ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 5 October 2017 — Finanzamt Linz, Finanzamt Kirchdorf Perg Steyr

(Case C-585/17)

(2018/C 013/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Finanzamt Linz, Finanzamt Kirchdorf Perg Steyr

Intervener: Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH

Questions referred

1. In a situation such as that in the present case, does an amendment to an approved aid scheme whereby a Member State elects no longer to use the approval of that aid in connection with a particular (separable) group of beneficiaries, and thus simply reduces the level of aid granted under an existing aid measure, constitute an alteration of an aid scheme which is subject (in principle) to the obligation to notify laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU?

2. In the event of a formal error in the application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 (1) of 6 August 2008 (general block exemption regulation), is the standstill obligation laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU capable of rendering a restriction of an approved aid scheme inapplicable, with the result that the standstill obligation has the effect of compelling the Member State to pay aid to particular beneficiaries (‘implementation obligation’)?

3a. Does an energy tax rebate scheme such as that at issue here, under which the amount of the energy tax rebate is clearly determined by law on the basis of a calculation formula, fulfil the conditions laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 (2) of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty?

3b. Does Article 58(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 have the effect of exempting such an energy tax rebate scheme for the period from January 2011?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation), OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 3.

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty Text with EEA relevance, OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the shareholder applicants (i.e. the shareholders of Trasta Komercbanka, as opposed to Trasta Komercbanka itself) had no interest in bringing an application for annulment that is separate from the legal interest of Trasta Komercbanka. The first plea in law is based on the following Arguments: — The applicant submits that the General Court has misinterpreted the case law requiring that shareholders show that they possess a separate interest in bringing proceedings against a Decision addressed to the undertaking which they partly controlled. In particular, the General Court erred in law when it held, in its order of 12 September 2017, that this case law did not apply in Case T-247/16 — The shareholder applicants have failed to show they possess a separate interest from the one possessed by Trasta Komercbanka: their legal position has not been affected by the contested decision (as opposed to the initiation of liquidation, which is a distinct act). The shareholder applicants cannot be said to have a legal interest in Trasta Komercbanka having a banking licence which differs from Trasta Komercbanka’s own legal interest in having a banking licence. — In particular, the interest in claiming damages or the shareholders’ economic interest in receiving dividends should not be considered a separate legal interest.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/16

Appeal brought on 14 July 2017 by Vilislav Andreev Kaleychev against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2017 in Case T-58/17: Kaleychev v European Court of Human Rights

(Case C-424/17 P)

(2018/C 022/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Vilislav Andreev Kaleychev (represented by: K. Mladenova, адвокат)

Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights

By order of 22 November 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
2.

If so, can Article 22(a) and Article 21 of the Directive be interpreted to the effect that the authorities in the Member State from which recognition is sought may nevertheless ascertain whether the condition that the overall duration, level and quality of such training should not be lower than those of continuous full-time training is satisfied.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/2

Appeal brought on 3 August 2017 by Morton’s of Chicago Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 May 2017 in Case T-223/15: Morton’s of Chicago v EUIPO

(Case C-468/17 P)

(2018/C 042/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Morton’s of Chicago Inc. (represented by: J. Moss, Barrister, M. Krause, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Mortons the Restaurant Ltd

By order of 13 December 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 November 2017 — SF v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

(Case C-631/17)

(2018/C 063/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SF

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Question referred

The legislation of which Member State is designated by Regulation No 883/2004 (1) in a situation in which the person concerned (a) resides in Latvia, (b) has Latvian nationality, (c) is employed by an employer established in the Netherlands, (d) works as a seafarer, (e) works on board a vessel at sea flying the flag of the Bahamas, and (f) performs those activities outside the territory of the European Union?

(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 (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2017 — Francesca Cadeddu v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Cagliari and Others

(Case C-667/17)

(2018/C 052/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francesca Cadeddu

Defendants: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Cagliari, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Regione autonoma della Sardegna — Agenzia regionale per il lavoro

Question referred

Must Article 80 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083 (1) of 11 July 2006, and also Article 2(4) thereof, be interpreted as precluding a provision such as Article 50(1)(c) of Presidential Decree No 917 of 22 December 1986, according to which ‘(c) sums paid by anyone as a study grant or an allowance, an award or a stipend for the purposes of studying or vocational training, provided that the beneficiary is not in an employment relationship with the person making the payment’ are to be treated as income from employment and, consequently, are subject to personal income tax (IRPEF) even if the study grant is paid with European structural funds?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 8 December 2017 — Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’ v Land Niedersachsen

(Case C-689/17)

(2018/C 094/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’

Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

Question referred

Are residues from damage to a ship at sea in the form of scrap metal and fire extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues on board the ship ‘waste generated on board vehicles, trains, aeroplanes and ships’ for the purposes of Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation No 1013/2006 (1)?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1).
1.

Infringement of the right of freedom of establishment laid down in Article 49 TFEU and in Article 15(2)(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/123/ΕC on services in the internal market. Article 5(1) of Law 3898/2010 together with the related Presidential Decree D. 123/2011 provides that companies that provide mediation training services must exclusively have the legal form of non-profit companies which are set up by at least one Bar Association and at least one of the Professional Chambers in Greece and that their operation is subject to the granting of authorisation by the authority referred to in Article 7 of that law. Those restrictions cover both service providers that seek to be established for the first time in Greece and service providers that seek secondary establishment in the form of a subsidiary. No natural or legal person other than the Bar Associations and the Professional Chambers is permitted to found training service providers for the training of mediators who can, on the basis of that training, take the examination for accreditation as professional mediators in Greece, if that person does not have the support of a Bar Association and a Professional Chamber of Greece. In addition, the reality is that any service provider the current legal form of which is not non-profit making is excluded from the opportunity to provide, on payment of fees, the training of potential mediator candidates who can, on the basis of that training, take the examination for accreditation as professional mediators in Greece. Last, any training provider from another Member State that is interested in providing the service in question on the payment of fees by students who register on mediation training courses is in reality excluded from entering the Greek market and from setting up a secondary establishment in the form of a subsidiary, if its current legal form is not non-profit making and its choice of subsidiary is not confined to non-profit-making entities. The Commission considers that the above provisions establish a restriction on the right of freedom of establishment laid down in Article 49 TFEU and Article 15(2)(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/123/ΕC on the internal market. That restriction is not covered by the exception in Article 51(1) TFEU because the provision of mediator training services is not an activity that is connected to the State, the exercise of official authority or indeed the ‘administration of justice’. Further there is no legal justification in the interest of protecting the quality of the services, since that has no direct connection with the restriction on the legal form of the training service providers and the ownership of share capital.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 20 December 2017 — EN.SA. Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

(Case C-712/17)

(2018/C 112/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: EN.SA. Srl

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

Question referred

‘In the event of transactions found to be non-existent, which did not cause harm to the Treasury and did not confer any tax benefit on the taxpayer, are national rules resulting from the application of Article 19 (Deduction) and 21(7) (Invoicing of transactions) of Decreto de Presidente della Repubblica 633/72 of 16 October 1972 and Article 6(6) of Decreto Legislativo 471 of 18 December 1997 (Breach of obligations relating to documentation, registration and detection of transactions) consistent with the Community principles on VAT laid down by the Court of Justice, when their simultaneous application bring about:

(a) the repeated non-deductibility of tax paid on purchases by the transferee for every transaction at issue which relates to the same person and the same taxable amount;

(b) the application of the tax on, and payment of the tax by, the transferor (and the preclusion of recovery of sums unduly paid) for the corresponding and mirror sale transactions deemed equally non-existent;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 December 2017 — Adelheid Krah v Universität Wien

(Case C-703/17)

(2018/C 123/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Adelheid Krah

Respondent: Universität Wien

Questions referred

Question 1:

Must EU law, in particular Article 45 TFEU, Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding a provision under which previous professionally-relevant periods of service of a member of the teaching staff of the University of Vienna can be recognised only up to a total period of three or four years, irrespective of whether these are periods of service with the University of Vienna or with other national or international universities or similar institutions?

Question 2:

Is a system of pay that does not provide for full recognition of previous professionally-relevant periods of service, but at the same time links a higher rate of pay to the duration of employment with the same employer, at variance with the freedom of movement for workers in accordance with Article 45(2) TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union?

(1) OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: a) What requirements must the packaging of goods satisfy for it to be considered that sealing within the meaning of Article 16(e) of the Consumer Rights Directive exists? and b) Does the information that the trader has to give pursuant to Article 6(1)(k) of the Consumer Rights Directive before the contract becomes binding have to be provided in such a way that the consumer is informed, with specific reference to the article to be purchased (here a mattress) and the seal that is applied, that he will lose the right of withdrawal if he removes the seal?
1.

Question 1: Must Article 24(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the recast Brussels Regulation 2012) be interpreted as meaning that the opposition proceedings provided for in Paragraph 232 of the Exekutionsordnung (Austrian Enforcement Code) in the event of a dispute regarding the distribution of proceeds from a judicially ordered auction come within the scope of application of that provision, even if the action brought by one pledgee against the other pledgee (a) is based on the objection that the latter’s claim arising from a loan agreement, which was secured by a pledge, no longer existed due to a counter-claim of the debtor for damages, and (b) is furthermore based on the objection — similar to an action for avoidance (Anfechtungsklage) — that the creation of the pledge for that claim under a loan agreement was invalid due to the preferential treatment of creditors?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/14

Appeal brought on 15 November 2017 by Arrigoni SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2017 in Case T-454/16 Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Battista (Arrigoni Valtaleggio)

(Case C-642/17 P)

(2018/C 161/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Arrigoni SpA (represented by: P. Di Gravio, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Arrigoni Battista SpA

By Order of 22 March 2018, the Court (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Arrigoni SpA to bear its own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 22 December 2017 by Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2017 in Case T-441/16: Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO

(Case C-726/17 P)

(2018/C 319/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd (represented by: T. Grucelski, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG

By order of 11 July 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case C-355/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Lutz Leupolt v TUIfly GmbH

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Lutz Leupolt v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-355/17)

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lutz Leupolt

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

By decision of the Court of Justice of 28 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/26

Action brought on 6 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-76/18)

(2018/C 112/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, P. Ondrůšek and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2014/25/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC into national law, or by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— impose on the defendant, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, by reason of the infringement of the obligation to notify the transposition measures, a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 42 377 per day;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Member States were required, under Article 106(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU, to adopt the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations under that directive into national law by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Since the Republic of Austria failed to adopt all the required laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive, or failed to give notification of those provisions to the Commission, the Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

By its application, the Commission asks the Court to impose a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 42 377 per day on the Republic of Austria. The amount of that penalty payment has been calculated taking into account the gravity and duration of the infringement and the deterrent effect based on that Member State’s ability to pay.

(1) OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243.
1.

Does Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (1) generally preclude any of the obligations listed below of a host provider which has not expeditiously removed illegal information, specifically not just this illegal information within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a) of the Directive, but also other identically worded items of information: a.a. worldwide? a.b. in the relevant Member State? a.c. of the relevant user worldwide? a.d. of the relevant user in the relevant Member State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/26

Appeal brought on 22 January 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 November 2017 in Case T-180/15: Icap plc and Others v European Commission

(Case C-39/18 P)

(2018/C 142/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Bottka, M. Farley, B. Mongin, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Icap plc, Icap Management Services Ltd, Icap New Zealand Ltd (ICAP)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment (§ § 281-299 and the operative part) insofar as it annuls the fines in Article 2 of the contested decision;

— dismiss the fifth and sixth pleas of ICAP’s application before the General Court, relating to the fines, and establish the appropriate fines on ICAP by applying its unlimited jurisdiction;

— order ICAP to bear the entirety of the costs of these proceedings and to adjust the order on costs in the judgment at first instance in order to reflect the outcome of the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission bases its appeal on the following single ground of appeal:

The Commission submits that in its judgment in Case T-180/15 Icap plc and Others v Commission, EU:T:2017:795 the General Court incorrectly applied the case law of the Court of Justice on the statement of reasons required when imposing fines. The General Court’s judgment deviates from the leading judgment in Case C-194/14 P, AC Treuhand v Commission, EU:C:2015:717, § § 66-68 and imposes a stricter obligation on the Commission to motivate in more detail the methodology used in calculating fines imposed for breaches of Article 101 TFEU, especially when applying point 37 of the Guidelines on Fines. The Commission’s appeal aims at correcting the serious errors of law committed by the General Court, which, if accepted, would be detrimental to the Commission’s ability to determine adequate fines so as to achieve sufficient deterrence. A properly construed duty of reasoning, which corresponds to the case law requirements recalled in Case C-194/14 P, AC Treuhand, § 68, is essential to achieve that aim. By contrast, a stricter obligation of motivation on the fines, encompassing the internal deliberations and calculations of intermediary steps, impinges on the Commission’s margin of discretion in setting fines, including when it relies on point 37 of the Guidelines on Fines. The latter was designed precisely with the purpose of allowing the Commission to deviate from the Guidelines on Fines in atypical cases, such as when imposing fines on facilitators. As the Union Courts have recognised, the Commission needs to preserve its power of assessment and discretion in setting appropriate fines.