ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Birgit Bossen and Others v Brussels Airlines

(Case C-559/16)

(2017/C 053/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Birgit Bossen, Anja Bossen, Gudula Gräßmann

Defendant: Brussels Airlines

Question referred

Is the second sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘distance’ relates only to the direct distance calculated between the point of departure and the last destination on the basis of the ‘great circle’ method, regardless of the distance actually flown?

(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).
—

which also lay down specific planning provisions for areas situated in the areas around buildings, and precise indications on the spatial application of certain rules which they lay down taking into consideration the streets, straight lines traced perpendicular to those streets and distances in relation to the alignment of those streets; and
1.

Is Article 141(c) of Directive 2006/112, (1) on which the non-application of Article 41(1) of Directive 2006/112 depends, in accordance with Article 42 (in conjunction with Article 197) of Directive 2006/112, to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement laid down in that provision is not met where the taxable person is resident and identified for VAT purposes in the Member State from which the goods are dispatched or transported, even if that taxable person uses the VAT identification number of another Member State for that specific intra-Community acquisition?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/2

Appeal brought on 15 July 2016 by Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2016 in Case T-62/15: Market Watch v EUIPO — El CORTE INGLÉS (MITOCHRON)

(Case C-401/16 P)

(2017/C 095/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 1 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/14

Appeal brought on 22 September 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2016 in Case T-567/15: Monster Energy v EUIPO — MAD CATZ INTERACTIVE (REPRESENTATION OF A BLACK SQUARE WITH FOUR WHITE LINES)

(Case C-502/16 P)

(2017/C 112/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 16 February 2017 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Alexander Holiczky

(Case C-593/16)

(2017/C 104/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG

Defendant: Alexander Holiczky

By order of 7 February 2017, this case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/17

Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15: Monster Energy Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-678/16 P)

(2017/C 144/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the General Court of 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15

— Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 4 May 2015 in Case R1028/2014-5

— Annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 February 2014 in Opposition 2 178567

— Reject the opposed Mark for all goods in classes 29, 30 and 33

— Order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear its own costs and pay those of the appellant

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court incorrectly applied Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR (1) in its approach to the assessment of, and weight to be attached to, the dominant and/or distinctive elements of a composite mark. If the correct approach had been taken by the General Court it would have led to a finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the opposed mark and the earlier mark.

The General Court incorrectly applied Article 8(5) EUTMR in its approach to the assessment of, and weight to be attached to, the dominant and/or distinctive elements of a composite mark.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/35

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 24 January 2017 — Eamonn Donnellan v The Revenue Commissioners

(Case C-34/17)

(2017/C 104/51)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eamonn Donnellan

Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

Questions referred

Is the High Court of Ireland precluded by Article 14(1) and (2) of Directive 2010/24/EU (1) when determining the enforceability in Ireland of a ‘uniform instrument permitting enforcement’ issued on 14th November, 2012 by the customs office of Patras for administrative penalties and fines in the sum of EUR 1 097 505,00 imposed on 15th July, 2009 for alleged smuggling on 26th July, 2002[, which was increased to EUR 1 507 971,88 by virtue of interest and penalties] from:

(i) applying the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial within a reasonable time for a citizen of Ireland and of the European Union in relation to the enforcement request [(see Article 47 of the Charter and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR which correspond with rights for citizens under Articles 34, 38 and 40.3 of the Irish Constitution), in circumstances where the procedure involved was only first explained to Mr. D in a ‘non-official translation’ into English (an official language of Ireland where Mr. D has always resided) in a letter dated 29 December 2015 from the Ministry of Finance of the Hellenic Republic at Piraeus to the Irish Revenue and the solicitors in Ireland for Mr. D];

(ii) taking account of the objectives of Directive 2010/24/EU to provide mutual assistance (recital 20 to Directive 2010/24) and to abide by the obligation to provide wider assistance ensuing from the ECHR (recital 17 of Directive 2010/24) such as the right to an effective remedy for citizens under Article 47 of the Charter and Article 13 of the ECHR;

(iii) considering the full effectiveness of community law for its citizens [and particularly paragraph 63 of [the judgment of 14 January 2010, Kyrian v Celní úřad Tábor, C-233/08, EU:C:2010:11].

(1) Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (OJ 2010, L 84, p. 1).
(1)

Is a service, such as that performed by the taxpayer in the present case, consisting of directing, pursuant to a direct debit mandate, that money is taken by direct debit from a patient’s bank account and passed by the taxpayer, after deduction of the taxpayer’s remuneration, to the patient’s dentist and insurance provider, an exempt supply of transfer or payment services within Article 135(1)(d) of the Principal VAT Directive? In particular, do the decisions in Bookit II and NEC lead to the conclusion that the exemption from VAT in Article 135(1)(d) is not applicable to a service, such as that performed by the taxpayer in the present case, which does not involve the taxpayer itself debiting or crediting any accounts over which it has control but which, where a transfer of funds results, is essential to that transfer? Or does the decision in AXA lead to the contrary conclusion?
1.

Do the rules in Articles 22, 23 and 24 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1) preclude national legislation which, in addition to the powers of intervention conferred on the data-protection authorities and the remedies available to the data subject, grants public-service associations the power to take action against the infringer in the event of an infringement in order to safeguard the interests of consumers? If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
3.

Which court has jurisdiction over a dispute between former spouses on the ownership of immovable property acquired during their civil marriage, when the spouses are nationals of an EU Member State, but it has been established in the proceedings that at the time of entering the marriage, acquisition of the property, ending the marriage and the application for division of the property after the marriage had ended, they had their place of residence in another Member State?
1.

Must Article 2(b) and (d) of Directive 2005/29/ЕC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair commercial practices be interpreted as meaning that the action of a natural person who is registered on a website for the sale of goods, and who published a total of eight advertisements at the same time for the sale of different items via the website, is the action of a trader within the meaning of the legal definition in Article 2(b), represents a business-to-consumer commercial practice within the meaning of Article 2(d) and comes within the scope of the directive pursuant to Article 3(1) thereof?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/17

Action brought on 24 February 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-97/17)

(2017/C 121/25)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, in failing to classify the entirety of the Rila important bird area as a special protection area, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to classify the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection areas for the conservation of the species of birds listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147/EC (1) on the conservation of wild birds, and accordingly has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of that directive;

2. Order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The case concerns the conservation of many endangered species of birds listed in Annex 1 to the Birds Directive and their habitats in the territory of the Rila mountain range in the south-west of Bulgaria. The Rila important bird area is one of the most significant places in both Bulgaria and the European Union for the conservation of over 130 species of nesting birds. 41 species are of European conservation concern, of which one is endangered worldwide.

Under Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive, the species listed in Annex I must be the subject of special conservation measures concerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution. Furthermore, Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive provides that the Member States must classify in particular the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection areas for the conservation of those species.

According to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria should have classified the Rila important bird area as a special protection area in its entirety, but, to date, has not done so. The Commission provides evidence of the ornithological importance of the unclassified territories in the Rila important bird area.

(1) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7).
1.

Do the provisions of Article 30 of TFEU preclude an interpretation to the effect that, when a taxpayer has in fact paid a charge having equivalent effect, he may request the recovery of the sums paid by way of that charge even though national legislation has designed a payment mechanism for that charge in such a way as to pass it on to the European consumer?
(2)

Must Article 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 (2) (in force at the date of the accident) be interpreted as meaning that the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel — which because there was no civil liability insurance contract, paid the relevant compensation to the third parties injured by the traffic accident caused by the motor vehicle which, without the owner’s knowledge or authorisation, was removed from the private land where it was immobilised — has the right of subrogation against the vehicle’s owner regardless of whether that owner was liable for the accident? or, Does the subrogation by the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel in relation to the owner depend on the requirements for civil liability having been met, in particular that, when the accident occurred, the owner had effective control of the vehicle?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 20 January 2017 — Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu v Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu

(Case C-30/17)

(2017/C 161/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu

Respondent: Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu

Question referred

In the light of Article 3(1) and the objectives of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, (1) in the determination of the basis of assessment for flavoured beers using the Plato scale, must the extract resulting from the flavourings added following the completion of fermentation be added to the real extract of the finished product or is the extract resulting from the added substances to be disregarded?

(1) OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Contas (Portugal) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Secretaria Regional de Saúde dos Açores v Ministério Público

(Case C-102/17)

(2017/C 151/27)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal de Contas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secretaria Regional de Saúde dos Açores

Defendant: Ministério Público

Question referred

Must Article 58(4) of Directive No 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that described [that is, Article 40(3) and (5)(c) of Regional Legislative Decree No 27/2015/A of 29 December 2015], which, in the area of public procurement, allows a geographical criterion, requiring three public contracts to have been performed previously in the same autonomous region, to be imposed as a qualifying criterion?

(1) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC

OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.
1.

Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused, on the ground that it is not subject to an obligation to withhold Netherlands dividend tax, a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which that investment fund received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/16

Action brought on 20 April 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-205/17)

(2017/C 195/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not taking all of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:260), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 171 217,20 for each day of delay in ensuring compliance with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:260), from the date of judgment in the present case until the date on which the judgment in Case C-343/10 is complied with;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a lump sum payment of EUR 19 303,90 per day, from the date of delivery of the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:260) until the date of the judgment in the present case or until the date of full compliance with the judgment in Case C-343/10, if the latter occurs earlier;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to take all of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice concerning the lack of collection systems for urban waste water in the agglomeration of Valle de Güimar, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 91/271 (1), and the lack of urban waste water treatment for the agglomerations of Alhaurín el Grande, Barbate, Isla Cristina, Matalascañas, Tarifa, Valle de Güimar, Peníscola, Aguiño-Carreira-Ribeira, Estepona (San Pedro de Alcántara), Coín, Nerja, Gijón-Este, Noreste (Valle Guerra), Benicarló, Teulada-Moraira, Vigo and Santiago, in accordance with Article 4(1), 4(3) and, as applicable, 4(4) of Directive 91/271.

(1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
2.

Is a national court which enjoys a discretion concerning the award of costs against an unsuccessful party, in the absence of any specific measure having been adopted by the member state in question for the purposes of transposing Art. 10a of the Public Participation Directive, obliged, when considering an order for costs in proceedings to which that provision applies, to ensure that any order made does not render the proceedings ‘prohibitively expensive’ either because the relevant provisions are directly effective or because the court of the member state concerned is required to interpret its national procedural law in a manner, to the fullest extent possible, which fulfils the objectives of Article 10a?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Peugeot Deutschland GmbH v Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV

(Case C-132/17)

(2017/C 213/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peugeot Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV

Question referred

Does a person who runs a video channel on the YouTube internet service on which internet users can view short advertising videos for new passenger car models operate an audiovisual media service within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 2010/13/EU? (1)

(1) Directive 2010/13/EU 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) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1).
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, and if it is established that the goods in respect of which customs duties arise correspond to the definition of diesel for use in ‘arctic or severe winter climates’ in accordance with the criteria set out in Standard EN 590, must that fuel be classified under tariff subheading 2710 19 43 of the Combined Nomenclature, which corresponds to ‘gas oils’, or must the general rules contained in additional note 2(d) and (e) to Chapter 27 of the Common Customs Tariff apply?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/16

Action brought on 12 May 2017 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-251/17)

(2017/C 221/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by E. Manhaeve and L. Cimaglia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the judgment of the Court of 19 July 2012 in Case C-565/10 Commission v Italy, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

— order the Italian Republic to make a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 346 922,40 for each day of delay in implementing the judgment in Case C-565/10 from the date of judgment in the present case to the date of implementation of the judgment in Case C-565/10, less a possible reduction calculated by the proposed reduction formula;

— order the Italian Republic to pay a lump sum of EUR 39 113,80 per day from the date of the judgment in Case C-565/10 until the date of judgment in the present case or until implementation of the judgment in Case C-565/10, with a minimum total amount of EUR 62 699 421,40;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the Commission takes issue with the failure to give effect to the judgment delivered by the Court on 19 July 2012 in relation to 80 of the Italian agglomerations which were the subject of that judgment.

In this respect, the Italian Republic acknowledges its failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (1) in relation to 35 agglomerations. It also acknowledges its failure to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 10 of that directive in relation to 70 agglomerations.

From this the Commission concludes that the Italian Republic has not taken all of the measures necessary to implement in full the judgment of 19 July 2012.

(1) OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/2

Appeal brought on 11 January 2017 by Polo Club against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2016 in Case T-67/15: Polo Club v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-10/17 P)

(2017/C 231/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Polo Club (represented by: D. Masson, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Lifestyle Equities CV

By order of 1 June 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
2)

Even if the Commission’s failure to disclose the final version of the price concentration model to UPS before the adoption of the Decision could breach UPS’s rights of defence, the Judgment erred in its characterisation of the evidential character of the price concentration model and, consequently, in the legal test applied in determining that the Decision was to be annulled.