ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

In the First Ground of Appeal, the Appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law by not assessing and establishing whether the introduction of weighting criteria for the sub-criteria of the first technical award criteria which were not communicated to the tenderers before the submission of their tenders 1) altered the criteria for the award of the contract set out in the contract documents or the contract notice, 2) contained elements which, if they had been known at the time the tenders were prepared, could have affected that preparation, or 3) were adopted on the basis of matters likely to give rise to discrimination against one of the tenderers. In the second part of the first ground of appeal, the Appellant also demonstrates that the General Court has violated its duty to state reasons as imposed by Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice as it does not provide any reason why it considers that the introduction of unannounced weighting factors for the sub-criteria used in the first award criterion had a detrimental effect on the chances of the applicants in first instance to be ranked in first or second place in the cascade for the disputed Call for Tenders.
1.

Is a practice of the tax authority, based on the provisions of the Law on VAT, compatible with the provisions of the VAT Directive, (1) in particular the principle of proportionality with the objectives of tax neutrality and the prevention of tax fraud, if, by that practice, that authority declares that a purchaser of an item of property (or recipient of a service) is liable for a tax difference in a situation in which the seller of the property (or supplier of the service) issues an invoice in accordance with the ordinary tax system for a transaction to which the reverse charge procedure applies and declares and pays to the Treasury the tax relating to that invoice, and the purchaser of the item of property (or recipient of the service), for his part, deducts the VAT paid to the issuer of the invoice, even though he may not exercise his right to deduct the VAT declared as a tax difference?
1.

[Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-465/2005 Commission v Italy (EU:C:2007:781), in which that court] found that the Italian State was in breach of the principles enshrined in Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty (freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services), stating that: (a) it is obligatory to swear an oath of allegiance to the Italian Republic in order to work as a private security guard; (b) private security guard activities may be pursued by service providers established in another Member State only after authorisation of limited territorial validity has been granted by the Prefetto (provincial governor) without taking account of the obligations to which such providers are already subject in their Member State of origin; (c) that authorisation is to be of limited territorial validity and is to be granted subject to consideration of the number and size of private security undertakings already operating in the area in question; (d) private security undertakings must have a place of business in each province in which they operate; (e) the staff of private security undertakings must be individually authorised to undertake private security work without taking account of the controls and verifications already carried out in the Member State of origin; (g) private security undertakings must have a minimum and/or maximum number of employees in order to obtain authorisation; (h) such undertakings must lodge a guarantee with the local Cassa depositi e prestiti; (i) the prices for private security services are to be fixed, with the approval of the Prefetto, within the limits of a predetermined margin for variation; [to be interpreted as] precluding, of itself, the provincial public security authority (the Questore) from imposing requirements regarding the provisions of services such as those at issue in this case, [which] make it compulsory to deploy a minimum number of security guards (two) for operations entailing the provisions of particular services?
6.

The Applicant's interpretation of Article 66(2) CTMR results from 1) the inner logic of Regulation No. 207/2009, in particular the fact that i. Article 66(2) CTMR constitutes and exception within Regulation No. 207/2009 as, according to Article 7(1)(c) CTMR, trademarks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods or of rendering of the service shall not be registered, ii. according to Article 67(2) CTMR, the regulations governing use of a Community collective trade mark consisting of geographical indication must authorise any person whose goods or services originate in the geographical area concerned to become a member of the association which is the proprietor of the mark, and consequently, a Community collective mark consisting of geographical indication is never capable of distinguishing goods or services of the members of the association which is the proprietor of the mark from those of other undertakings. 2) an interpretation of that provision in the light of Regulation No. 1151/2012 (2) and in the light of the TRIPs-Agreement, according to which geographical indications should enjoy a high level of protection, and according to which presentations of a good that indicates or suggests that the good in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place of origin, in a manner which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good, should be prohibited.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/4

Appeal brought on 7 September 2015 by Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B de C.V., against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2015 in Case T-618/14 Grupo Bimbo v OHIM

(Case C-476/15 P)

(2016/C 165/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, abogado)

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

By order of 15 March 2016, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. de C.V., to bear its own costs.
2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: is such a mark to be declared invalid, in accordance with Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, or to be revoked, in accordance with a mutatis mutandis application of Article 73(c) of that regulation, if the proprietor of the mark fails to ensure that expectations in trade relating to the quality associated with the sign are being met by carrying out periodic quality controls at its licensees?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/8

Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by L’Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2015 in Case T-426/13 L’Oréal v EUIPO

(Case C-611/15 P)

(2016/C 314/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal SA (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and L. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Cosmética Cabinas, S.L.

By order of 16 June 2016, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered L’Oréal SA to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/3

Appeal brought on 9 November 2015 by Mansour Dairek Attoumi against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-278/14 Dairek Attoumi v OHIM-Diesel

(Case C-578/15 P)

(2016/C 251/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Mansour Dairek Attoumi (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J.M. Manresa Medina, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Diesel, S.P.A.

By order of 26 May 2016, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Mansour Dairek Attoumi to pay the costs.
5.

Is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 2013 to interpret the concept of the good faith of those concerned as meaning that the good faith of the seller or supplier may be assessed in abstracto or, on the contrary, must it be assessed in the light of the conduct of the seller or supplier in the circumstances of the particular contract?
2.

Should the expression ‘sequentially’ used in Article 30(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, in the light of the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union read together with the principle that reasons must be stated for administrative measures, be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be able to conclude that the applicable method is that set out in Article 31 of the regulation, the customs authorities are under an obligation to state in all administrative measures why in those specific circumstances the methods for determination of customs value of goods set out in Articles 29 and 30 cannot be used?
3.

In a case where the highest of the ordinary courts does not examine a request for a preliminary ruling, should it be assumed that a breach of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU has been committed, partly in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read together, when that court rejects the request, with the only reason given being that ‘[s]ince the grounds of appeal were not admissible for a reason specific to the proceedings before the Hof’, the question would not be asked?
(4)

Is it contrary to Article 138 [2](a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC and the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations to require VAT to be paid by the supplier of a new means of transport dispatched to another Member State, in circumstances in which: — the purchaser, before dispatch, informs the supplier that he resides in the Member State of destination and produces to him a document proving that he has been assigned a foreign national’s identity number in that Member State, indicating a residence in that State different from the residence stated by the purchaser himself; — the purchaser subsequently gives to the supplier documents proving that the means of transport purchased has undergone a technical inspection in the Member State of destination and that he has been granted a tourist registration in that State; — it has not been demonstrated that the supplier collaborated with the purchaser to avoid paying VAT; — the customs authorities have not raised any objection to the cancellation of the customs declaration for the vehicle on the basis of the documents in the possession of the supplier?
2.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 3(e) of the directive (‘[f]or the purposes of this directive, those drivers who do not satisfy these criteria shall be subject to the same obligations and benefit from the same rights as those provided for mobile workers by this directive’) be interpreted as meaning that, if none or only one of the criteria laid down for a person to be regarded as a ‘self-employed driver’ is fulfilled, the view must be taken that the person concerned is a ‘mobile worker’?
1.

Do Article 26(1)(b), Article 168(a) and Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude a provision of national law such as Article 70(1)(2) of the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax), which restricts the right to deduct input VAT in respect of the supply of services relating to construction or improvement of a property owned by a third party, which are used both by the recipient of the supply and by the third party, for the sole reason that the third party enjoys the result of those services free of charge, without taking into account the fact that the services are to be used in the context of the economic activity of the taxable recipient?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Dresden (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2016 — Ute Wunderlich v Bulgarian Air Charter Limited

(Case C-32/16)

(2016/C 165/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Dresden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ute Wunderlich

Defendant: Bulgarian Air Charter Limited

Question referred

Is there a flight cancellation within the meaning of Article 2(l) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) in the case where a scheduled flight departed on time and arrived at its scheduled destination with a delay of not more 3 hours but with an unscheduled stopover?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/13

Action brought on 14 March 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-152/16)

(2016/C 191/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

— declare that by failing to create its national electronic register of road transport undertakings and interconnecting it with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1);

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009 provides that each Member State is to keep a national electronic register of road transport undertakings which have been authorised by the competent national authority to engage in the occupation of road transport operator.

However, it is apparent from the answer given by the Luxembourg State to the letter of formal notice that such a national register has not been set up.

It follows that the Luxembourg State has failed to comply with Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009.

Under Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1071/2009, the Member States are required to take all necessary measures to ensure that the national electronic registers are interconnected and accessible throughout the European Union.

As it does not even have a national register, there can be no doubt that the Luxembourg Administration has not taken the measures necessary to interconnect its national register (which it does not have) with other national registers.

That being the case, the Luxembourg State has failed to comply with Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1071/2009.

(1) OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Caixabank S.A. v Héctor Benlliure Santiago

(Case C-91/16)

(2016/C 175/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caixabank S.A.

Defendant: Héctor Benlliure Santiago

Question referred

Is the use of an agreed remunerative interest rate in a situation in which default interest is applicable in accordance with Directive 93/13 (1) or, on the contrary, does it presuppose an amendment of the contract which is not permitted under EU case-law?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
6.

What information can reasonably be expected from an economic operator to prove the fair nature of the rates for works covered by copyright, within the scope of subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if the cost of those works cannot be determined in the same way as that of products of a material nature? Is it solely a question of the cost of administering the copyright management organisation?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-165/16)

(2016/C 191/21)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Toufik Lounes

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Question referred

Where a Spanish national and Union citizen:

i. moves to the United Kingdom, in the exercise of her right to free movement under Directive 2004/38/EC (1); and

ii. resides in the United Kingdom in the exercise of her right under Article 7 or Article 16 of Directive 2004/38/EC; and

iii. subsequently acquires British citizenship, which she holds in addition to her Spanish nationality, as a dual national; and

iv. several years after acquiring British citizenship, marries a third country national with whom she resides in the United Kingdom;

are she and her spouse both beneficiaries of Directive 2004/38/EC, within the meaning of Article 3(1), whilst she is residing in the United Kingdom, and holding both Spanish nationality and British citizenship?

(1) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC

OJ L 158, p. 77
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 29 March 2016 — M.H. v M.H.

(Case C-173/16)

(2016/C 211/41)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.H.

Defendant: M.H.

Question referred

Is ‘the time when the document instituting the proceedings … is lodged with the court’ in Article 16.1(a) of Regulation 2201/2003 (1) to be interpreted as meaning:-

i) the time at which the document instituting the proceedings is received by the court even if such receipt does not of itself immediately commence the proceedings in accordance with national law; or

ii) the time at which, following receipt of the document instituting the proceedings by the court, the proceedings are commenced in accordance with national law.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 OJ L 338, p. 1
(c)

Considering that neither of the two above-mentioned national legislative texts were notified to the European Commission in the context of a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations set out in Directive 98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998, amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 and transposed into national law by Decree-Law No 58/2000 of 18 April: 1. Must the national court declare that a national legislative text is entirely inapplicable if it introduces technical standards and, in breach of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, it has not been notified to the European Commission, or must the court’s declaration of inapplicability be limited to the new technical regulations introduced by the national legislative text? Or, 2. Must a national legislative text be declared entirely inapplicable if it introduces technical standards and, in breach of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, it has not been notified to the European Commission, or must the declaration of inapplicability be limited to the new technical regulations introduced by the national legislative text? 3. Are all the technical standards set out in the said Regulation inapplicable, or only those technical standards amended or introduced by Decree-Law No 119/2009 of 19 May?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2016 — Angelika Eckert v Société Air France SA

(Case C-95/16)

(2016/C 232/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Angelika Eckert

Defendant: Société Air France SA

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 19 April 2016.
—

declare that, by allowing an ongoing persistent situation of environmental and health insecurity, through the unsuitable storage of substantial quantities of used tyres together with other waste, including hazardous waste, and through the disposal thereof contrary to the requirements of the Landfill Directive, the Republic of Slovenia has infringed Article 12 (Disposal), Article 13 as regards waste management which takes into account the protection of human health and the environment, and Article 36(1) (Enforcement and penalties) of the Waste Framework Directive, as well as Article 5(3)(d) of the Landfill Directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2016 — Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-206/16)

(2016/C 251/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA, Antares European Fund Limited, Antares European Fund II Limited, Antares European Fund LP, Luca Orsini Baroni, UniCredit SpA, Lauro Sessantuno SpA

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Question referred

Is the proper application of the second paragraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and the proper application of the general principles of European law relating to legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions authorise Consob to increase the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where the condition that ‘there has been collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers’ is fulfilled, without identifying the specific actions which constitute such a situation, and thus without determining clearly the conditions and criteria under which Consob is authorised to adjust upwards the price of the takeover bid?

(1) Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 april 2004 on takeover bids (OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12).