ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/5

Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2015 in Case T-507/13: SolarWorld AG and others v European Commission

(Case C-142/15 P)

(2015/C 190/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission,

Brandoni solare SpA,

Global Sun Ltd,

Silicio Solar, SAU,

Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

— Set aside the General Court’s Order in Case T-507/13;

— Declare the Application for annulment in Case T-507/13 admissible; and

— Refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellant put forward the following arguments:

The General Court erred by finding that the Appellant is not directly concerned by Commission Decision 2013/423/EU (1) because that Decision would not directly affect the legal situation of the Appellant and was subject to implementing measures.

— The General Court erred by finding that the Appellant is not directly affected by Commission Decision 2013/423/EU because it was implemented by Regulation 748/2013 (2). Regulation 748/2013 is a confirmatory act in relation to Decision 2013/423/EU. The Appellant had therefore standing to appeal Decision 2013/423/EU directly.

— The General Court’s finding that the Decision 2013/423/EU entails implementing measures was erroneous as the General Court did not analyse whether the Commission had any discretion when adopting Regulation 748/2013 or whether the implementation of Decision 2013/423/EU was merely automatic with regard to the Appellant, which in fact was the case.

(1) Commission Decision of 2 August 2013 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, OJ L 209, p. 26.

(2) Commission Regulation of 2 August 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, OJ L 209, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/24

Appeal brought on 27 April 2015 by Tarif Akhras against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2015 in Case T-579/11: Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union

(Case C-193/15 P)

(2015/C 205/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Tarif Akhras (represented by: S. Millar, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2015 in Case T-579/11 Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union;

— Annul the measures contested in Case T-579/11 dated 23 March 2012 and later insofar as they apply to the Appellant;

— Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Appellant invokes two grounds.

First, the General Court erred in law in holding that the Council was entitled to apply a presumption that the Appellant benefitted from and/or supported the regime, and the General Court failed to apply the correct test, viz., whether the established facts amounted to a set of indicia sufficiently specific, precise and consistent to establish that the Appellant benefitted from and/or supported the regime.

Second, the General Court erred in law in that it distorted the evidence relevant to the question whether the Appellant benefitted from and/or supported the regime, which, had it not been so distorted, demonstrated that the Appellant did not support or benefit from the regime.

Had the General Court not applied the presumption, and/or had it applied the correct test, and/or had it not distorted the evidence referred to above, it would have annulled the measures contested in Case T-579/11 dated 23 March 2012 and later.
2.

Article 11(1)(e) of the 1968 Netherlands Law on Turnover Tax exempts from VAT the provision of services by sports associations to their members, with the exception of the services provided by water sports associations which, in order to provide their services, have recourse to one or more persons employed by them, in so far as those services consist in the carrying out, with the help of those persons, of activities in relation to vessels or in the provision of quays and moorings.
2.

If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative: Is the system of fixed prices for prescription-only medicinal products justified under to Article 36 TFEU on grounds of the protection of health and life of humans if that system is the only means of ensuring a consistent supply of medicinal products to the population across the whole of Germany, in particular in rural areas?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 28 April 2015 — Véronique Baudinet and Others v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Torino

(Case C-194/15)

(2015/C 245/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Véronique Baudinet, Adrien Boyer, Pauline Boyer, Edouard Boyer

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Torino

Question referred

Do Articles 63 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude legislation of a Member State under which, when a resident of that State, a shareholder in a company established in another Member State, receives dividends taxed in both States, that double taxation is not remedied by the grant in the State of residence of a tax credit at least equal to the amount of tax paid in the State of the distributing company?
4.

If the reply to question 3 is in the affirmative and the royalties or licence fees relate, as here, partly to the imported goods and partly to post-importation services: does it follow from the appropriate apportionment made only on the basis of objective and quantifiable data, in accordance with Article 158(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Implementing Regulation’) and the interpretative note on Article 32(2) of the Code in Annex 23 to the Implementing Regulation, that only a customs value in accordance with Article 29 of the Code may be corrected, or, if a customs value cannot be determined in accordance with Article 29 of the Code, is the apportionment laid down in Article 158(3) of the Implementing Regulation also possible, in so far as those costs would not otherwise be taken into account, when determining a customs value to be established in accordance with Article 31 of the Code?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 254/12

Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union

(Case C-259/15 P)

(2015/C 254/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, agent, R. Bierwagen, C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT, European Commission, Maxcom Ltd

Form of order sought

The Council respectfully requests the Court:

— that the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015, notified to the Council on 23 March 2015, in Case T-412/13 Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union be set aside;

— that the application at first instance brought by Chin Haur Indonesia, PT for the annulment of the Contested Regulation (1) be rejected; and

— that Chin Haur Indonesia, PT be ordered to pay the Council’s costs both at first instance and on appeal.

Alternatively,

— that the case be referred back to the General Court for reconsideration;

— that costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal be reserved.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court misinterprets Article 13 (1) of the Basic Regulation (2) when concluding that the Council did not have sufficient evidence to decide that the Applicant was engaged in transhipment. The General Court's interpretation of the conditions that must be met by individual companies in order to be exempted from the extended measures is in contradiction to the structure of Article 13 of the Basic Regulation (first plea).

The General Court's finding, that on the basis of the documents before the Court, the Council had no evidence from which it could expressly conclude in the Contested Regulation that the Applicant was involved in transshipment operations, lacks proper reasoning. Moreover, and contrary to the judgment under appeal, given that transhipment was correctly demonstrated at country level and that the Applicant's exemption request was not justified, the only conclusion the Council, and subsequently the General Court, could have drawn from the facts was that the Applicant has been involved in transhipment. The General Court, in drawing a different conclusion, distorted the facts (second plea).

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not

OJ L 153, p. 1

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

OJ L 343, p. 51
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/10

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Catania (Italy) lodged on 19 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Snezhana Velikova

(Case C-228/15)

(2015/C 245/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Catania

Party to the main proceedings

Snezhana Velikova

Question referred

Are Articles 20 and 21 of [Legislative Decree No 30 of 6 February 2007] and [subsequent amendments] implementing Directive 2004/38/EC (1) contrary to [European Union] law?

(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 2004 L 158, p. 77).
2)

Is Article 9(3) to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a Community trade mark may demand only reasonable compensation from a third party on the basis of the second sentence of Article 9(3) for use of a sign identical with the trade mark in the period from the publication of the application for registration of the trade mark until the publication of the registration of the trade mark, but not compensation for the fair market value of what has been gained as a result of the infringement and for damage, and that there is also no right to reasonable compensation for the period prior to publication of the application for registration of the trade mark?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/3

Appeal brought on 4 May 2015 by Nissan Jidosha KK against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2015 in Case T-572/12: Nissan Jidosha KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-207/15 P)

(2015/C 262/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Nissan Jidosha KK (represented by: B. Brandreth, barrister, D. Cañadas Arcas, abogada)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the decision of the General Court of 4 March 2015 (Case T-572/12);

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2469/2011-1);

— Order OHIM to pay the Appellant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 47 of Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), (‘CTMR’). In particular, it erred in holding that Article 47 does not permit sequential requests for renewal. Incidental to its erroneous interpretation of Art 47 CTMR the General Court erred in its interpretation of Art 48 CTMR in holding that it applied only to the sign of the Community Trade Mark.

a. The interpretation of Art 47(3) by the General Court is inconsistent.

b. The interpretation of Art 47(3) by the General Court calls for de facto surrender of part of the mark in terms contrary to those provided for under Art 50 CTMR.

c. The requirement for legal certainty called for by the General Court arises from the actions taken by OHIM. It is not inherent to the interpretation of Art 47(3) given by the General Court and legal certainty is equally possible under the Appellant’s interpretation. In the present case, the actions of OHIM were carried out on the basis that the mark had been surrendered, which the General Court held was an error of law.

d. The interpretation of Art 47(3) advanced by the Appellant is not precluded by the wording of the Article.

e. The interpretation of Art 48 wrongly concludes that Article is concerned only with the sign of which the Community trade mark is composed.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1
2.

If so, what remedy must be provided to a claimant in the position of Swiss International Airlines AG, which has surrendered emissions allowances in respect of flights that took place during 2012 between EEA states and Switzerland, to restore that claimant to the position it would have been in, but for the exclusion from the moratorium of flights between EEA states and Switzerland? In particular: a) Must the register be rectified to reflect the lesser number of allowances that such a claimant would have been required to surrender if flights to or from Switzerland had been included in the moratorium? b) If so, what (if any) action must the national competent authority and/or the national court take to procure that the additional allowances surrendered are returned to such a claimant? c) Does such a claimant has the right to claim damages under Article 340 of the TFEU against the European Parliament and the Council for any loss that it has suffered by reason of having surrendered additional allowances as a result of the Decision? d) Must the claimant be granted some other form of relief, and if so what relief?
Case C-258/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias

(Case C-258/15)

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gorka Salaberria Sorondo

Defendant: Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias

Question referred

Is the setting of a maximum age of 35 years as a condition for participation in the selection process for recruitment to the post of officer of the police force of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country (Policía Autónoma Vasca) compatible with the interpretation of Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC ( 1 ) of 27 November 2000?

( 1 ) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/34

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Director of the Administration des Contributions Directes

(Case C-300/15)

(2015/C 294/43)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser

Defendant: Director of the Administration des Contributions Directes

Question referred

Does the principle of freedom of movement for workers, as enshrined in particular in Article 45 TFEU, preclude the provisions of Article 139ter(1) of the Law of 4 December 1967 on income tax, as amended, in so far as they restrict eligibility for the tax credit established there to persons in possession of a tax deduction form?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/35

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo Tarragona (Spain) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Correos y Telégrafos SA v Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca

(Case C-302/15)

(2015/C 294/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo Tarragona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Correos y Telégrafos SA

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca

Question referred

Do Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 7 of Directive 2008/6/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC (2) with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services preclude national legislation which, as a means of financing the universal postal service, provides for tax exemptions in relation to the activities of that service?

(1) OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3.

(2) OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14.
1.

Are Articles 34, 35 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘the TFEU’) in conjunction with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions which prohibit the manufacture or processing and/or marketing of a food supplement with amino acids (here: L-histidine), unless a temporary derogation has been issued at the discretion of the national authority subject to specific additional factual requirements?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/19

Appeal brought on 24 June 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 April 2015 in Case T-393/13: SolarWorld AG v European Commission

(Case C-312/15 P)

(2015/C 302/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Solsonica SpA

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

— Set aside the General Court’s order in Case T-393/13 with regard to the General Court’s findings that there is no longer a need to adjudicate the Applications for annulment and damages;

— Declare the Application for annulment and the action for damages in Case T-393/13 admissible; and

— Refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment and the action for damages.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court manifestly erred in finding that there was no longer a need to adjudicate on its action for annulment and its action for damages.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/28

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 July 2015 — Maxime Lefort v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

(Case C-403/15)

(2015/C 302/37)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Maxime Lefort

Respondent: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

Questions referred

In order properly to meet the requirements of non-discrimination under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, together with Article 45(2) TFEU, against the background of Article 33(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, together, as necessary, with Article 7 thereof, when taking into account the actual degree of attachment of a non-resident student, who has applied for financial aid for higher-education studies, with the society and with the labour market of Luxembourg, being the Member State in which a frontier worker has been employed or has carried out his activity in the conditions referred to in Article 2 bis of the Law of 22 June 2000 on State financial aid for higher-education studies, as added by the Law of 19 July 2013 in direct consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 20 June 2013 (Case C-20/12) (2),

— should the requirement that the student be the ‘child’ of that frontier worker be taken to mean that he must be the frontier worker’s ‘direct descendant in the first degree whose relationship with his parent is legally established’, with the emphasis being placed on the child-parent relationship established between the student and the frontier worker, which is supposed to underlie the abovementioned attachment, or

— should the emphasis be placed on the fact that the frontier worker ‘continues to provide for the student’s maintenance’ without necessarily being connected to the student through a legal child-parent relationship, in particular where a sufficient link of communal life can be identified, of such a kind as to establish a connection between the frontier worker and one of the parents of the student with whom the child-parent relationship is legally established?

— From the latter perspective, where the contribution — presumably, non-compulsory — of the frontier worker is not exclusive but made in parallel with that of the parent or parents connected with the student through a legal child-parent relationship, and therefore in principle under a legal duty to maintain the student, must that contribution satisfy certain criteria as regards its substance?

(1) OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

(2) EU:C:2013:411.
4.

Must the term ‘independent group of persons’, for the purposes of Article 132(1)(f) of the Directive, be taken to mean a separate legal person whose existence has to be proved through a specific agreement creating that independent group of persons? If the reply to that question is that an independent group of persons need not necessarily be taken to mean a separate entity, is an independent group of persons to be regarded as a group of related undertakings in which, in the course of their usual economic activities, those undertakings provide each other with support services for carrying out their commercial activities, and may the existence of that group be proved through the contracts for services concluded or through documentation on transfer prices?