ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/41

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 26 February 2018 — Agostinho da Silva Martins v Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA

(Case C-149/18)

(2018/C 161/45)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agostinho da Silva Martins

Respondent: Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA

Questions referred

1. Must it be understood that the national legislation in force in Portugal prevails as an overriding, mandatory rule within the meaning of Article 16 of the Rome II Regulation? (1)

2. Does that rule constitute a provision of Community law laying down a conflict-of-laws rule within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rome II Regulation?

3. In the light of Article 28 of Directive 2009/103/EC, (2) must it be concluded that the limitation period set out in Article 498(3) of the Portuguese Civil Code is applicable where a Portuguese citizen suffers a traffic accident in Spain?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40).

(2) Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 182/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 1 March 2018 — HQ, on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her minor child IP, JO v Aegean Airlines SA

(Case C-163/18)

(2018/C 182/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HQ, on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her minor child IP, JO

Defendant: Aegean Airlines SA

Questions referred

1. Must Article 8(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who, under Directive 90/[314]/EEC (2) on package travel (as implemented in national law), has the right to hold his tour organiser liable for reimbursement of the cost of his ticket, can no longer claim reimbursement from the air carrier?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, can a passenger nevertheless hold the air carrier liable for reimbursement of the cost of his ticket if it is to be assumed that his tour organiser, if it were to be held liable, would be financially incapable of actually reimbursing the cost of the ticket and that tour organiser has also not taken any safeguard measures to guarantee reimbursement?

(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).

(2) Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/12

Action brought on 23 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-209/18)

(2018/C 190/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. hold that, by upholding requirements with regard to registered offices for patent law companies under Paragraph 29a(7), in conjunction with Paragraph 2(1)(c), of the Patentanwaltsgesetz (Law on patent lawyers; ‘the PatAnwG’) and for civil engineering companies under Paragraph 25(1) of the Ziviltechnikergesetz (Law on civil engineers; ‘the ZTG’), with regard to the legal form and the share capital ownership of civil engineering companies under Paragraphs 26(1) and 28(1) of the ZTG, patent law companies under Paragraph 29a(1), (2) and (11) of the PatAnwG and veterinary companies under Paragraph 15a(1) of the Tierärztegesetz (Law on veterinarians) and the limitation on multidisciplinary activities for civil engineering companies under Paragraph 21(1) of the ZTG and for patent law companies under Paragraph 29(6) of the PatAnwG, the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 14(1), Article 15(1), (2)(b) and (c) and (3), and Article 25 of the Services Directive (1) and under Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU;

2. order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims as follows:

Austrian law still contains requirements with regard to the registered offices of professional companies of civil engineers and patent lawyers that infringe Article 14(1)(b) of the Services Directive. The provisions discriminate directly through the registered office of the company and indirectly through the nationality of the company’s shareholders.

The requirements with regard to the legal form and the share capital ownership of companies of civil engineers, patent lawyers and veterinarians impede both Austrian service providers as well as the establishment of new service providers from other Member States in so far as they limit the capacity of those providers to open a second branch in Austria if they do not adapt their organisational structures in order to comply with those provisions.

The Austrian conditions requiring those particular professional companies to confine their activities to professional patent law services and civil engineering services infringe Article 25 of the Services Directive, as they limit both the establishment in Austria of second branches of multidisciplinary professional companies from other Member States as well as the establishment of first branches of such Austrian companies. This impedes the development of new, innovative business models that would place undertakings in a position to offer a wider range of services.

(1) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 5 March 2018 — Safeway Ltd v Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd

(Case C-171/18)

(2018/C 190/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Safeway Ltd

Defendants: Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd

Question referred

Where the rules of a pension scheme confer a power, as a matter of domestic law, upon the amendment of its Trust deed, to reduce retrospectively the value of both men’s and women’s accrued pension rights for a period between the date of a written announcement of intended changes to the scheme and the date when the Trust deed is actually amended, does Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (previously and at the material time Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome) require both men’s and women’s accrued pension rights to be treated as indefeasible during that period, in the sense that their pension rights are protected from retrospective reduction by the use of the domestic law power?
Case C-195/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim (Poland) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Criminal proceedings against B.S.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim (Poland) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Criminal proceedings against B.S.

(Case C-195/18)

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim

Parties to the main proceedings

B.S.

Prokuratura Okręgowa w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim

Łódzki Urząd Celno-Skarbowy w Łodzi

Urząd Celno-Skarbowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim

Question referred

Must Article 2 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 conjunction with Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, ( 2 ) be interpreted as meaning that beer made from malt, within the meaning of CN code 2203, includes a product in the case of which malt extract, glucose syrup, citric acid and water were used to produce hopped wort, and in which the proportion of non-malt ingredients in the wort is predominant in relation to the malt ingredients and glucose syrup was added to pitched wort before the wort fermentation process, and what criteria should be taken into account when determining the proportions of malt and non-malt ingredients in hopped wort in order for the product obtained to be classified as beer under CN code 2203?

( 1 ) OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.

( 2 ) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.
Case C-139/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by CJ against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-602/16: CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by CJ against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-602/16: CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

(Case C-139/18 P)

Parties

Appellant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, Δικηγόρος)

Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 in Case T-602/16 CJ v ECDC (EU:T:2017:893) in whole;

— consequently, in the event that the appeal is declared well founded, annul the contested appraisal report of 21 September 2015;

— order the ECDC to pay all costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law:

1. First plea in law, alleging that the General Court: — misinterpreted Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Article 3(3), of the ECDC Implementing Rule No 20 to determine that the appeal assessor need not be the Chairman of the Management Board in cases such as the instant case, — erred in legally classifying the facts when it held that the Chairman of the Management Board was in any case unlikely to find in favour of the appellant, — misinterpreted the argument according to which a subordinate to the reporting officer cannot be the appeal assessor, because he lacks the necessary independence from the reporting officer.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court: — misinterpreted Articles 7(1), 8(3) and (4) of the ECDC Implementing Rule No 20 to determine that objectives and performance indicators set for a servant during the previous appraisal period may be disregarded by the reporting officer, — subsidiarily, erred in legally classifying the facts when it found that objectives and performance indicators had been duly considered by the reporting officer.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court: — misinterpreted the notion of ‘dialogue’ under Article 8(9) of the ECDC Implementing Rule, — subsidiarily erred in law in legally classifying an appraisal ‘dialogue’ as one that can be limited, on the part of ECDC, to the countersigning officer asking a servant for a document already available to her; addressing, from her mobile telephone, to the servant the question ‘Which aspects of the performance assessment do you consider as false?’; and not asking any further question, after a servant replies in substance and offers to give her any further, more specific information she may require.
Case C-200/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 19 March 2018 — C.A.F.A.R. — Società Agricola Cooperativa, Società Agricola Guidi di Roncofreddo di Guidi Giancarlo e Nicolini Fausta v Regione Emilia-Romagna and Others

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 19 March 2018 — C.A.F.A.R. — Società Agricola Cooperativa, Società Agricola Guidi di Roncofreddo di Guidi Giancarlo e Nicolini Fausta v Regione Emilia-Romagna and Others

(Case C-200/18)

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: C.A.F.A.R. — Società Agricola Cooperativa, Società Agricola Guidi di Roncofreddo di Guidi Giancarlo e Nicolini Fausta

Respondents: Regione Emilia-Romagna, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale 104 di Modena, A.U.S.L. Romagna

Questions referred

1. By providing that Member States must ensure the collection of fees for the activities referenced in Annex IV, Section A, and Annex V, Section A, must Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 be interpreted as placing an obligation to pay on all agricultural operators, even those which ‘carry out the activities of slaughtering and cutting of meat instrumental to and connected with the activity of rearing livestock’?

2. Can a [Member] State make certain categories of undertaking exempt from payment of the veterinary fees in the case where it has set up a system for the collection of fees that, overall, guarantees coverage of the costs of the official controls, or may it apply charges that are lower than those provided for by Regulation (EC) No 8[8]2/2004? ( 1 )

( 1 ) Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1).
Case C-245/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Udine (Italy) lodged on 9 April 2018 — Fallimento Tecnoservice Int. Srl v Poste Italiane SpA

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Udine (Italy) lodged on 9 April 2018 — Fallimento Tecnoservice Int. Srl v Poste Italiane SpA

(Case C-245/18)

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Udine

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fallimento Tecnoservice Int. Srl

Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

Question referred

Must Articles 74 and 75 of Directive 2007/64/EC, ( 1 ) in the version applicable on 3 August 2015, concerning a payment service provider’s obligations and the limitations of such a provider’s liability, as transposed into Italian law by Articles 24 and 25 of Decreto Legislativo No 1[1]/201[0], be interpreted as being applicable only to the payment service provider of the person who ordered the payment, or as being applicable also to the payee’s payment service provider?

( 1 ) Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).
1.

Is Article 15(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, according to which every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State, to be understood as precluding legislation of a Member State which, as in the case of Paragraph 19(3) of the Tiroler Landespolizeigesetz (Tyrol State police Law), LGBl. (State Law Gazette) No 60/1976, last amended by Law LGBl. No 56/2017, makes it possible for bodies of an authority, even without a prior administrative procedure, to be able to take measures of direct authority and coercive power, such as, in particular, the on-the-spot closure of a business establishment, without these merely being interim measures?
Case C-273/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 April 2018 — SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 April 2018 — SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’

(Case C-273/18)

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’

Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Question referred

Must Article 168(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC ( 1 ) be interpreted as precluding a refusal of the deduction of input value added tax (VAT) where the refusal is based solely on the fact that the taxpayer is knowingly involved in the arrangement of sham transactions, but it is not indicated how the outcome of those specific transactions is detrimental to the Treasury because of failure to pay VAT or an unjustified claim for repayment of VAT, as compared with the situation that would have obtained had the transactions been arranged to reflect the actual circumstances?

( 1 ) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-309/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 7 May 2018 — Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 7 May 2018 — Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others

(Case C-309/18)

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lavorgna Srl

Defendants: Comune di Montelanico, Comune di Supino, Comune di Sgurgola, Comune di Trivigliano

Question referred

Do the Community principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to in Directive 2014/24/EU, ( 1 ) preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of Article 95(10) and Article 83(9) of Legislative Decree No 50/2016, according to which the failure to list the labour costs separately in the financial tender in a procedure for the award of public services inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned without the possibility of supplementing or amending its tendering documentation, even in the case where the obligation to list those costs separately was not set out in the tender documents, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question actually took into account the minimum labour costs, in accordance, moreover, with a declaration for that purpose made by the tenderer?

( 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).
2.

Can a [Member] State make certain categories of undertaking exempt from payment of the veterinary fees in the case where it has set up a system for the collection of fees that, overall, guarantees coverage of the costs of the official controls, or may it apply charges that are lower than those provided for by Regulation (EC) No 8[8]2/2004? ( 1 )
2.

In circumstances where both parents are holders of Parental Responsibility, does the fact that a mother has been tricked to go to another state and then unlawfully detained by coercion or other unlawful act in that state by the father, leading to the mother being forced to give birth to a child in that state, have any impact on the answer to question (1) in circumstances where there may have been a violation of the mother and / or child's human rights, pursuant to articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, or otherwise?
Case C-371/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 6 June 2018 — Sky plc, Sky International AG, Sky UK Limited v Skykick UK Limited, Skykick Inc

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 6 June 2018 — Sky plc, Sky International AG, Sky UK Limited v Skykick UK Limited, Skykick Inc

(Case C-371/18)

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sky plc, Sky International AG, Sky UK Limited

Defendants: Skykick UK Limited, Skykick Inc

Questions referred

1. Can an EU trade mark or a national trade mark registered in a Member State be declared wholly or partially invalid on the ground that some or all of the terms in the specification of goods and services are lacking in sufficient clarity and precision to enable the competent authorities and third parties to determine on the basis of those terms alone the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark?

2. If the answer to question (1) is yes, is a term such as ‘computer software’ too general and covers goods which are too variable to be compatible with the trade mark's function as an indication of origin for that term to be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the competent authorities and third parties to determine on the basis of that term alone the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark?

3. Can it constitute bad faith simply to apply to register a trade mark without any intention to use it in relation to the specified goods or services?

4. If the answer to question (3) is yes, is it possible to conclude that the applicant made the application partly in good faith and partly in bad faith if and to the extent that the applicant had an intention to use the trade mark in relation to some of the specified goods or services, but no intention to use the trade mark in relation to other specified goods or services?

5. Is section 32(3) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 compatible with Parliament and Council Directive 2015/2436/EU ( 1 ) and its predecessors?

( 1 ) Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2015, L 336, p. 1).