ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 3 September 2019 — FP Passenger Service v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-654/19)

(2019/C 406/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FP Passenger Service

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Question referred

Are Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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, to be interpreted as meaning that, when calculating a delay — having regard to the decision of the Court of Justice in Case C-452/13, according to which account is to be taken of the time of the door opening — it is necessary to establish the difference between the actual time of the door opening and the scheduled time of arrival, or the difference between the actual time of the door opening and the time at which it is expected that the door would be opened if the time of arrival was as scheduled?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: (a) In order for an undertaking to be recognised as a body devoted to social wellbeing within the meaning of Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC, is it sufficient if, as a subcontractor, it supplies services to a body recognised under national law as a body devoted to social wellbeing within the meaning of Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC? (b) If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is it sufficient that the expense incurred by the recognised body within the meaning of Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC is borne entirely by the Health Insurance and Care and Support Insurance Funds in order for a subcontractor of that recognised body also to be regarded as a recognised body? (c) If Questions 2(a) and 2(b) are answered in the negative: In order for a taxable person to be recognised as a body devoted to social wellbeing, may a Member State subject such recognition to the condition that the taxable person has actually entered into a contract with a social security or social welfare authority, or is it sufficient if a contract with that taxable person could be entered into under national law?
3.

Is legislation providing that the highest price out of the following three variants must be used compatible with Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, that is to say, compatible with the determination of an equitable price? 3.1. the price at which the offeror or persons acting in concert with the latter acquired the shares of the offeree company in the preceding 12 months. In the event of the acquisition of shares at different prices, the buyback price is to be the highest price at which shares were purchased during the 12 months preceding the legal obligation to submit a buyback offer; 3.2. the weighted average share price on the regulated market or on the multilateral trading facility via which the largest volume of the shares were traded during the last 12 months. The weighted average share price is to be calculated on the basis of the 12 months preceding the legal obligation to submit a buyback offer; 3.3. the share value calculated by dividing the net assets of the offeree company by the number of shares issued. Net assets are to be calculated by deducting the offeree company’s own shares and liabilities from its total assets. If the offeree company has shares with different nominal values, in order to calculate the share value, the net assets are to be divided by the percentage of each nominal share value in the share capital.
Appeal brought on 30 July 2019 by Holzer y Cia, SA de CV against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 23 May 2019 in Joined Cases T-3/18 and T-4/18: Holzer y Cia v EUIPO - Annco

(Case C-582/19 P)

(2019/C 413/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (represented by: N.A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Annco, Inc.

By order of 22 October 2019 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Holzer y Cia, SA de CV, shall bear its own costs.
2.

Is the date for assessing the novelty of a design for which unregistered Community design protection is claimed, within the meaning of art.5(l)(a) of the Regulation, the date on which the unregistered Community design protection for the design came into being according to art.11 of the Regulation, or alternatively the date on which the relevant event of disclosure of the design, within the meaning of art.7(1) of the Regulation, could reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community (assuming that the design was not disclosed in confidence within the terms of the final sentence of art.7(1)), or alternatively some other, and if so, which date?
2.

In particular: 2.1. Does the fact that an individual has the right to engage sub-contractors or ‘substitutes’ to perform all or any part of the work or services required of him mean that he is not to be regarded as a worker for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC either: 2.1.1. at all (the right to substitute being inconsistent with the status of worker); or 2.1.2. only in respect of any period of time when exercising such right of substitution (so that he is to be regarded as a worker in relation to periods of time actually spent performing work or services)? 2.2. Is it material to a determination of worker status for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC that the particular claimant has not in fact availed himself of the right to sub-contract or use a substitute, where others engaged on materially the same terms have done so? 2.3. Is it material to a determination of worker status for the purposes of Directive 2003/88/EC that other entities including limited companies and limited liability partnerships are engaged on materially the same terms as the particular claimant?
Action brought on 23 October 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-788/19)

(2019/C 432/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Gossement and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that — by establishing consequences of the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Modelo 720’ (‘Form 720’), which include the classification of those assets as unjustified capital gains which are not subject to the statute of limitation; — by automatically imposing a fixed penalty payment of 150 % applicable in the event of the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Modelo 720’; and — by applying fixed penalty payments in respect of the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Modelo 720’, the level of which is higher than that of the penalties laid down by the general rules on similar infringements;

— the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21, 45, 56 and 63 TFEU, and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Spanish tax legislation imposes an obligation on tax residents in Spain to declare certain overseas assets and rights by means of a tax declaration form (‘Modelo 720’). Specific penalty provisions are to be applied if that obligation is not fulfilled or is fulfilled improperly.

The Commission concludes that penalties involving the classification of such assets as capital gains, the non-application of the normal rules on limitation periods and fixed penalty payments constitute a restriction of the fundamental freedoms under the TFEU and the EEA. Although in principle those measures may be appropriate for the purposes of achieving the aims pursued — which are to prevent and counter tax avoidance and tax evasion — they are disproportionate.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 21 August 2019 by Luz Saúde, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2019 in Case T-357/18 Luz Saúde v EUIPO – Clínica La Luz

(Case C-622/19 P)

(2019/C 432/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Luz Saúde, SA (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio, P. Guerra e Andrade, G. Moreira Rato and M. Stock da Cunha, advogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Clínica La Luz

By order of 5 November 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Luz Saúde, SA, to bear its own costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 4 November 2019 — Danske Bank A/S v Skatteverket

(Case C-812/19)

(2020/C 19/34)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Danske Bank A/S, Danmark, Sverige Filial

Defendant: Skatteverket

Question referred

Does a Swedish branch of a bank established in another Member State constitute an independent taxable person where the principal establishment supplies services to the branch and imputes the costs thereof to the branch, if the principal establishment is part of a VAT group in the other Member State, while the Swedish branch is not a member of any Swedish VAT group? (1)

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Appeal brought on 2 September 2019 by Mr Klaus Nonnemacher against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 20 June 2019 in Case T-389/18 Klaus Nonnemacher v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-659/19 P)

(2020/C 10/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Klaus Nonnemacher (represented by: C. Rohnke, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Paul Ingram

By order of 19 November 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 October 2019 — Bartosch Airport Supply Services

(Case C-772/19)

(2020/C 27/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bartosch Airport Supply Services GmbH

Defendant: Zollamt Wien

Question referred

Is heading 8705 of the Combined Nomenclature (1) to be interpreted as meaning that towbarless motor vehicles with a pulling winch with belt pulling device for pulling aircraft and an electrohydraulic lifting device for pushing aircraft fall under this heading?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 28 March 2019 by WB against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2019 in Case T-579/18 WB v Commission

(Case C-270/19 P)

(2020/C 27/11)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: WB (represented by: N. Ciocea, avocată)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 3 December 2019, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.
1.

Are Paragraphs 6(1) and 27(1) of the EG-Fahrzeuggenehmigungsverordnung (EC Vehicle Approval Regulation; EG-FGV) (1) and/or Articles 18(1) and 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the manufacturer is in breach of its obligation to issue a valid certificate pursuant to Paragraph 6(1) of the EG-FGV (and/or of its obligation to deliver a certificate of conformity pursuant to Article 18(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC), if it has installed in the vehicle an impermissible defeat device within the meaning of Articles 5(2) and 3.10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, (3) and that the placing of such a vehicle on the market is in breach of the prohibition on placing a vehicle on the market without a valid certificate of conformity pursuant to Paragraph 27(1) of the EG-FGV (and/or of the prohibition of sale without a valid certificate of conformity pursuant to Article 26(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC)? If that question is to be answered in the affirmative: 1 a. Are Paragraphs 6 and 27 of the EG-FGV and/or Articles 18(1), 26(1) and 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC also aimed at protecting the end customer and — in the case of resale on the second-hand market — in particular the subsequent car buyer, including in relation to his freedom of disposal and his assets? Does a car buyer’s acquisition of a used vehicle that has been placed on the market without a valid certificate of conformity come within the area of the risks for the prevention of which these standards were adopted?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 30 September 2019 by Guy Steifer against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-331/17, Steifer v EESC

(Case C-727/19 P)

(2020/C 36/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Guy Steifer (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee

By order of 12 December 2019, the Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.
2.

Are the requirements referred to in Question 1 breached in a situation where the parties can lodge an extraordinary appeal against a judgment handed down in court proceedings such as those described in Question 1, and this extraordinary appeal is lodged with a court such as the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), the decisions of which cannot be the subject of appeal under national law, and national law imposes on the president of the organisational unit of that court (chamber) competent to hear the appeal the obligation to allocate cases in accordance with an alphabetical list of judges of that chamber, expressly prohibiting the omission of any judge, and the judges among whom the cases are allocated include a person appointed upon the motion of a collegiate body such as the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), the members of which are judges: (a) elected by a chamber of parliament which votes for a list of candidates drawn up in advance by a parliamentary committee from among the candidates nominated by parliamentary factions or a body of that chamber of parliament on the basis of proposals from groups of judges or citizens, and as a result there are three occasions on which the candidates receive support from politicians during the election procedure; (b) who represent a majority of the members of that collegiate body sufficient to make decisions on submitting motions for appointments to judicial positions as well as other binding decisions required under national law?
Appeal brought on 28 November 2019 by Aeris Invest Sàrl against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2019 in Case T-599/18, Aeris Invest v SRB

(Case C-874/19 P)

(2020/C 45/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, A. Sellés Marco, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Forms of order sought

The appellant contends that the Court should:

— set aside the order delivered by the General Court on 10 October 2019, Aeris Invest v SRC, T-599/18, EU:T:2019:740, in so far it found the action to be inadmissible;

— remit the case to the General Court for judgment, bound by the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law, in accordance with the forms of order sought by the appellant at first instance; and

— reserve the decision as to costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the order under appeal infringes Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 12) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). According to the appellant, the act contested before the General Court has binding legal effects in so far as the definitive valuation is an integral part of the resolution decision.

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the order under appeal infringes Article 17 of the Charter. The interpretation of Article 20 of Regulation 806/2014 in the order under appeal is incompatible with the right to property in so far as its permits interference with the appellant’s right to property without any compensation.

According to the third ground of appeal, the order under appeal infringes Article 20(11)(b) of Regulation 806/2014. After the resolution decision was taken and the shares were written down, the former shareholders of Banco Popular became creditors of that entity. Hence Article 20(11)(b) of Regulation 806/2014 is applicable to the former shareholders since that provision lays down the obligation to make a decision on whether to ‘write back creditors’ claims’ in the light of the definitive valuation.

Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the order under appeal infringes Article 20(11) and (14) of Regulation 806/2014 and Article 41 of the Charter by not taking into account that the contested act has binding legal effects on the appellant since it prevents AERIS from having access to up-to-date, complete information on the accounting position of an entity in which AERIS had a 3.45% shareholding.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 5 November 2019 — Flavourstream SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală a Vămilor — Direcția Regională Vamală Brașov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu

(Case C-822/19)

(2020/C 54/31)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants, defendants at first instance: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală a Vămilor — Direcția Regională Vamală Brașov — Biroul Vamal de Interior Sibiu

Respondent, applicant at first instance: Flavourstream SRL

Question referred

Must the nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Implementing Regulation 2016/1821, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the product ‘AURIC GMO FREE’, which is at issue in the present case, is to be classified under tariff subheading 17 029 095 or subheading 29 124 900 of that nomenclature?

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2016 L 294, p. 1).
Infringement of the provisions of the Treaties of the European Union relating to the competences of the European Union

The General Court erred in law when, in breach of the principle of conferral of powers enshrined in Article 5(2) of the Treaty on European Union, it equated the values laid down in Article 2 TEU with a specific action/objective within the framework of the competence of the European Union and called on the Commission to submit specific acts whose main objective is respect for the rights of persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities and for rich cultural and linguistic diversity.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 December 2019 — Samohýl group a. s. v Generální ředitelství cel

(Case C-941/19)

(2020/C 68/38)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Samohýl group a. s.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Question referred

Should the product labelled ‘Bob Martin Clear 50 mg roztok pro nakapání na kůži — spot-on pro kočky’ made available in pipettes (0.5 ml), which contains the active substance fipronil (50 mg per pipette) and the excipients butylated hydroxyanisole E 320, butylated hydroxytoluene E 321, benzyl alcohol and diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, be classified under heading 3004 or heading 3808 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Customs Tariff?
2.

Is Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 to be interpreted as permitting a driver to derogate from the provisions of Article 15(2) and (7) of Regulation No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, which has been replaced by Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, under which the driver must be able to produce, whenever an inspecting officer so requests, the record sheets and any manual record and printout made during the current day and the previous 28 days, where a vehicle is used, during a period of 28 days, for some journeys falling within the exception referred to above, and some journeys in respect of which there is no relevant derogation from the requirement to use recording equipment?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2019 — Natumi GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-815/19)

(2020/C 77/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Natumi GmbH

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Other party: The Representative of the Federal Interest before the Federal Administrative Court

Questions referred

1. Is Article 28 of Regulation No 889/2008, (1) read in conjunction with point 1.3 of Annex IX thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that the alga Lithothamnium calcareum may be used as an ingredient in the processing of organic food?

2. In the event that that question is to be answered in the affirmative: Is the use of dead algae also permitted?

3. In the event that the second question is also to be answered in the affirmative: For a product that contains the (dead) alga Lithothamnium calcareum as an ingredient and is labelled with the indication ‘Organic’, is the use of the indications ‘contains calcium’, ‘contains calcium-rich sea alga’ or ‘contains high-quality calcium from the sea alga Lithothamnium’ permitted?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ 2008 L 250, p. 1).