ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3)

If those provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude national legislation such as the supplementary tax on pension income, must it also be assessed in the present case whether Article 6(1) of that directive is to be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as the supplementary tax on pension income may nevertheless be regarded in terms of its aim as objectively and reasonably justified within the meaning of that provision of the directive, in particular on the basis of a legitimate employment policy, labour market or vocational training objective, since the purpose expressed in the preparatory materials for the Tuloverolaki is, by means of the supplementary tax on pension income, to collect tax revenue from recipients of pension income who are capable of paying, to narrow the difference of tax rates between pension income and employment income, and to improve incentives for older persons to continue working?
1.

In the light of Articles 6(1) and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1), in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (2), can the use of standard contract terms with content identical to that of terms which have been declared unlawful by a judicial decision having the force of law and which have been entered in the register of unlawful standard contract terms be regarded, in relation to another undertaking which was not a party to the proceedings culminating in the entry in the register of unlawful standard contract terms, as an unlawful act which, under national law, constitutes a practice which harms the collective interests of consumers and for that reason forms the basis for imposing a fine in national administrative proceedings?
2.

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, what criteria should be used to assess the compatibility with Directive 2009/73/EC of such State intervention in the price of the supply of natural gas to final consumers? In particular: (a) To what extent and under what conditions does Article 106(2) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC, enable Member States to pursue, by intervening in prices for the supply of natural gas to consumers, objectives other than maintaining the price of supply at a reasonable level, such as ensuring secure supply and territorial cohesion? (b) In the light of the objectives of secure supply and territorial cohesion, does Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC permit a Member State to intervene in determining the price of the supply of natural gas on the basis of the principle that the incumbent supplier’s costs be covered in full, and may the costs intended to be covered by the tariffs include components other than the portion representing long-term supply?
1.

Does a situation such as the present, where coal is stored in a coal park where CO2 emissions occur as a result of self-heating, where the centre of the coal park is about 800 meters distant from the edge of the coal-fired power plant, where the two sites are separated from each other by a public road and where the coal is transported from the storage site to the power plant by means of a conveyor belt passing over the road, fall within the scope of the term ‘installation’ as referred to in Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2015 — Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG v Landeshauptstadt München

(Case C-113/15)

(2015/C 198/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Landeshauptstadt München

Questions referred

1. Are individual portions of honey which are packaged in bulk in a carton containing all the labelling elements, including the indication of the country of origin, and which are not sold as individual portions to final consumers nor supplied individually to mass caterers, ‘prepackaged foodstuff’ or ‘prepacked food’ within the meaning of Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2000/13/EC (1) and Article 2(2)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (2) respectively, for which there is a corresponding labelling requirement, or are such portions of honey not subject to the labelling requirements for prepackaged foodstuff/prepacked foods due to their not being offered for sale as a single item?

2. Is the answer different if those individual portions are supplied in mass catering establishments not only in meals that are paid for as a whole but are also sold individually?

(1) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole Univers SA

(Case C-188/15)

(2015/C 221/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH)

Defendant: Micropole Univers SA

Question referred

‘Must Article 4(1) of Council Directive 78/2000/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as meaning that the wish of a customer of an information technology consulting company no longer to have the information technology services of that company provided by an employee, a design engineer, wearing an Islamic headscarf, is a genuine and determining occupational requirement, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out?’

(1) OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
2.

If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative: does EU law preclude a situation in which the national courts fail to carry out an ‘unrestricted’ judicial review of an assessment conducted on the basis of the principle of proportionality, such as the assessment conducted by a contracting authority in the present case, but merely carry out a (‘marginal’) review as to whether the contracting authority could reasonably have come to the decision not to exclude a tenderer notwithstanding the fact that that tenderer was guilty of grave professional misconduct within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC?
2.

Is Article 9(3) in conjunction with Article 2(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU to be interpreted as follows: that in order to determine a well-founded fear of being persecuted and a real risk of being persecuted or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by one of the actors specified in Article 6 of Directive 2011/95/EU, with regard to religious acts or expressions of view that are mandated by a doctrine of faith that the applicant actively professes and are a core element of the doctrine of faith or are based on the religious convictions of the applicant in the sense that they are a pillar of his religious identity, and are prohibited by criminal law in the country of origin, a) it is necessary to evaluate the relationship by comparing the number of members of the applicant’s faith who practice their faith despite the prohibition to the number of actual acts of persecution of these acts of faith in the applicant’s country of origin, including any possible uncertainties or unknowns regarding governmental enforcement practices, or b) it is sufficient if, in the enforcement of the criminal law in the country of origin, the actual application of the laws threatening prosecution of religious acts or expressions of view that are mandated by a doctrine of faith that the applicant actively professes and which form a core element of the doctrine of faith or are based on the religious convictions of the applicant in the sense that they are a of particular importance for his religious identity can be proved?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/28

Appeal brought on 6 May 2015 by the Republic of Poland against the judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2015 in Case T-257/13 Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-210/15 P)

(2015/C 236/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 February 2015 in Case T-257/13 Republic of Poland v European Commission;

— annul Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2013) 981) (1), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the sums of EUR 2 8 7 63 238,60 and EUR 5 6 88 440,96 paid by the paying agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Poland raises against the judgment under appeal a plea of misinterpretation of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 1257/1999 and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1698/2005 consisting in the acceptance that a condition of support for early retirement is that the transferor of the farm must have carried on commercial farming before the transfer of that farm, whereas those provisions give rise to a requirement that (commercial or non-commercial) farming has been carried on for 10 years before the transfer of the farm and a prohibition of commercial farming by the transferor of the farm after the transfer of that farm.

According to the Republic of Poland, a requirement that commercial farming has been carried on in the period preceding the transfer of the farm does not follow from EU law. Article 11(1) of Regulation No 1257/1999 and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1698/2005 lay down a requirement that farming activity has been carried on for 10 years preceding the transfer of the farm, but the activity during that period may be commercial or non-commercial. In addition, those provisions prohibit commercial farming by the transferor of the farm after the transfer of the farm.

(1) OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 254/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Pierre Mulhaupt, insolvency administrator of the Société Civile Immobilière Senior Home (SCI)

(Case C-195/15)

(2015/C 254/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Pierre Mulhaupt, insolvency administrator of the Société Civile Immobilière Senior Home (SCI)

Other parties: Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG

Question referred

Does the term ‘right in rem’ in Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) include a national rule such as that contained in Paragraph 12 of the Grundsteuergesetz (Law on real property tax, ‘GrStG’) in conjunction with the first sentence of Paragraph 77(2) of the Abgabenordnung (Tax Code, ‘AO’), pursuant to which real property tax debts are by operation of law a public charge on real property and the property owner must accept enforcement against the property in that respect?

(1) OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/8

Appeal brought on 27 May 2015 by Maxcom Ltd 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-247/15 P)

(2015/C 262/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT; Council of the European Union; European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

— Set aside the General Court’s findings with regard to the second part of the first plea in law;

— Dismiss the first plea in law of the Applicant before the General Court in its entirety; and

— Order the Applicant before the General Court to pay the Appellant’s costs for the Appeal and the Intervention before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

— The General Court manifestly erred by holding that under Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation (1) the Council could not conclude that the Applicant before the General Court engaged in transhipment from the facts that (i) the Applicant before the General Court was not a genuine Indonesian producer and (ii) did not undertake assembly operations that went beyond the thresholds set out in Article 13(2) of the Basic Regulation.

— In the alternative: The annulment of Regulation 501/2013 (2) as far as it concerns the Applicant before the General Court is not justified even if the Council’s findings on transhipment were incorrect as the Court confirmed that the Applicant before the General Court engaged in assembly operations that did not go beyond the thresholds set out in Article 13(2) of the Basic Regulation and also confirmed the existence of all other criteria required for not granting the Applicant before the General Court an exemption from the circumvention measures.

(1) 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.

(2) 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 254/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 April 2015 — TSI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen

(Case C-183/15)

(2015/C 254/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TSI GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Question referred

Is the combined nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature (1) and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers and handheld particle counters as described in more detail in the order fall under subheading 9027 10 10?

(1) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, OJ L 291, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 27 May 2015 — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín

(Case C-243/15)

(2015/C 279/22)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK

Respondent: Obvodný úrad Trenčín

In the presence of: Biely potok, a.s.

Question referred

Is it possible to guarantee the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the event of a purported breach of the right to a high level of environmental protection established under the conditions laid down by the European Union, mainly by Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, particularly [the right] to help to obtain the public’s opinion on a project which could have a significant impact on special areas of conservation falling within the European ecological ‘Natura 2000’ network, and the rights invoked by the appellant (as a not-for-profit association active in the protection of the environment at national level) under Article 9 of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, within the limits indicated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 8 March 2011 in Case C-240/09 [Lesoochranárske zoskupenie], where the national court terminates the judicial review proceedings in a case concerning the review of a decision refusing to grant [that association] the status of party in administrative proceedings regarding the issuing of a permit, as has happened in the present case, and invites [that association] to lodge an appeal against its having been excluded from those administrative proceedings?

(1) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.
Case C-235/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Maria Bosneaga v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Maria Bosneaga v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

(Case C-235/15)

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Maria Bosneaga

Respondent: Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

Question referred

Does Article 110 TFEU preclude the creation, under Article 4(d) of Decree-Law No 9/2013, of an obligation to pay an environmental stamp duty in respect of second-hand motor vehicles originating in the European Union when ownership of a second-hand motor vehicle is registered if a judicial authority has ordered that that motor vehicle is to be registered without payment of the special tax on automobiles and motor vehicles, the pollution tax for motor vehicles or the tax on pollutant emissions from motor vehicles, or has ordered that those taxes are to be refunded?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku v Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

(Case C-231/15)

(2015/C 294/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Petrotel sp. z o.o. w Płocku

Respondent: Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

Question referred

Must the first and third sentences of Article 4(1) 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) be interpreted as meaning that — in the event that a network provider contests a decision of the national regulatory authority setting call termination rates in the network of that undertaking (MTR decision), and that undertaking then contests a subsequent decision of the national regulatory authority amending a contract between the addressee of the MTR decision and another undertaking so that the rates paid by that other undertaking for call termination in the network of the addressee of the MTR decision correspond to the rates set in the MTR decision (implementing decision) — the national court, having found that the MTR decision has been annulled, cannot annul the implementing decision in view of the fourth sentence of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21 and the interests which the undertaking benefitting from the implementing decision derives from the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations or of legal certainty, or must the first and third sentences of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as meaning that the national court may annul the implementing decision of the national regulatory authority and consequently remove the obligations laid down therein for the period preceding the judgment if it finds that that is necessary in order to provide effective protection for the rights of the undertaking appealing against the national regulatory authority’s decision that enforces the obligations laid down in the MTR decision which was subsequently annulled?

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2015 — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd

(Case C-223/15)

(2015/C 294/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: combit Software GmbH

Defendant: Commit Business Solutions Ltd

Question referred (1)

In determining the likelihood of confusion of a Community word mark, what is the significance of a situation in which, from the perspective of the average consumer in some Member States, the aural similarity of the Community trade mark with another sign claimed to infringe that trade mark is eliminated by a difference in meaning, whereas from the perspective of the average consumer in other Member States it is not:

(a) In determining the likelihood of confusion is the perspective of some Member States, of the other Member States, or that of a fictive EU average consumer decisive?

(b) If there is a likelihood of confusion only in some Member States, has the Community trade mark been infringed across the European Union, or must the Member States be differentiated individually?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).