ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

Having regard to the fact that under national legislation none of the possible protection schemes provided for in Directives 94/19 and 97/9 is applicable to holders of certificates of deposit and bonds issued by a credit institution: (a) Do Article 3(1), Article 7(1) (as subsequently amended by Directive 2009/14) and Article 10(1) of Directive 94/19, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that directive which defines the term ‘deposit’, display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, so that they could be relied upon by individuals before a national court to found their claims for payment of compensation against the insurer which has been established by the State and is responsible for making payment? (b) Do Articles 2(2) and 4(1) of Directive 97/9 display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, so that they could be relied upon by individuals before a national court to found their claims for payment of compensation against the insurer which has been established by the State and is responsible for making payment? (c) Should the above questions (3(a) and 3(b)) be answered in the affirmative, which of the two possible protection regimes must a national court choose to apply when deciding a dispute between a private person and a credit institution and involving the participation of the insurer, established by the State, responsible for administration of the depositor and investor protection schemes?
(c)

If the answer to Question (b) is in the affirmative, if ever the Member State does not adopt any measure pursuant to Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46/EC and if an employer, as a controller of such data, adopts a system of restricted access to those data which does not allow automatic access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions, is the principle of the primacy of European Union law to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State cannot penalise the employer for such behaviour?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2013 — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg

(Case C-687/13)

2014/C 78/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Regensburg

Question referred

Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) valid?

(1) OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1.
3.

Must Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that that provision is also applicable to the costs incurred by the parties in the context of proceedings for damages brought in a Member State if the claim and the defence relate to the alleged liability of the defendant by reason of the seizures which it made and the notices which it served with a view to enforcing its trade mark rights in another Member State, and in that connection a question arises concerning the recognition in the former Member State of a decision of the court in the latter Member State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (România) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani v Evangeli Paraskevopoulou

(Case C-668/13)

2014/C 85/23

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Casa Județeană de Pensii Botoșani

Defendant: Evangeli Paraskevopoulou

Question referred

Is Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope a bilateral agreement which two Member States entered into before the date on which that regulation became applicable and by which the two states agreed to the termination of obligations relating to social security benefits owed by one State to nationals of the other State who had been political refugees in the territory of the first State and who have been repatriated to the territory of the second State, in exchange for a payment by the first State of a lump sum for the payment of pensions and to cover periods during which social security contributions were paid in the first Member State?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
5.

If a periodic penalty payment (astreinte) imposed as a means to ensure compliance with rights of access is enforceable in another Member State without the amount of the penalty payment to be enforced having separately been finally determined: (a) does the enforcement of the penalty payment nevertheless require a review of whether the failure to comply with rights of access was based on obstacles which it was essential to take into consideration on account of the rights of children, and (b) which court has jurisdiction to examine such factors, more specifically, (i) is the jurisdiction of the court of the State of enforcement always limited solely to an examination of whether the alleged failure to comply with rights of access has occurred for reasons which are expressly set out in the judgment in the main proceedings, or (ii) does it follow from the protection of the rights of children in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that the court of the State of enforcement has a more extensive right or obligation to examine whether the failure to comply with rights of access was based on grounds which it was essential to take into consideration in order to safeguard the rights of children?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/21

Action brought on 30 January 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-48/14)

2014/C 102/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul Council Directive 2013/51/Euratom of 22 October 2013 laying down requirements for the protection of the health of the general public with regard to radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption. (1)

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Parliament puts forward three pleas in law in support of its action.

In the first place, the Parliament claims that the choice of legal basis made by the Council is mistaken, on the ground that the measures covered by the contested directive fall within the responsibilities of the European Union in the field of the protection of the environment, referred to in Article 192 TFEU. Those measures should therefore have been adopted on the basis of that article, following the ordinary legislative procedure, and not on the basis of Articles 31 and 32 EA.

In the second place, the Parliament claims that the contested directive undermines legal certainty in so far as it establishes rules of review and analysis which duplicate those already in force under Directive 98/83/EC. (2)

In the final place, the Parliament considers that by adopting the contested directive, the Council infringed the principle of loyal cooperation between the institutions, referred to in Article 13(2) TEU.

(1) OJ 2013 L 296, p. 12.

(2) Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32).
1.

Must Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), (1) in conjunction with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), (2) be interpreted as meaning that every measure taken by a national regulatory authority in order to fulfil the obligation arising from Article 28 of Directive 2002/22 affects trade between Member States where that measure may ensure that end-users from other Member States are able to access non-geographic numbers within the territory of that Member State?
1.

Is Article 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier, — who is carried on a contractual basis (specifically: a contract between the air carrier and the occupant’s employer), — but who is carried for the purpose of a particular job of work (specifically: the blasting of avalanches) and — who is involved in that operation as a ‘guide familiar with the terrain’ and must at the pilot’s direction open the helicopter door during the flight and then hold it open in a particular manner and for a particular period of time, (a) is a ‘passenger’ or (b) ranks among ‘on-duty members of both the flight crew and the cabin crew’?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG) and Others

(Case C-39/14)

2014/C 102/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG)

Other parties: Thomas Erbs, Ursula Erbs

Consent authority: Landkreis Jerichower Land

Question referred

Does Article 107(1) TFEU preclude a national provision such as Paragraph 9(1), no. 3, GrdstVG, which, for the improvement of the social structure of agriculture, in effect prohibits an agency such as Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG), which must be ascribed to the State, from selling to the highest bidder in a public call for tenders agricultural land available for sale, if the highest bid is grossly disproportionate to the value of the land?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2014 — Jürgen Kaiser v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-46/14)

2014/C 142/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jürgen Kaiser

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Question referred

Is there an obligation on an airline company which wishes to rely on the exemption possibility in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) to set out and prove that all reasonable measures were undertaken by it to avoid the likely consequences of extraordinary circumstances in the shape of cancellation or considerable delay or that no such reasonable measures were available to it?

(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 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
(1)

Must Article 14(1), Article 15(1) and Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that there are supplies by the landlord of electricity, heat, water and refuse disposal services to the tenant of the premises directly using those goods and services, which are supplied to those premises by specialist third persons, in a situation where one of the parties to the agreements for the supply of those goods and services is the landlord, who simply passes on the costs thereof to the tenant who actually uses them?
1.

Does Article 107 TFEU (ex Article 87 EC), in conjunction with Article 108(3) TFEU (ex Article 88(3) EC), preclude a national measure under which, in the context of group taxation, goodwill is to be amortised in the case where a holding is acquired in a domestic company — thereby reducing the basis of assessment for tax purposes, and hence the tax burden — whereas such amortisation of goodwill on acquisition of a holding is not permissible in other cases of income and corporation tax?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 February 2014 — A2A SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-89/14)

2014/C 142/28

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A2A SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Must Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) and Articles 9, 11 and 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (2) of 21 April 2004 implementing Regulation No 659/1999 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in relation to the recovery of State aid pursuant to a Commission decision notified on 7 June 2002, provides that the interest is to be determined on the basis of Chapter V of Regulation No 794/2004 (that is to say, on the basis of Articles 9 and 11 thereof, in particular) and, in consequence, that an interest rate based on the system of compound interest is to be applied?

(1) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 18 February 2014 — KPN BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM), other parties: UPC Nederland BV and Others

(Case C-85/14)

2014/C 151/14

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: KPN BV

Respondent: Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

Other parties: UPC Nederland BV, UPC Nederland Business BV, Tele2 Nederland BV, BT Nederland NV

Questions referred

1. Does Article 28 of the Universal Service Directive (1) permit the imposition of tariff regulation, without a market analysis having indicated that an operator has significant market power in regard to the regulated service, although the cross-border selectability of non-geographic telephone numbers is entirely possible from a technical point of view and the only obstacle to access to those numbers lies in the fact that the tariffs charged mean that a call to a nongeographic number is more expensive than a call to a geographic number?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, the following two questions arise for the College van Beroep: (a) Does the power to regulate tariffs also apply in the case where the effect of higher tariffs on the call volume to non-geographic numbers is merely limited? (b) To what extent do the national courts still have scope to assess whether a tariff-related measure required under Article 28 of the Universal Service Directive is not unreasonably onerous for the transit provider, given the objectives which it seeks to attain?

3. Does Article 28(1) of the Universal Service Directive leave open the possibility that the measures referred to in that provision may be taken by an authority other than the national regulatory authority which exercises the powers referred to in Article 13(1) of the Access Directive, (2) with the result that the latter authority would merely have enforcement powers?

(1) Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).

(2) Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/26

Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-135/14)

2014/C 175/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Mölls, and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009, (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union. (1)

— maintain the effects of Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 until the entry into force of a new regulation based on appropriate legal bases.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission seeks annulment of Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 that the Council adopted on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU.

The Commission alleges that the Council adopted that regulation although the Commission had proposed that the act be based on sector-specific legal bases, namely Article 43(2) and Article 168(4)(b) TFEU.

It submits that, in accordance with the purpose and aim of the contested regulation, Article 349 TFEU cannot legitimately be used as a legal basis. Article 349 TFEU can be applied only when it involves derogation from the principle of application of primary law to the outermost regions, as established in Article 355(1) TFEU. However, the regulation at issue, without derogating from the Treaties, merely adapts secondary law to respond to the situation created by the change of the status of Mayotte. That interpretation is supported not only by the wording of Article 349 TFEU, but also by the system of legal bases of the Treaty, as well as by the historical origins of that article.

(1) OJ 2013 L 354, p. 86.
3)

If Directive 2006/123/EC applies to vehicle roadworthiness tests, does that directive, when interpreted in conjunction with Article 2 of Directive 2009/40/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (or the equivalent provision of its predecessor, Directive 96/96/EC), mean that it is permissible to make such activities subject to prior administrative authorisation in every case? Does what is said in paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-438/08 (3) have any bearing on the reply to this question?
(d)

In so far as it provides for the limitation period to be extended by only a quarter following interruption and, therefore, fails to penalise conduct that deprives the State of the resources necessary in order to meet its obligations to the European Union also, has the amendment to the last subparagraph of Article 160 of the Italian Criminal Code made by Law No 251 of 2005 led to breach of the principle of sound public finances laid down by Article 119 TFEU?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/12

Appeal brought on 29 March 2014 by Christoph Klein against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2014 in Case T-309/10 Christoph Klein v European Commission

(Case C-120/14P)

2014/C 184/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Christoph Klein (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt und M. Ahlt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2014 in Case T-309/10;

— declare that by failing to adopt a decision in the safeguard clause procedure in progress since 1998 concerning the contested medicinal products, the Commission has infringed its obligations under Directive 93/42 and European Union law and has, as a result, caused the appellant direct damage;

— order the Commission to pay damages of an amount still to be calculated in respect of the damage caused to the appellant;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— in the alternative: set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2014 in Case T–309/10 and refer the proceedings back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By incorrectly applying the provisions relating to the time-barring of actions in matters arising from the non-contractual liability of the European Union, the General Court infringed Article 46 of the Statute, in so far as it failed to take account of the fact that a successful application for legal aid which, for the purpose of the interruption of the limitation period, amounts to the bringing of proceedings.

Next, the General Court infringed Articles 8 and 18 of Directive 93/42 (1) in so far as it concluded that those two articles are mutually exclusive. A correct interpretation is, on the other hand, that both provisions are concurrently applicable. Furthermore, the Court fails to provide sufficient grounds for its conclusion.

Further, the General Court infringed European Union law in so far as it erred in law by failing to classify the proceedings brought by the German authorities as safeguard clause proceedings.

The more than 10-year duration of the proceedings before the Commission infringes Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Principle of sound administration. The General Court erred in law by failing to take those infringements into consideration.

Finally, the proceedings before the Court contain breaches of procedural rules. Several documents produced in support of the appellant’s arguments were not taken into consideration. In addition, the statement and legal arguments of the European Parliament, which the appellant adopted, were simply ignored.

(1) Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169).