ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

declare that, by restricting access to public transport passes with preferential fares for students who pursue their studies in the Netherlands to Netherlands students who are enrolled in private and public educational establishments in the Netherlands and to students from other Member States who are economically active or have obtained a permanent right of residence in the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 TFEU (in conjunction with Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU), and Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/3

Appeal brought on 20 February 2014 by Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2013 in Case T-389/13: Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-101/14 P)

2014/C 303/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (represented by: P. Leander, T. Kronhöffer, advocates)

Other party: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

By order of 17 July 2014 the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
3.

Having regard to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, is it permissible for a deeming provision such as that in Article 22(7) ZADS (Bulgarian Law on excise duties and tax warehouses) to be enacted with immediate effect (that is to say, without providing any reasonable period for market participants to adjust their behaviour) if it restricts refunds of excise duty on alcohol used as a cleaning material in the case where the exemption from excise duty has been enacted by the Member State within the scope of its discretion?
1.

In the light of recital 15 in its preamble, is Regulation No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of an exceptional circumstance — which leads the air carrier, after that circumstance has occurred, to deliberately reroute flights and to first reschedule those flights which were directly affected by the exceptional circumstance — can justify a delay within the meaning of Article 5 of that regulation and release the air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004 to the passenger whose flight was operated only after the exceptional circumstance had been dealt with and all flights could be rescheduled?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Article 10(3) of Regulation No 561/2006/EC (1) preclude the adoption of a national law by the Member State which, in the event of breach of the requirements laid down by the Regulation, provides for the imposition of a penalty on the driver who actually committed the breach in addition to or instead of the transport company?
3.

May Article 6 of Directive 2000/78 be interpreted as permitting a Member State which has transposed that provision into national law to determine, in the context of judicial proceedings, whether European directives have been inadequately or incorrectly transposed into national law as regards the assessment of the ‘[objective and reasonable justification]’ for the application of a difference in treatment, and also the ‘legitimate aim’ considered by the legislature when adopting the legislation under which provision is made for a difference in treatment?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/37

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2014 — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Case C-284/14)

2014/C 315/59

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS)

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Question referred

Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) valid, even though it was based not on an independent anti-dumping investigation carried out shortly before its adoption but on the continuation of an anti-dumping investigation which had at that time already been carried out in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007, the conduct of which, however, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment of 22 May 2012 in GLS C-338/10, (2) held to have infringed the requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, (3) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, (4) with the consequence that the Court, in that judgment, declared Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China, (5) adopted on the basis of that investigation, to be invalid?

(1) OJ 2013 L 49, p. 29.

(2) ECLI:EU:C:2012:158.

(3) OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.

(4) OJ 2005 L 340, p. 17.

(5) OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35.
First, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’ or ‘the Treaty’) in conjunction with Article 263 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness, the principle of conferral of powers, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of continuity of the legal order, the temporal application of law, the principle of legitimate expectations and the principles governing succession of legal rules, insofar as it annulled certain Commission decisions intended to carry out the Commission’s obligations under the judgments in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-241/03, Boyle and others v Commission and Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P, Flaherty and others v Commission. The contested judgment finds that the Commission had a duty to take the necessary measures to comply with those judgments but that it had no competence to do so.
1.

Should Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2010/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) be interpreted as meaning that the form and content of a service under examination can be considered to be sufficiently comparable to the form and content of television broadcasting if such services are also offered in television broadcasting which can be regarded as mass media and which are intended for reception by, and could have a clear impact on, a significant proportion of the general public?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 11 August 2014 — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Sodiaal International

(Case C-383/14)

2014/C 361/06

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Defendant: Sodiaal International

Question referred

Do the provisions of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 (1), pursuant to which limitation becomes effective at the latest on the day on which a period equal to twice the limitation period expires without the competent authority having imposed a penalty, except where the administrative procedure has been suspended in accordance with Article 6(1) thereof, apply exclusively where the competent authority has not imposed any sanction within the meaning of Article 5 of the regulation, on the expiry of a period equal to twice the limitation period, or do they also apply in the absence of any administrative measure, for the purposes of Article 4 thereof, being taken within that period?

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ L 312, p. 1).
1.

Are Article 56 of the Worker’s Statute (Royal legislative decree 1/1995 of 24 March), the Fifth transitional provision of Law 3/2012 of 6 July on urgent measures for the reform of the labour market and Articles 123 and 124.13 of Law 36/2011 of 10 October governing the social courts (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Social, which refers to the other provisions) contrary to Articles 107 and 108 of the consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, inasmuch as they materially increase the compensation authorised by the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?
1.

Is Article 1(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) of 16 December 2008 legally sufficient in itself and complete/unconditional and sufficiently clear so that, although that particular provision of the directive has not been transposed into the national law of the Member State/the Greek State, it has direct effect and can be relied on by an individual who derives rights from it before the national courts, and the latter are required to take that provision into account?
4)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2014 — Dorothea Eckert and Karl-Heinz Dallner v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-380/14)

2014/C 421/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dorothea Eckert, Karl-Heinz Dallner

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

By order of the Court of Justice of 9 September 2014, the present case was removed from the Court’s Register.
3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 106(2) TFEU. The judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law in the application of Article 106(2) TFEU. It distorts DTS’ arguments — directed at showing that the method by which the aid to RTVE is financed distorts competition disproportionately — interpreting them as though they concerned the effects of the aid itself and not the effects of the tax by which it is financed. As a consequence, the judgment under appeal rules ultra petita on matters that were not raised by DTS in the application, nor analysed by the Commission in its Decision, thereby modifying the subject-matter of the dispute and exceeding the limits of the General Court’s judicial review jurisdiction.
2.

If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used for the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time-limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time-limit to be calculated?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia (Italy) of 21 May 2014 — Vittoria De Bellis and Others v Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza dei Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)

(Case C-246/14)

2014/C 421/25

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale Per la Regione Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vittoria De Bellis, Diana Perrone, Cesaria Antonia Villani

Defendant: Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza dei Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)

By order of 15 October 2014, the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared that it clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred.
3)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?
—

set aside the order of the General Court of 10 July 2014 in Case T-271/10 H v. Council of the European Union, European Commission and ‘EUPM’, insofar as it rejects the Applicant’s action seeking the annulment of the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Head of the personnel of the EUPM, by which the Applicant was redeployed to the post of ‘Criminal Justice Adviser-Prosecutor’ in the regional office of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and, if necessary, of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of Mission, referred to in Article 6 of the Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009, on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) (1), and second, for damages;
1)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 September 2014 — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

(Case C-453/14)

(2014/C 462/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg

Intervening party: Rudolf Mathis

Questions referred

Is Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), having regard to Article 45 TFEU, to be interpreted as meaning that old-age pensions under an occupational pension scheme (which is initiated and guaranteed by the state, is intended to enable the previous standard of living of the individual concerned to be maintained in an appropriate way, operates on the basis of the principle of capitalisation, is compulsory in principle but may also provide for ‘supplementary, non-compulsory’ contributions that exceed the statutory minimum amount and for correspondingly higher benefits, and the implementation of which falls to a pension fund to be set up or used by the employer, such as — in the present case — the ‘second-pillar’ pension scheme in Liechtenstein), and old-age pensions under a statutory pension scheme (which is likewise initiated and guaranteed by the state, is intended to enable the previous standard of living of the individual concerned to be maintained in an appropriate way, but operates on the basis of the ‘pay-as-you-go’ principle, and the implementation of which falls to pension insurance funds established by statute, such as — in the present case — Austria’s pension scheme) are ‘equivalent’ within the meaning of the abovementioned provision?

(1) OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.
1.

With regard to terminal equipment for a terrestrial mobile radio communication service, are the following provisions of national legislation compatible with EU law (Directives 1999/5/EC, (1) 2002/19/EC, (2) 2002/20/EC, (3) 2002/21/EC (4) and 2002/22/EC (5)): — Article 2(4) of Decree-Law No 4/2014 (subsequently converted into Law No 50/2014); — Article 160 of Legislative Decree No 259/2003; — Article 21 of the Tariff annexed to Presidential Decree No 641/1972; which, equating terminal equipment with radio stations, require a user to obtain a general authorisation and to be issued with a special licence for a radio station, and deem those activities to be chargeable events? Accordingly, with specific reference to the use of terminal equipment, is the obligation imposed by the Italian State on users to obtain a general authorisation and a licence for a radio station compatible with EU law when the placing on the market, the free movement and the putting into service of terminal equipment is already comprehensively governed by EU instruments (Directive 1999/5/EC) which do not lay down any requirement for general authorisation and/or for a licence? Additionally, are the general authorisation and the licence required under national legislation compatible with EU law despite the following facts: — a general authorisation is a measure which is not for a user of terminal equipment, but rather for businesses involved in the provision of electronic communications networks and services (Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Authorisation Directive 2002/20/EC); — a licence is intended to grant individual rights to use radio frequencies and to use numbers, which are clearly not related to the use of terminal equipment; — the EU legislation does not impose any obligation to obtain a general authorisation or to be issued with a licence for terminal equipment; — Article 8 of Directive 1999/5/EC provides that Member States ‘shall not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market and putting into service in their territory of apparatus bearing the CE marking’; — a radio station is different — in substantive terms and in terms of its mode of regulation, as well as by its very nature — from terminal equipment for a terrestrial mobile radio communication service?
1.

On the one hand, pursuant to Article 10(9)(a) of the CIRS, if the shareholder is no longer resident in Portugal, capital gains resulting from a share exchange will form part of the taxable income of the calendar year in which the change of place of residence occurred. Under that same article, the value of the capital gains corresponds to the difference between the actual value of the shares received and the value of the older shares at the time of their purchase. By contrast, if the shareholder is resident in Portugal, the value of the shares received is the same as that of those transferred, without prejudice to the taxation of any monetary sums paid for the shares which were transferred. That is to say, where a taxable person remains resident in Portugal a share exchange gives rise to the immediate taxation of the capital gains generated only and in so far as an additional monetary payment is made. If there is no such payment, the capital gains tax will be levied only if and when the shares received have been definitively divested. Pursuant to Article 10(10) of the CIRS, the same tax regime is applicable to the allocation of shares in the case of mergers or the division of companies, to which Article 74 of the Código do imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas colectivas (Law on corporate taxation) applies.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 14 November 2014 — Pebros Servizi s.r.l. v Aston Martin Lagonda Limited

(Case C-511/14)

(2015/C 034/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Bologna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pebros Servizi s.r.l.

Defendant: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited

Question referred

In the case of a judgment in default (of appearance), given against the defendant in default of appearance/failing to appear without, moreover, there being any express acknowledgement of the law by the defendant in default/failing to appear;

Is it for national law to decide whether such procedural conduct amounts to non-contestation, for the purposes of Regulation No 805/2004/EC of 21 April 2004 (1), published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 30 April 2004, which could possibly, under national law, negate the uncontested nature of the claim

or

Does a judgment in default of appearance constitute, by reason of its very nature alone, on the basis of EU law, non-contestation, with the result that Regulation No 805/2004 applies, irrespective of the assessment of the national court?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 13 November 2014 — Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) v Luis Aira Pascual and Others

(Case C-509/14)

(2015/C 026/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF)

Defendant: Luis Aira Pascual, Algeposa Terminales Ferroviarios, S.L. and FOGASA

Question 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.
3)

Ought not any precautionary measures that might be adopted, either of the court’s own motion or at the request of one or other of the parties, in proceedings in which an individual action is brought, to have effect until final judgment shall have been given either in the individual action or in a collective action that could interfere with the bringing of individual actions, in order to ensure the adequate and effective means provided for in Article 7 of the Directive?