ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

a declaration that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC (1) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) not later than 30 October 2007, without prejudice to specific Community legislation, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (‘the IPPC Directive’);
2.

Does Community law preclude a Member State from rejecting a claim for damages brought by an undertaking to which excise duty imposed contrary to a directive has been passed on, where such rejection — in circumstances such as those of the present case — is on the grounds put forward by the Member State (specifically, that the undertaking is not the directly injured party and that there is no direct causal link between any loss and the conduct giving rise to liability)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/25

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 1 February 2010 — Eleftheri Tileorasi A.E. ‘Alter Channel’ and Konstantinos Giannikos v Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis and Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis

(Case C-52/10)

2010/C 100/37

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eleftheri Tileorasi A.E. ‘Alter Channel’ and Konstantinos Giannikos

Defendants: Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis (Minister for the Press and the Mass Media) and Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis (National Council for Radio and Television)

Question referred

Is Article 1(d) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by Article 1(c) of Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of ‘surreptitious advertising’, the provision of payment or of consideration of another kind is a necessary defining element of the intention to advertise?
2.

Is the term ‘further compensation’ used in Article 12 of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a cancellation, the national court may award compensation for damage, including non-material damage, for breach of a contract of carriage by air in accordance with rules established in national legislation and case-law on breach of contact or, on the contrary, must such compensation relate solely to appropriately substantiated expenses incurred by passengers and not adequately indemnified by the carrier in accordance with the requirements of Articles 8 and 9 of Regulation 261/2004/EC, even if such provisions have not been expressly relied upon or, lastly, are the two aforementioned definitions of the term further compensation compatible one with another?
2.

If the answer is in the negative, is the general principle of an effective remedy under Community law, prompted by Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, to be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those established in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 20(5) of the Amended Law of 5 May 2006 on the right of asylum and complementary forms of protection, pursuant to which an applicant for asylum does not have a right to appeal to a court against the administrative authority’s decision to rule on the merits of the application for international protection under the accelerated procedure?
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of that directive;
1.

Is Article 47 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 directly applicable in the domestic legal order as from 31 January 2006, in the sense that it confers on individuals a right on which they can rely in proceedings against organs of the Portuguese authorities?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/26

Action brought on 11 March 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-130/10)

2010/C 134/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Perillo, K. Bradley, A. Auersperger Matić, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 (1) of 22 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (2) imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban;

— Order that the effects of Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 be maintained until it is replaced;

— order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament considers that Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 of 22 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban is invalid for the following reasons:

— having regard to its aim and content, the correct legal basis for the Regulation is Article 75 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— in the alternative, the conditions for recourse to Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union were not fulfilled, because no proposal had been validly presented, and the Council had not previously adopted a decision in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on the European Union.

Should the Court annul the contested Regulation, Parliament nonetheless proposes that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested Regulation, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time as it is replaced.

(1) OJ L 346, p. 42

(2) OJ L 139, p. 9
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgerichts Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 2 March 2010 — Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen

(Case C-113/10)

2010/C 134/32

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Question referred

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (1) valid?

(1) OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1.
2.

Consequently, in accordance with Article 226 EC (now Article 258 TFEU), the Commission sent the Netherlands a letter of formal notice and a reasoned opinion in which it stated that, in its view, Netherlands social security legislation should also apply to nationals of other Member States of the European Union who work on drilling platforms in the Netherlands. The refusal of the Netherlands authorities to award social security benefits to such persons is incompatible with Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, in particular with Articles 13(2)(a) and 3(1) thereof, and with Articles 39 EC to 42 EC (now Articles 45 TFEU to 48 TFEU).
1.

Is the introduction of a pollution tax for the period from 1 July 2008 to 15 December 2008 under the Romanian legislation in question (Emergency Order No 50/2008) consistent with the principles of customs union and the prohibition on double taxation established in Articles 23 TEC, 25 TEC and 90 TEC, in so far as those Treaty provisions permit the introduction of a pollution tax for the purpose set out by the Romanian legislature in the preamble to Emergency Order No 50/2008, a purpose which is also provided for in Article 174 TEC et seq, namely to ensure the protection of the environment through the implementation of programmes and projects intended to improve air quality and to attain the limit values laid down by the relevant Community legislation? In other words, more specifically: where a pollution tax is introduced in a Member State of the European Union which is levied on the first registration in that State of new or second hand motor vehicles imported from another Member State, can the provisions in Article 174 TEC et seq be regarded as justifying the disapplication of Articles 23 TEC, 25 TEC and 90 TEC?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 9 April 2010 — Jarosław Słaby v Minister Finansów

(Case C-180/10)

2010/C 179/28

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jarosław Słaby

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Question referred

Is a natural person who carried out an agricultural activity on land and subsequently, on account of a change to urban management plans which occurred for reasons beyond his control, ceased that activity and reclassified his property as private property, divided it into smaller parts (land designated for a holiday home development) and began to dispose of it, on that basis a taxable person for VAT within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and Article 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC (2) who is liable for payment of VAT on the basis of a trading activity?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad Van State (Netherlands), lodged on 6 April 2010 — Johan van Leendert Holding BV v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

(Case C-158/10)

(2010/C 161/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Johan van Leendert Holding BV

Respondent: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

Question referred

Must Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national rules, as set out in Article 2 of the Netherlands Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), read in conjunction with Article 1e(1)(c) of the Decree implementing the Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Besluit uitvoering Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), under which an employment permit is required for the posting of workers as referred to in Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 96/71/EC (1)?

(1) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/2

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 16 April 2010 — Baris Unal v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

(Case C-187/10)

2010/C 195/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Baris Unal

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Question referred

Does the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association [adopted by the Association Council established pursuant to the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey], having regard also to the principle of legal certainty, in a situation in which there is no question of fraudulent conduct, preclude the competent national authorities from withdrawing, after the expiry of the one-year period referred to in the aforementioned first indent of Article 6(1), the residence permit of a Turkish worker with retroactive effect from the point in time at which there was no longer compliance with the ground on the basis of which the residence permit had been issued under national law?
—

Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2007/44/EC.
1.

Are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) to be interpreted as applying to a termination of activities as a result of a declaration that the employer is insolvent or a judicial decision ordering the dissolution and winding-up, on grounds of insolvency, of the credit institution which is the employer on the basis of Article 61(l)(a) and (b) of the amended Law of 5 April 1993 relating to the financial sector, in respect of which termination the national legislation provides for the termination of employment contracts with immediate effect
2.

Under Union law, in particular the Agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of persons and Articles 3(1) and 72 of Regulation No 1408/71, is income earned in Switzerland to be equated with domestic income in the determination of entitlement to family benefit in the form of income-related benefit for childcare?
3.

If the reply to the second question is in the affirmative, is the application of a longer national limitation period within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, (1) which is determined on the basis of an emergency judicial power in particular cases, by way of judicial development of the law, compatible with the Community-law principle of legal certainty?
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2008/103/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators as regards placing batteries and accumulators on the market, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/28

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 10 June 2010 — Tankreederei I SA v Directeur de l’Administration des Contributions Directes

(Case C-287/10)

()

2010/C 221/44

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tankreederei I SA

Defendant: Directeur de l’Administration des Contributions Directes

Question referred

Do Articles 49 EC and 56 EC preclude the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 152 bis of the amended Law of 4 December 1967 on income tax, insofar as, under those provisions, Luxembourg taxpayers are granted a tax credit for investments only if the investments are made in an establishment situated in the Grand-Duchy and are intended to remain there on a permanent basis, and only if they are physically used on Luxembourg territory?
1.

Is Article 77(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that family allowances need not be granted by the former State of employment to persons who receive pensions for old age, invalidity or an accident at work or occupational disease under the legislation of more than one Member State and whose pension entitlement is based on the legislation of the former State of employment (national pension entitlement) if provision is made in the State of residence for a comparable, higher benefit, which is, however, incompatible with another benefit for which the person concerned, having been given the choice, has opted?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/25

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Amares (Portugal) lodged on 17 June 2010 — Cristiano Marques Vieira v Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

(Case C-299/10)

()

2010/C 234/41

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial de Amares

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cristiano Marques Vieira

Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

Question referred

In a motor vehicle collision in which none of the drivers is liable for the accident on the basis of fault, and which has caused personal injury and material loss to one of the drivers (the injured party claiming compensation, who is a minor), is it contrary to Community law, in particular Article 3(1) of the First Directive (Directive 72/166/EEC), (1) Article 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and Article 1 of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC), (3) as those provisions have been interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, for it to be possible to apportion liability for risk (Article 506(1) and (2) of the Código Civil (Portuguese Civil Code)) with a direct impact on the amount of compensation to be awarded to the injured party for the material and non-material loss resulting from the personal injuries suffered (since that apportionment of liability for risk will entail a commensurate reduction in the amount of compensation)?

(1) Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

(2) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

(3) Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (Spain) lodged on 1 June 2010 — David Montoya Medina v Fondo de Garantía Salarial and Universidad de Alicante

(Case C-273/10)

()

2010/C 221/41

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: David Montoya Medina

Defendants: Fondo de Garantía Salarial and Universidad de Alicante

Question referred

Are rules of the kind set out in Decree 174/2002 of 15 October of the Valencian Government on the regulation and remuneration of teaching and research staff employed in Valencian public universities and on additional remuneration of university teaching staff contrary to the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Clause 4 of the framework agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999, in so far as they do not recognise the right of post-doctoral assistant lecturers on fixed-term contracts (profesores ayudantes doctores) to receive a length-of-service supplement in the form of three-yearly increments when that same supplement is granted to post-doctoral lecturers on contracts of indefinite duration (profesores contratados doctores)?

(1) Concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP

OJ L 175, p. 43
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 2 July 2010 — X v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Y

(Case C-319/10)

()

2010/C 246/45

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Y

Questions referred

1. In the assessment of the validity and/or the interpretation of Regulations No 535/94, (1) No 1832/2002, (2) No 1871/2003 (3) and No 2344/2003, (4) by which additional note 7 (CN) to Chapter 2 was introduced (numbered as note 8 at the time) and amended, is it possible to rely on the decision of 27 September 2005 of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) [of the World Trade Organisation] concerning the interpretation of the term ‘salted’ in heading 0210, even in cases in which the declaration for the customs procedure for ‘release for free circulation’ was made before that date?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: How is it to be determined whether the character of chicken meat has been altered?

3. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: (a) Having regard to the DSB’s decision of 27 September 2005, are the aforementioned regulations valid in so far as they lay down that, for the purposes of heading 0210, meat is deemed to be ‘salted’ if it has a total salt content by weight of 1,2 % or more? (b) In the light of the DSB’s decision of 27 September 2005, must the aforementioned regulations be interpreted as meaning that additional note 7 (CN) to Chapter 2 lays down that the character of meat with a salt content by weight of 1,2 % or more is deemed to have been altered, that that meat qualifies as ‘salted’ for the purposes of heading 0210, and that meat with a salt content by weight of less than 1,2 %, the character of which has been demonstrably altered through the addition of salt, is not excluded from classification under heading 0210?

4. If Question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative: How is it to be determined whether the long-term preservation of chicken meat is guaranteed through the addition of salt?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 535/94 of 9 March 1994 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1994 L 68, p. 15).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1871/2003 of 23 October 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 5).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2344/2003 of 30 December 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 346, p. 38).