ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Does the action of the competent judicial authority of the State of execution of a European arrest warrant, entailing deprivation of liberty and forcible surrender, without the consent of the person in respect of whom the European arrest warrant has been issued (the person whose arrest and surrender is requested) constitute interference, on the part of the State executing the warrant, with the right to individual liberty of the person whose arrest and surrender is requested, which is authorised by European Union law, pursuant to Article 6 TEU, read in conjunction with Article 5(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and pursuant to Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 48 and 52 thereof, with reference also to Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 13 July 2011 — Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium N.V. v Belgische Staat

(Case C-371/11)

2011/C 282/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium N.V.

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Can the national tax authorities exclude the application of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States on the basis of the provision in that Article that it is not applicable in a case where the subsidiary is liquidated, by relying on a provision of domestic law (here, Article 210 WIB92 [Income Tax Code 1992]) which treats a merger by acquisition where in reality no liquidation of the subsidiary takes place, as a merger where liquidation of the subsidiary does in fact take place?

(1) OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 July 2011 — Caves Krier Frères S.àr.l v Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi

(Case C-379/11)

2011/C 298/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caves Krier Frères S.àr.l

Defendant: Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi

Question referred

Is the first subparagraph of Article L.541-1 of the Luxembourg Labour Code compatible with Union law, and more particularly Articles 21 and 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in so far as it reserves the right to reimbursement of part employer part employee social security contributions upon the hiring of unemployed persons aged over 45 years, be they indemnified or not, to private sector employers on condition that the unemployed persons be registered as work seekers with a placement office of the Luxembourg employment administration for at least one month, while employers who hire unemployed persons registered as work seekers with corresponding foreign bodies do not benefit from that measure?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 290/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Constitucional, Madrid (Spain) lodged on 28 July 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Stefano Melloni — other party: Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-399/11)

2011/C 290/08

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Constitucional

Parties to the main proceedings

Criminal proceedings against: Stefano Melloni

Other party: Ministerio Fiscal

Questions referred

1. Must Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1), as inserted by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA (2), be interpreted as precluding national judicial authorities, in the circumstances specified in that provision, from making the execution of a European arrest warrant conditional upon the conviction in question being open to review, in order to guarantee the rights of defence of the person requested under the warrant?

2. In the event of the first question being answered in the affirmative, is Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA compatible with the requirements deriving from the right to an effective judicial remedy and to a fair trial, provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and from the rights of defence guaranteed under Article 48(2) of the Charter?

3. In the event of the second question being answered in the affirmative, does Article 53, interpreted systematically in conjunction with the rights recognised under Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, allow a Member State to make the surrender of a person convicted in absentia conditional upon the conviction being open to review in the requesting State, thus affording those rights a greater level of protection than that deriving from European Union law, in order to avoid an interpretation which restricts or adversely affects a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution of the first-mentioned Member State?

(1) Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

(2) Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/20

Appeal brought on 29 July 2011 by Atlas Transport GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2011 in Case T-145/08 Atlas Transport GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs): other party: Atlas Air Inc.

(Case C-406/11 P)

2011/C 311/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Atlas Transport GmbH (represented by: K. Schmidt-Hern, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Atlas Air Inc.

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 May 2011 in Case T-145/08;

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2008 (Case R 1023/2007-1);

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs of both legal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, OHIM and the General Court infringed the third sentence of Article 59 of the Regulation on the Community trade mark (old version) which governs the obligation to state the grounds of appeal. By the contested decision, OHIM and the General Court also infringed Article 60 of the Regulation on the Community trade mark in conjunction also with Rule 20(7) of the Regulation implementing the Regulation on the Community trade mark, as well as established legal principles of the Member States. The proceedings before OHIM should imperatively have been stayed, meaning that the time-limit for bringing the appeal has not yet expired.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/4

Action brought on 19 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-387/11)

2011/C 305/04

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and C. Soulay, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by maintaining different rules for the taxation of income from capital and immovable property earned by Belgian investment companies and the taxation of income from capital and immovable property earned by foreign investment companies, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 31 and 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the Commission criticises the different treatment of resident investment companies and non-resident investment companies as regards taxation of revenue from capital and immovable property. Unlike resident investment companies, non-resident investment companies which do not have a fixed establishment in the national territory are not permitted to recover the amount paid by way of withholding tax on income from capital and immovable property. That discrimination is incompatible with the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of establishment, inasmuch as it makes the founding of non-resident investment companies less attractive, and with the provisions of the Treaty on free movement of capital, inasmuch as the financing of a Belgian company by a foreign investment company is more costly than financing through a Belgian investment company.

Furthermore, the Commission rejects the justifications put forward by the Belgian authorities. First of all, the Belgian authorities did not plead objective grounds justifying the conclusion that there is any difference between the situations of resident investment companies and non-resident investment companies which is relevant to their tax status. Secondly, the tax scheme in question bears no relation to a balanced division of the power of taxation between the States concerned. In any event, a member State cannot rely on a bilateral convention to escape from its obligations under the Treaty. Finally, as regards the alleged risk of tax fraud by non-resident investment companies, the Belgian authorities cannot rely on obstacles to tax inspections which result from the provisions adopted by Belgium itself to justify failure to apply the freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.
1.

Is the third subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 (1) laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to be interpreted as meaning that, where an operator has been found to be in possession of an individual surplus of a product which may be classed as sugar within the meaning of Article 4, No 1, of the regulation, that operator is required to pay the State Treasury a sum which is calculated on the basis of the quantity of white sugar (Combined Nomenclature code 1701 99 10) corresponding to the sugar content of the product found in the operator’s possession, and not on the basis of the quantity of the actual product found in its possession (for example, sugar syrup)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 340/11

Action brought on 13 September 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-468/11)

2011/C 340/19

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— Declare that: — by imposing on undertakings which supply a service or provide a network under the general authorisation a charge intended to finance the Spanish radio and television broadcasting corporation (Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española ‘RTVE’), establishing in that regard a series of conditions and exceptions as well as certain mechanisms for the transfer of surplus income, and — by failing to give notice in an appropriate manner of its intention to make amendments relating to general authorisations and by failing to allow interested parties, including users and consumers, a sufficient period of time to express their views on the proposed amendments, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 14(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive);

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission maintains that Article 5 of the RTVE Law is not compatible with the provision made in Article 12 of the Authorisation Directive. Under Article 5 of the RTVE Law, the Spanish authorities have established a charge (which they call a contribution (‘aportación’)), which is levied on gross receipts of operators of electronic communications with a given geographic scope, without paying due regard to the principles and requirements laid down in Article 12 of the Authorisation Directive.

The Commission considers that, in failing to give notice in an appropriate manner of its intention to make amendments relating to general authorisations and by failing to allow interested parties, including users and consumers, a sufficient period of time to express their views on the proposed amendments, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil the obligations laid down by Article 14(1) of the Authorisation Directive.

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
3.

Is a rule under which, where it is no longer possible to carry out a control in situ (because a year has elapsed) and where it is therefore deduced that the undertakings made by the beneficiary have been suspended, that beneficiary must repay the entire amount of the aid funds already paid during the commitment period, even if those funds have been granted and paid for several years, compatible with European Union law governing repayment of aid?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 22 September 2011 — Laimonis Treimanis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-487/11)

2011/C 347/23

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Laimonis Treimanis

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Question referred

Does Article 7(1) of Regulation No 918/83 (1) preclude the owner of a private car imported into the European Union from a third country from transferring the car, for use free of charge, to a family member who has actually moved his residence from that third country to the European Union and who formed part of a household with the owner of the car in that third country before the car was imported into the European Union, where the car owner has essentially remained in the third country since the vehicle was imported?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1).
(a)

Must Article 1a of the Third Motor Insurance Directive (90/232/EEC) (1) — inserted by Article 4 of the Fifth Motor Insurance Directive (2005/14/EC) (2) — on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles be interpreted as precluding national law (such as that stemming from Articles 505 and 570 of the Portuguese Civil Code) which provides that that compulsory insurance against such liability does not cover liability for the personal and material damage caused to a cyclist in a road-traffic accident between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, even though the accident is due solely to the cyclist’s conduct?
2.

For the purposes of applying Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 is it possible for a national court of a Member State, before which the claim that that regulation is applicable is based on claims of an infringement of European Union law on asylum by the Member State responsible (under Article 3(1) of that regulation), to examine the infringement of that law and the consequent effects on the rights of the asylum seeker which are guaranteed to him by European Union law in the event of his transfer to the Member State responsible, where the Court of Justice of the European Union has not declared that that Member State has infringed the relevant provisions of European Union law, according to the procedure provided for by that law? In the event that the above question is answered in the affirmative, the following questions on establishing the criteria for an infringement of European Union law might also be answered: Are only substantial infringements of European Union law to be taken into account and which criteria must the national court consider in establishing such infringements in order to apply the provision of Regulation No 343/2003 of which an interpretation is sought? Where an infringement of European Union law on asylum results in the infringement of a right of any kind guaranteed to the asylum seeker by European Union law, should it only on that basis be assessed as substantial or must there also be a restriction on the infringement of the right to asylum within the meaning of Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? Where, according to the general criteria and standards of European Union law, there is no legal basis for accepting the asylum application of the person concerned, should then only the infringement of reception conditions for asylum seekers in the legally responsible Member State responsible be examined?
1.

Does European Union law, in particular in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 June 2011 in Case C-360/09 Pfleiderer, preclude a provision of national antitrust law which, (inter alia) in proceedings involving the application of Article 101 or Article 102 TFEU in conjunction with Regulation 1/2003/EC, (1) makes the grant of access to documents before the cartel court to third persons who are not parties to the proceedings, so as to enable them to prepare actions for damages against cartel participants, subject, without exception, to the condition that all the parties to the proceedings must give their consent, and which does not allow the court to weigh on a case-by-case basis the interests protected by European Union law with a view to determining the conditions under which access to the file is to be permitted or refused?
1.

Must Article 17(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct value added tax paid when goods are purchased can be denied to a taxable person who fulfils all the essential requirements for deduction of value added tax, without any abusive conduct on his part having been demonstrated, when the other party to the transactions was not able to effect the supply of the goods for factual or legal reasons (the other party to the transaction is fictitious or the person responsible for it denies the existence of any economic activity or of a specific transaction and that person has no capacity to fulfil the contract)?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno Sodišče Republike Slovenije (Republic of Slovenia) lodged on 25 October 2011 — Jožef Grilc v Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ

(Case C-541/11)

(2012/C 25/54)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jožef Grilc

Defendant: Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ

Question referred

Where a person has suffered damage as a result of a road traffic accident that occurred in a Member State other than his State of residence and was caused by a vehicle insured and normally based in a Member State, must the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/26/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the compensation body of the Member State of residence of the injured party has the capacity to be a party to legal proceedings instituted by the injured party in order to obtain compensation if, within three months of the injured party’s presenting his claim to the insurance undertaking responsible for the vehicle which caused the damage or its claims representative, neither the insurance undertaking nor its claims representative has provided a reasoned reply to the claim?

(1) OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Comercial Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 November 2011 — SC Volksbank România SA v Andreia Câmpan and Ioan Dan Câmpan

(Case C-571/11)

(2012/C 25/68)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Comercial Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Volksbank România SA

Defendants: Andreia Câmpan and Ioan Dan Câmpan

Question referred

Having regard to the fact that, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) assessment of the unfair nature of contractual terms must relate neither to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain intelligible language,

and

given that, under Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC, (2) the definition provided in Article 3(g) of that directive of ‘the total cost of the credit to the consumer’, which includes all the fees which the consumer is required to pay in connection with the credit agreement, does not apply for the purposes of determining the subject-matter of a credit agreement secured by a mortgage,

can the concepts of ‘subject-matter’ and/or of ‘price’, as used in Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that a fee referred to by the parties as a ‘risk commission’, which is provided for under a credit agreement secured by a mortgage and which is calculated on the basis of ‘0.22% of the credit balance’ and payable monthly, throughout the entire period of validity of the credit agreement, on pre-determined repayment dates falls within the ‘subject-matter’ and/or ‘price’ of the credit agreement secured by mortgage?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29)

(2) Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Valladolid (Spain) lodged on 3 November 2011 — María Jesús Lorenzo Martínez v Dirección Provincial de Educación Valladolid

(Case C-556/11)

(2012/C 25/62)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Valladolid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María Jesús Lorenzo Martínez

Defendant: Dirección Provincial de Educación Valladolid

Question referred

Does the fact that an individual is an established (career) civil servant and, as such, belongs to one of the staff groups into which the public teaching service is organised constitute an objective ground sufficient to justify the individual ‘continuing-professional-education’ component of the special increment (also commonly referred to as the ‘sexenio’ or six-yearly increment) being paid — once it is demonstrated that they have satisfied the relevant requirements — only to established civil servants forming part of the public teaching service?