ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) v Ministre de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Premier minister, Bionoor, Ecocert France, Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)

(Case C-497/17)

(2017/C 347/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA)

Respondents: Ministre de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Premier ministre, Bionoor, Ecocert France, Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)

Question referred

Must the applicable rules of European Union law, deriving from, inter alia:

— Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

— Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007, (1) the detailed rules for the implementation of which are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008, (2) and

— Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 (3)

be interpreted as permitting or prohibiting approval of the use of the European label ‘organic farming’ in relation to products derived from animals which have been slaughtered in accordance with religious rites without first being stunned, where such slaughter is conducted in accordance with the requirements laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1).

(2) 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).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/28

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 July 2017 — Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH v EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

(Case C-437/17)

(2017/C 382/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

Defendant: EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

Question referred

Are Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1) on freedom of movement for workers to be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as that in the main proceedings (Paragraph 3(2)(1) in conjunction with Paragraph 3(3) and Paragraph 2(1) of the Urlaubsgesetz (Law on holidays, ‘the UrlG’)), under which a worker who has a total of 25 years of service, but has not completed these with the same Austrian employer, is entitled to only five weeks of annual holiday, whereas a worker who has completed 25 years of service with the same Austrian employer is entitled to six weeks of holiday per year.

(1) 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, OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Carmelina Scaglione

(Case C-488/17)

(2017/C 374/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Party to the main proceedings

Carmelina Scaglione

Questions referred

1. Must the Annex to Decision 2014/955/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 (2) be interpreted, with reference to the classification of waste to which mirror codes have been assigned, as meaning that the producer of the waste must, when the composition of the waste is not known, carry out a prior classification of it, and, if so, within what limits?

2. Must the examination as to hazardous substances be carried out on the basis of uniform, predetermined methods?

3. Must the examination as to hazardous substances be based on a precise and representative verification that takes into account the composition of the waste, if this is already known or has been identified during the classification phase, or may the examination as to hazardous substances instead be carried out according to criteria of probability by taking into consideration which hazardous substances might reasonably be present in the waste?

4. Where there is doubt, or where it is impossible to establish with certainty whether or not hazardous substances are present in the waste, must that waste nevertheless be classified and treated as hazardous waste in application of the precautionary principle?

(1) 2014/955/EU: Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 370, p. 44).

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 of 18 December 2014 replacing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 89).
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: Does a breach of the obligation to publish, at least one year before the launch of an invitation to tender procedure, the information indicated in Article 7(2)(a) to (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 result in an invitation to tender being regarded as unlawful in the case where there was no such publication one year prior to the launch of the procedure but the invitation to tender followed a procedure that was, under the second sentence of Article 5(1) of that regulation, in accordance with the Procurement Directives?
1.

In the light of the judgment in Case C-470/12 Pohotovosť, and the considerations set out by the Court of Justice of the European Union at paragraph 46 of the grounds too, is a legal provision incompatible with the principle of equivalence under EU law when — in the context of the equivalence of the interests protected by law and the protection of consumer rights against unfair contractual terms — it does not permit, without the defendant consumer’s consent, a legal person whose activity involves the collective protection of consumers against unfair contractual terms and is designed to achieve the objective set out in Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (3) of the Civil Code, to participate as another party (intervener) in legal proceedings from the outset and to make effective use, for the consumer’s benefit, of the means of action and defence in court proceedings, in order to secure, in the context of such proceedings, protection from the systematic use of unfair contractual terms; whereas, in other circumstances, another party (intervener), intervening in court proceedings in support of the defendant and having an interest in the definition of the substantive (commercial) law that is the object of the proceedings, does not in fact, unlike a consumer protection association, require the consent of the consumer, on whose behalf it is intervening, in order to take part in the proceedings from the outset and effectively exercise the means of defence and action for the defendant’s benefit?
Case C-587/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 October 2017 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-287/16, Belgium v Commission

Appeal brought on 5 October 2017 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-287/16, Belgium v Commission

(Case C-587/17 P)

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by E. Grégoire and J. Mariani, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 July 2017 in Case T-287/16, Belgium v Commission (EU:T:2017:531);

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 ( 1 ) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the sum of EUR 9601619,00 (budget item 6701);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law resulting from a misinterpretation by the General Court of Article 32(8)(a) of Regulation No 1290/2005, ( 2 ) now, essentially, Article 54(5)(c) of Regulation No 1306/2013, ( 3 ) both with regard to the prior exhaustion of national rights of action and with regard to the due care required by that provision.

( 1 ) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16).

( 2 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

( 3 ) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549; corrigendum OJ 2016 L 130, p. 6).
1.

Does Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure constitute an obstacle to the application of a national provision under which the costs of proceedings may be set off or adjusted depending on whether the parties were successful in part and unsuccessful in part, where there are a number of claims in the proceedings or where a claim is upheld only in part?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/17

Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-179/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-522/17 P)

(2017/C 424/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot

Form of order sought

— set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-179/16, EU:T:2017:445;

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

— reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, p. 1).
2.

Is that part of a loss which, as a result of the rules in the subsidiary’s State, it has not been possible set off against profits which were made there in a particular year, but instead could be carried over so that they could potentially be deducted in a future year, also to be regarded as definitive?
1.

Is Article 2 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a company such as EDF, where it grants an employee a mortgage loan covered by the scheme providing assistance for the purchase of a home, for which only members of the staff of that company are eligible, is acting as a seller or supplier?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2017 — Benedikt Brisch v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-455/17)

(2018/C 022/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Benedikt Brisch

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

By order of 21 September 2017 the case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice.
(3)

Does Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union protect accrued leave, in so far as the duration of the leave exceeds the minimum annual leave of four weeks provided for in Article 7(1) of the Working Time Directive, and does that provision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude a national provision in a collective agreement, or its interpretation, under which an employee whose incapacity for work on account of illness commences during his annual leave, or a part thereof, is not entitled, irrespective of any application by him, to carry over the first six days of incapacity for work falling within the annual leave, where those days of absence on account of illness do not reduce the employee’s entitlement to four weeks’ annual leave?
2.

If the answer to Question (1) is ‘yes’, do any of the Watson Requirements, or any other requirements in addition to those imposed by the ECHR, apply to such a direction by a Secretary of State? And, if so, how and to what extent do those requirements apply, taking into account the essential necessity of the SIAs to use bulk acquisition and automated processing techniques to protect national security and the extent to which such capabilities, if otherwise compliant with the ECHR, may be critically impeded by the imposition of such requirements?
7.

Are 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, in particular Article 1(1) and (3) thereof, and Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, in particular Articles 1 and 2 thereof, in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Willy Kempter, C-2/06, EU:C:2008:78, according to which an individual does not have to rely specifically on the case-law of the Court of Justice, to be interpreted as meaning that the review procedures concerning the award of public contracts governed by the aforementioned Directives may be initiated only by an action which contains an express description of the infringement concerning the award of public contracts invoked and, furthermore, expressly states the procurement rule which has been infringed — the specific article and paragraph —, that is to say, that in a review procedure concerning the award of public contracts it is only possible to examine the infringements which the applicant has indicated by reference to the procurement provision which has been infringed — the specific article and paragraph —, whereas in any other administrative and civil procedure it is sufficient for the individual to present the facts and the evidence which supports them, and the competent authority or court gives a ruling according to their content?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 10 November 2017 — Gmalieva s.r.o., Manfred Naderhirn

(Case C-633/17)

(2018/C 042/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gmalieva s.r.o., Manfred Naderhirn

Authorities concerned: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich, Bezirkshauptmann von Linz-Land

Interveners: Mag. Jungwirth and Mag. Fabian OHG and others, Gunhild Mayr, Mag. Übermaßer KG

Question referred

Is a combination of procedural system and court structure such as established in Austria, for jurisdiction in matters of public law, in Articles 133(4) and 144(1) of the Bundesverfassungsgesetz (Federal Constitutional Law) in conjunction with Paragraphs 41, 42 and 63 of the Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz (Law on the Supreme Administrative Court), on the one hand, and with Paragraph 87 of the Verfassungsgerichtshofgesetz (Law on the Constitutional Court), on the other hand —

namely:

in either case simple annulment (Kassation) by the highest instance court, which in effect is not the same as resolving the case on the merits but is merely equivalent to a formal referral back to the lower instance court, i.e.

1) setting aside the contested decision,

2) with an obligation on the part of the lower instance court to reach a new resolution of the case on the merits, with

3) an obligation to be bound by the legal opinion of the highest instances,

whereby this binding effect is generally ordered by statute, i.e. in particular also for those situations in which it is not guaranteed ex lege that the higher courts, in proceedings meeting in every respect the requirements of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (but rather characterised in particular by

1) the prohibition on making new claims and defences or presenting new facts and evidence (Neuerungsverbot),

2) the binding nature of the facts of the case found by the lower court,

3) reference to the relevant factual and legal situation existing at the time of the lower court’s decision, and

4) the scope of the power to rule being limited simply to fundamental legal questions (Supreme Administrative Court), on the one hand, and violations of the sphere of fundamental rights (Constitutional Court) on the other),

have conducted both an autonomous assessment of consistency and proportionality and an assessment based on the current factual situation
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 26 October 2017 — Eurowings GmbH v Klaus Rövekamp, Christiane Rupp

(Case C-615/17)

(2018/C 063/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eurowings GmbH

Defendants: Klaus Rövekamp, Christiane Rupp

Question referred

Can a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also exist when a passenger does not catch a directly connecting flight due to a relatively minor delay in arrival, with the result that there is a delay in arrival at the final destination of three hours or more, but the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the booking confirmation was issued by a tour operator who combined the flights for its customer?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 15 November 2017 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v ‘Skonis ir kvapas’ UAB

(Case C-638/17)

(2018/C 052/22)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Other party:‘Skonis ir kvapas’ UAB

Questions referred

Must Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU (1) of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (codification) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘cigars or cigarillos’ covers (or does not cover) cases where part of the wrapper of natural or reconstituted tobacco is additionally covered by another outer (paper) layer, as in the case at issue? Is it relevant to the answer to that question that the use of paper as an additional layer in the outer wrapper of the tobacco product (where the filter is) means that it is visually similar to a cigarette?

(1) OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24.
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can the disclaimer in such a case affect the global assessment in such a way that the competent authority has regard to the element in question but gives it a more limited importance so that it is not regarded as being distinctive, even if the element would de facto be distinctive and prominent in the earlier trade mark?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 December 2017 — Mohammed Bilali

(Case C-720/17)

(2018/C 104/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Mohammed Bilali

Respondent authority: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Question referred

Do the provisions of EU law, in particular Article 19(3) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 (1) (the Qualification Directive), preclude a national provision of a Member State concerning the possibility of revocation of subsidiary protection status pursuant to which subsidiary protection status may be revoked without a change in the factual circumstances themselves which are relevant for the purpose of granting that status, but rather only where the state of knowledge of the authority in this regard has undergone a change, and, in that context, without either a misrepresentation or an omission of facts on the part of the third-country national or stateless person having been a determinant factor in the granting of the subsidiary protection status?

(1) Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/11

Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Thomas Murphy against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2017 in Case T-90/16: Murphy v EUIPO

(Case C-538/17 P)

(2018/C 104/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Thomas Murphy (represented by: N. Travers SC, J. Gormley, BL, M. O’Connor, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Nike Innovate CV

By order of 30 January 2018 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.