendant the opportunity to participate in it to an appropriate extent?

(1) Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).
3.

If, on the basis of the reply to the first or second question referred for a preliminary ruling, the Grondwettelijk Hof were to conclude that the contested articles infringe one or more of the obligations arising from the provisions cited in those questions, could it temporarily continue to enforce the effects of Articles 120 and 1262 of the Belgian Wetboek diverse rechten en taksen in order to prevent legal uncertainty and to enable the legislature to bring those provisions into conformity with those obligations?
2.

Does Article 2(2) EAWFD, as transposed into Belgian law by the Wet EAB, permit, for the purposes of the executing Member State’s assessment of the minimum maximum three year threshold imposed therein, recourse to be had to criminal legislation, applicable at the point in time of the issue of the European arrest warrant, allowing for a more severe penalty, as compared to the criminal legislation that was applicable in the issuing Member State at the point in time the offences were committed?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2018 — HK, IJ v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-630/18)

(2019/C 54/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HK, IJ

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 15 November 2018.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 11 December 2018 — Association française des usagers de banques v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-778/18)

(2019/C 54/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association française des usagers de banques

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Questions referred

— Do the provisions of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2014/17/EU of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property, (1) having regard, inter alia, to the purpose that they assign to the payment or savings account which they authorise to be opened or maintained, or the provisions of paragraph 3 of that article, authorise, first, the creditor to require the borrower, as consideration for an individual advantage, to deposit all of his salary or similar income in a payment account opened with that creditor during a period fixed by the credit agreement, whatever the amount, the instalments and the duration of the loan, and, secondly, that the period thus fixed may extend to ten years or, if it is shorter, the duration of the agreement?

— Do Article 45 of Directive 2007/64/EC of 13 November 2007, (2) applicable at the material time and now recast as Article 55 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of 25 November 2015, (3) and Articles 9 to 14 of Directive 2014/92/EU of 23 July 2014, (4) relating to the facilitation of banking mobility and to fees for closing a payment account, preclude the closure of an account opened by the borrower with the creditor for the purposes of depositing his income with that creditor as consideration for an individual advantage as part of a credit agreement from resulting, if it occurs before the expiry of the period fixed in that agreement, in the loss of that advantage, including more than a year after the opening of the account and, secondly, do those provisions prevent the duration of that period extending to ten years or the total duration of the loan?

(1) Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 60, p. 34).

(2) Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).

(3) Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ 2015 L 337, p. 35).

(4) Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features (OJ 2014 L 257, p. 214).
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul de Arbitraj Instituţionalizat Galaţi (Romania) lodged on 5 June 2018 — Uniunea Naţională a Barourilor din România v Marcel-Vasile Holunga

(Case C-370/18)

(2019/C 65/25)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul de Arbitraj Instituţionalizat Galaţi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uniunea Naţională a Barourilor din România

Defendant: Marcel-Vasile Holunga

By Order of 13 December 2018, the Court (Eighth Chamber) declared the request for a preliminary ruling manifestly inadmissible.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 22 June 2018 by CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 19 April 2018 in Case T-606/17, CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-415/18 P)

(2019/C 82/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 10 January 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 13 November 2018 — Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria v SJ

(Case C-705/18)

(2019/C 72/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

Respondent: SJ

Question referred

Are a provision in a collective agreement and an employer’s practice, pursuant to which, for the purposes of remuneration and promotion, the length of service of a part-time female employee whose working hours are ‘distributed vertically’ over the whole year is to be calculated solely on the basis of time actually worked, contrary to Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work [annexed to] Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997, (1) and to Articles 2(1)(b) and 14(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)? (2)

(1) Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

(2) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
Does Article 20(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU (1) preclude an interpretation of Article 23 of Legislative Decree No 142/2015 as meaning that conduct that infringes general rules of national law, not specifically reproduced in reception centre rules, may also constitute a serious breach of those rules if it potentially disrupts life within the reception centres?

In the event of an affirmative answer, the following further question is referred to, and requires an answer by, the Court:
1.

Does the operator of an internet video platform on which videos containing content protected by copyright are made publicly accessible by users without the consent of the rightholders carry out an act of communication within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) if — the operator earns advertising revenue by means of the platform, — the upload process takes place automatically and without material being seen in advance or controlled by the operator, — in accordance with the conditions of use, the operator receives a worldwide, non-exclusive and royalty-free licence for the videos for the duration for which the videos are posted, — in the conditions of use and during the upload process, the operator points out that copyright-infringing content may not be posted, — the operator provides tools with which rightholders can take steps to block infringing videos, — on the platform, the operator prepares search results in the form of rankings and content categories, and displays to registered users an overview that is oriented towards previously seen videos and that contains recommended videos which can be displayed to registered users, if the operator is not specifically aware of the availability of copyright-infringing content or, after having become aware, expeditiously deletes that content or expeditiously disables access thereto?