ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 29 March 2013 — Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav d. d.

(Case C-162/13)

2013/C 156/37

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Damijan Vnuk

Defendant: Zavarovalnica Triglav d. d.

Question referred

Must the concept of ‘the use of vehicles’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, be interpreted as not extending to the circumstances of the present case, in which the person insured by the defendant struck the applicant’s ladder with a tractor towing a trailer while hay was being stored in a hayloft, on the basis that the incident did not occur in the context of a road traffic accident?

(1) OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil Constitutionnel (France) lodged on 4 April 2013 — Jeremy F. v Premier ministre

(Case C-168/13)

2013/C 156/38

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil Constitutionnel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jeremy F.

Defendant: Premier ministre

Question referred

Must Articles 27 and 28 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1) be interpreted as precluding the Member States from providing for an appeal suspending execution of the decision of the judicial authority which rules, within a period of 30 days from receipt of the request, in order either to consent to the prosecution, sentencing or detention of a person with a view to the carrying out of a custodial sentence or detention order for an offence committed prior to his surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant, other than that for which he was surrendered, or to consent to the surrender of a person to a Member State other than the executing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for an offence committed prior to his surrender?

(1) OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.
3.

Is Paragraph 6(3) of the Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FVM) No 47/2008 of 17 April 2008 compatible with Article 28(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 in that, as regards mills, only support for operations for the purpose of modernising existing capacity is granted? Does the Regulation empower the national legislature to exclude certain types of development from support for economic reasons?
3.

May the rights which the Member States lay down pursuant to Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC go so far as to enable users of the terminals to print out on paper or store on a USB stick the works made available there?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/5

Appeal brought on 15 April 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2013 in Case T-235/11 Spain v Commission

(Case C-192/13 P)

2013/C 178/09

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare that the present appeal is well founded and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2013 in Case T-235/11 Spain v Commission.

— Annul Commission Decision C (2011) 1023 final of 18 February 2011 reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the project stages: ‘Supply and assembly of track materials on the high-speed line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Madrid-Lleida’ (CCI No 1999.ES.16.C.PT.001); ‘High-speed railway line Madrid-Barcelona. Section Lleida-Martorell (Platform, 1st phase)’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PT.001); ‘High-speed line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Access to Zaragoza’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PT.003); ‘High-speed line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Lleida-Martorell. Subsection X-A (Olérdola-Avinyonet del Penedés)’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.007) and ‘New high-speed railway access to Levante. Subsection La Gineta-Albacete (Platform)’ (CCI No 2004.ES.16.C.PT.014).

— Order the respondent to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Error of law with respect to the effects of the period of time referred to in Article H(2) of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 (1) of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund . After the expiry of the period referred to, the Commission may no longer adopt any financial correction measures and, therefore, it is obliged to make payment and the correction applied is unlawful.

Error of law in relation to the concept of an award of a contract within the meaning of Council Directive 93/38/EEC (2) of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors . Points (e) and (f) of Article 20(2) of Directive 93/38 do not apply generally to any amendments whatsoever to public contracts agreed during their execution stage, but to substantive amendments only. A substantive amendment such as to constitute a new award of a contract can be regarded as having arisen only when the conditions laid down in the judgment in Pressetext Nachrichtenagentur (3) are met.

(1) OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1.

(2) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84

(3) Case C-454/06 Pressetext Nachrichtenagentur [2008] ECR I-4401
—

Order the intervener Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs in the proceedings before the General Court, as well as its own costs in the event of its possible intervention in the proceedings before the Court of Justice, and to bear all the costs of the Appellants incurred in connection with its intervention(s).
2.

According to the appellant, the judgment under appeal must be set aside because of infringement of fundamental rights and principles of European Union law, incorrect interpretation and application of European Union law, and the exceeding of jurisdiction (competence). Specifically, the grounds of appeal are as follows: — First, infringement of the presumption of innocence. — Second, infringement of the principle requiring cooperation in good faith with the Tribunal d’arrondissement, Luxembourg, pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU. — Third, exceeding of jurisdiction. — Fourth, incorrect interpretation and application of European Union law as regards the conditions for non-contractual liability and as regards Decision 99/50 of the Court of Auditors.
3.

In view of the fact that under domestic law it is deemed an appropriate measure, for the purposes of preventing and punishing the misuse of temporary employment contracts in the private sector, for workers that are considered to have a contract of indefinite duration to be entitled to receive compensation where the contract is terminated for a reason unrelated to the individual worker concerned, and that no equivalent measure exists in the public sector, is it an appropriate measure within the terms of clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC for government employees with contracts of indefinite duration to be given the same right to receive compensation as is laid down by law in respect of workers having contracts of indefinite duration in the private sector?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/4

Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Axitea SpA, formerly La Vigile San Marco SpA, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2013 in Case T-262/00 La Vigile San Marco SpA v European Commission

(Case C-174/13 P)

2013/C 207/05

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Axitea SpA, formerly La Vigile San Marco SpA (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Veronese, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic, European Commission

Form of order sought

— Set aside and/or vary the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered in Case T-262/00, and order the Commission to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant alleges errors of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ and Others v Commission, regarding (i) the duty to state the reasons for decisions of the Commission relating to State aid and (ii) the allocation of the burden of proof concerning the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.

In the order that is the subject of the present appeal, the General Court did not comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 9 June 2011 in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, in so far as that judgment states that a decision of the Commission ‘must contain in itself all the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities’. However, even though the decision at issue in the present case lacked the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities, the General Court failed to find any deficiency in the method used by the Commission in the contested decision, and consequently erred in law.

On the basis of the principles outlined by the Court in its judgment in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, when aid is being recovered, it is the Member State — and not, therefore, the individual beneficiary — which is required to show, in each individual case, that the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are met. In the present case, however, in the contested decision the Commission failed to clarify the ‘modalities’ of any such verification; consequently, since it did not have available to it, at the time when the aid was to be recovered, the information necessary to show that the advantages granted constituted, in the hands of the beneficiaries, State aid, the Italian Republic — by Law No 228 of 24 December 2012 (Article 1, paragraph 351 et seq.) — decided to reverse the burden of proof, in breach of Community case-law. According to the Italian legislature, in particular, it is not for the State but for the individual beneficiaries of aid granted in the form of relief to prove that the advantages in question do not distort competition or affect trade between Member States. In the absence of any such proof, there is a presumption that the advantage granted was likely to distort trade and affect trade between Member States. That presumption is clearly contrary to the principles outlined by the Court in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’.
1.

Is the term ‘manufacturer’, within the meaning of the first indent of Article 24(2) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51, to be interpreted as also including coachbuilders or dealers, when they have fitted the fuel tank as part of a process of producing the vehicle, and the production process was, for technical and/or economic reasons, carried out through division of labour by various independent businesses?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/15

Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by GE.AL.VE. Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

(Case C-229/13 P)

2013/C 207/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: GE.AL.VE. Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

— Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly, — annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995; — in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
2.

If a commission contract for the carriage of goods may be regarded as a contract for the carriage of goods for the purpose of Article 4(4) of the Rome Convention but the special presumption for the determination of the relevant law laid down by that provision is not applicable — since the requirement in the provision that the country in which the carrier has his principal place of business must also be the country in which the place of loading or the place of discharge or the principal place of business of the consignor is situated is not fulfilled — is the first sentence of that provision, to the effect that a contract for the carriage of goods is not subject to the general presumption laid down in Article 4(2), to be interpreted as meaning that the court is invited in such circumstances to ascertain the law applicable, not on the basis of that presumption, which has been definitively ruled out, but in accordance with the general principle of determination laid down in Article 4(1), namely by identifying the country with which the contract is most closely connected, without specific regard for the country in which the party which effected the performance which is characteristic of the contract is established?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/23

Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Rialto Inn Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

(Case C-238/13 P)

2013/C 207/36

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Rialto Inn Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, European Commission

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

— Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly, — annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995; — in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/22

Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Ge.A.P. Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

(Case C-237/13 P)

2013/C 207/35

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Ge.A.P. Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

— Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly, — annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995; — in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 215/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 3 May 2013 — Rudolf Reznicek v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-247/13)

2013/C 215/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rudolf Reznicek

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Question referred

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of Gries und Heissel Bankiers AG, in the securities account of the applicant, and in respect of which the applicant had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicant — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?

(1) OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.