ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1)

Should Article 2(1)(c) and Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the transport of school pupils, on the basis of an arrangement as described in the present judgment, a municipality should to this extent be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of that directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 6 November 2014 — The Romanian State v Tamara Văraru and Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

(Case C-496/14)

(2015/C 046/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: The Romanian State, represented by the Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu in the name and on behalf of the Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

Respondents: Tamara Văraru and Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

Question referred

Are Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 20, 21(1), 24(1), 34(1) and (2) and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Ordonanță de Urgență a Guvernului No 111/2010, which provides that the second-born, third-born and so on of multiple births, the first-born of multiple births and children born as single births are to be treated differently?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland) (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2014 — Dieter Wedzel, Karin Wedzel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-466/14)

(2015/C 073/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dieter Wedzel, Karin Wedzel

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.
Appeal brought on 28 November 2014 by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-490/12: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-548/14 P)

(2015/C 073/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA (represented by: G. Dragotti, R. Valenti, S. Balice, E. Varese, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Grazia Equity GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside points 25 to 33 and 68 to 83 of the appealed judgment on all the grounds set out in the appeal;

— uphold applicant’s action against the Board of Appeal decision or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration, and;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the Applicant, both at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant maintains that the Appealed Judgment should be partially set aside on the following grounds:

A. the General Court (‘GC’) erred in law in ruling out the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (‘CTMR’) (1) without considering the case-law of this Court on the complementarity of goods and services and the principle of interdependence; the GC also disregarded or distorted the facts and evidence submitted to it by AME regarding the similarity of the goods and services concerned, at least in connection with the notion of complementarity.

B. the GC infringed Article 8(5) CTMR on the following grounds: i. the GC erred in law in allotting a specific degree of reputation of AME's trademark, which is not required for the purpose of the implementation of the enhanced protection conferred by Article 8 (5) CTMR; furthermore, the GC did not comply with the criteria set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice for assessing the degree of reputation of a trademark. ii. the GC erred in law in ruling out the existence of a link between the marks on the basis of an assessment of the relevant factors (i.e. the nature of the goods or services concerned, the relevant section of the public, the strength of the earlier mark's reputation, the degree of the earlier mark's distinctive character) which is not compliant with the criteria set out by the case-law of the Court of Justice in the application of Article 8 (5) CTMR; the GC also erred in considering the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, which is not required for the application of Article 8 (5) CTMR. iii. the GC erred in law in denying the application of Article 8(5) CTMR without having assessed whether the applied for sign could take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the earlier and reputed mark.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark OJ L 78, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2014 — Mrs Sandra Bitter, lawyer, as insolvency administrator of Ziegelwerk Höxter GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-580/14)

(2015/C 096/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mrs Sandra Bitter, lawyer, as insolvency administrator of Ziegelwerk Höxter GmbH

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Question referred

Does the second sentence of Article 16(3) [of Directive 2003/87/EC] (1), according to which the excess emissions penalty shall be EUR 100 for each tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted for which the operator or aircraft operator has not surrendered allowances, infringe the principle of proportionality?

(1) 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 (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
2.

Does Article 7(f) of the Data Protection Directive preclude a provision in national law under which a service provider may collect and use a user’s personal data without his consent only to the extent necessary in order to facilitate, and charge for, the specific use of the telemedium by the user concerned, and under which the purpose of ensuring the general operability of the telemedium cannot justify use of the data beyond the end of the particular use of the telemedium?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland), lodged on 5 June 2014 — Jednostka Innowacyjno-Wdrożeniowa Petrol S.C. Paczuski Maciej i Puławski Ryszard v Minister Finansów

(Case C-275/14)

(2015/C 171/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jednostka Innowacyjno-Wdrożeniowa Petrol S.C. Paczuski Maciej i Puławski Ryszard

Defendant: Minister Finansów

By order of 5 February 2015, the Court held that the second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1) must be construed as precluding national provisions, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, which impose excise duty on additives coming under heading 3811 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, at a rate which differs from that applied to the fuel to which they are added.

The second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by an individual as against the competent national authority in the context of proceedings before a national court which seek to have set aside the application of national legal rules which are at variance with that provision.

(1) OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/12

Appeal brought on 25 November 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2014 in Case T-341/13: Groupe Léa Nature SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-537/14 P)

(2015/C 118/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: D. Selden, advocate, T. Alkin, barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Groupe Léa Nature SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the decision annulling the decision of the Bord of Appeal;

— Remit the case to the General Court for further consideration with a direction that the marks in issue are similar;

— Order the Respondent to pay the costs both of the proceedings before the General Court and those before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The Appellant relies on two pleas in law, namely infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR (1). In summary the appellant submits that the General Court failed to apply settled case law in its analysis of the marks in issue with the result that it wrongly concluded that the marks are entirely dissimilar.

2. First, having found the marks phonetically similar by virtue of the common element ‘so’, the General Court should have concluded that they were similar overall, at least to that extent. Its conclusion that they were dissimilar, despite the common phonetic element, was the result of a failure to apply settled case law on the nature and degree of similarity required for the application of Article 8(1)(b)/8(5).

3. Secondly, having held the marks to be phonetically similar, the General Court should have concluded that they were also visually similar, for essentially similar reasons (and therefore a fortiori similar within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b)/8(5)). Its conclusion that they were visually dissimilar, despite the common visual element ‘so’, was the result of a failure to apply settled case law when analyzing the visual impact of the ‘so’ element within the marks.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/11

Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 November 2014 in Case T-399/11 Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission

(Case C-21/15 P)

(2015/C 081/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Banco Santander, S.A. and Santusa Holding, S.L.

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

— reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 107(1) TFEU and, in particular, the concept of selectivity of State aid contained in that article.

That single ground of appeal consists of two parts, which derive from the aforementioned error of law:

— in the first place, the General Court erred by requiring, in order to demonstrate that a measure is selective, the identification of a category of undertakings with specific and inherent characteristics (identifiable ex ante); and
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: (a) Is it sufficient for a financing obligation to exist that the provider concerned provides postal services which are to be classified under the national rules as universal services, but which go beyond the mandatory minimum range of universal services under the directive? (b) When determining an undertaking’s share of the financial contributions, is one to proceed in the same way as when determining the financial contributions to the compensation fund under Article 7(4) of the directive? (c) Do the requirement to respect the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality within the meaning of Article 7(5) of the directive and the ‘taking account of inter-changeability with the universal service’ within the meaning of recital 27 in the preamble to Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 then mean that shares of turnover which are attributed to value-added services, hence postal services not assignable to the universal service, but which are connected with the universal service, are excluded and are not taken into account when determining the share?
—

authorise ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to effect the attachment of assets of the Commission in Greece, in order to achieve satisfaction of the claim for the amount of EUR 6 752,74, together with interest on late payment calculated from 12.8.2010 until its full and complete payment, at an interest rate of 1 % per annum;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2015 — Josef Plöckl v Finanzamt Schrobenhausen

(Case C-24/15)

(2015/C 138/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Josef Plöckl

Defendant: Finanzamt Schrobenhausen

Question referred

Do Article 22(8), the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) and Article 28c(A)(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 permit Member States to refuse to grant a tax exemption in respect of an intra-Community supply (in this instance, an intra-Community transfer) where, although the supplier has not taken all the measures that can reasonably be expected of him from the point of view of the formal requirements applicable to the recording of the [VAT] identification number, there is no specific evidence of tax evasion, the goods have been moved to another Member State and the other conditions of exemption from tax are also met?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/45

Appeal brought on 27 February 2015 by Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2014 in Case T-72/09: Pilkington Group Limited and Others v Commission

(Case C-101/15 P)

(2015/C 138/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA (represented by: S. Wisking and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside in part the Judgment in Case T-72/09 to the extent to which it dismisses the action brought against Article 2(c) of the Decision;

— reduce the fine imposed on the Appellants in Article 2(c) of the Decision;

— order the Commission to pay the Appellants' costs in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the Judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

First, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of point 13 of the Commission's 2006 Fining Guidelines (1) in considering that the Commission was entitled to take into account, when determining the relevant value of sales, sales made pursuant to contracts that pre-dated the infringement period and that were not re-negotiated during the infringement period. As such sales cannot have been affected by the infringement, it was not legally correct to take them into account when determining the basic amount of the fine.

Second, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (2) in considering that the final amount of the fine did not exceed the statutory 10 % cap. The appropriate exchange rate to calculate the 10 % cap is not the ECB average exchange rate for the financial year preceding the year of adoption of the Decision, but the ECB exchange rate applicable on the day the Decision was adopted.

Third, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the rules on equal treatment and proportionality and by failing to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction with the intensity required by the case law of the Court of Justice.

(1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 OJ C 210, p. 2

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (now Articles 101 and 102 TFEU), OJ L 1, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/28

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 26 February 2015 — Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC v Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects

(Case C-96/15)

(2015/C 146/34)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC

Defendant: Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects

Questions referred

1. Are Article 15(2) and (8) of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (1), applied in the light of recitals 9 and 11 in the preamble thereto and the judgments in Zuckerfabrik Jülich I and II, and the general Community law principles of proportionality, freedom to conduct a business and the prohibition of unjust enrichment to be interpreted as meaning that a sugar manufacturer is entitled to reimbursement of production levies paid on the basis of the quantities of quota sugar still held in stock on 30 June 2006, as the production levy system was not renewed after that date by Council Regulation No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 (2)?

2. (a) If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, must the amount of levies to be reimbursed to manufacturers be based solely on the tonnage of sugar held in stock on 30 June 2006? (b) If the preceding question is answered in the negative, must the tonnage of sugar to be taken as the basis for reimbursement of the levies be based on variations in Community sugar stock levels between 1 July 2001and 30 June 2006?

3. May the calculation of the levy to be repaid reasonably be arrived at by multiplying the quantity of sugar deemed to be held in stock in response to in Question 2 by the weighted average of the ‘average losses’ established during the 2001/2006 COM, or must it be calculated differently and, if so, how?

4. If the foregoing questions are answered in the affirmative, is Regulation No 164/2007 of 19 February 2007 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3) invalid?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1).

(3) OJ 2007 L 51, p. 17.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/35

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Catanzaro (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2015 — Esse Di Emme Costruzioni Srl v Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Calabria, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-59/15)

(2015/C 138/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Catanzaro

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Esse Di Emme Costruzioni Srl

Defendants: Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Calabria, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Question referred

Is it contrary to the principle laid down by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, made applicable to the sphere of procurement contracts by Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1), that everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal, for a provision of national law, such as that set out in Articles 9, 13 and 14 of Decree of the President of the Republic No 115 of 30 May 2002, applicable to the circumstances of the case, to provide, for access to administrative court proceedings relating to procedures for the award of public contracts, for payment of a greater amount of a standard fee than that fixed for access to administrative court proceedings in other spheres?

(1) Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).
2.

Does Article 12 of Directive 2006/123 (1) preclude a national provision, such as Article 1(18) of Decree Law No 194 of 30 December 2009, converted into law by Law No 25 of 26 February 2010, as amended and supplemented, which permits the automatic extension of existing concessions of State-owned maritime property for tourist and leisure-oriented business activities to 31 December 2015, or to 31 December 2020, pursuant to Article 34k of Decree Law No 179 of 18 October 2012, inserted by Article 1(1) of Law No 221 of 17 December 2012 converting the aforesaid decree law into law?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (España) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez v Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea

(Case C-118/15)

(2015/C 171/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez

Defendants: Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea

Questions referred

Does Article 1(1)(b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001, in conjunction with Article 4(1) thereof, preclude an interpretation of the Spanish legislation intended to give effect to the Directive, to the effect that a public-sector undertaking, responsible for a service central to its own activities and requiring important material resources, that has been providing that service by means of a public contract, requiring the contractor to use those resources which it owns, is not subject to the obligation to take over the rights and obligations relating to employment relationships when it decides not to extend the contract but to assume direct responsibility for its performance, using its own staff and thereby excluding the staff employed by the contractor, so that the service continues to be provided without any change other than that arising as a result of the replacement of the workers performing the activities and the fact that they are employed by a different employer?

(1) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.