ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 254/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 May 2015 — Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar v Sá Machado & Filhos SA, Norcep, Construções e Empreendimentos, Lda

(Case C-214/15)

(2015/C 254/09)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar

Defendants: Sá Machado & Filhos SA, Norcep, Construções e Empreendimentos, Lda

Question referred

In relation to a procedure for the award of a public works contract, does EU law, in particular Article 55 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1), permit the immediate exclusion of a tender that, when it is submitted, is not supported by a document justifying its ‘abnormally low price’, in a situation in which the contract documents fix the criterion for that requirement to be met [point 09/C1 of the ‘contract documents’]?

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts

OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 June 2015 — Gemeente Woerden; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-267/15)

(2015/C 262/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Gemeente Woerden

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

In a case such as the present, in which a taxable person has had a building constructed and has sold that building for a price which does not cover all of the costs, while the purchaser of the building has given a certain part thereof to a third party for the latter’s use free of charge, is that taxable person entitled to deduct all of the VAT charged in respect of the construction of the building, or only a part thereof, in proportion to the parts of the building which the purchaser uses for economic activities (in the present case, leasing in return for payment)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/26

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 8 June 2015 — Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v Willem Hoogstad; other party: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

(Case C-269/15)

(2015/C 294/32)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Respondent: Willem Hoogstad

Other party: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

Question referred

Must Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community be interpreted as precluding the levying of a contribution — such as the deduction made pursuant to Article 191(1)(7) of the Wet betreffende de verplichte verzekering voor geneeskundige verzorging en uitkeringen, gecoördineerd op 14 juli 1994 (Coordinated Law of 14 July 1994 on compulsory insurance for medical care and benefits) and the solidarity contribution payable pursuant to Article 68 of the Wet van 30 maart 1994 houdende sociale bepalingen (Law of 30 March 1994 concerning welfare provisions) — on benefits derived from Belgian supplementary pension schemes which are not legislation within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(j) of that regulation, in cases where those benefits are owed to an entitled recipient who does not reside in Belgium and who, in accordance with Article 13(2)(f) of that regulation, is subject to the social security legislation of the Member State in which he resides?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.
1.

Is it compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, for the restitutory effects derived from a declaration on grounds of unfairness of the nullity of a ‘floor clause’ included in a loan agreement not to be applied retroactively from the date of conclusion of the agreement but rather from a later date?
1.

In the circumstances of the present case, are the applicants acting as taxable persons in view of the fact that the interpretation of Article 9(1) (1) of the VAT Directive does not exclude activities carried out by companies from the scope of the term ‘economic activity’, even when those companies can only engage in commercial activities on an ancillary basis?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 22 May 2015 — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT and Others

(Case C-240/15)

(2015/C 302/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Respondents: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministry of Economy and Finance

Question referred

Do the impartiality, financial autonomy and organisational independence which national regulatory authorities must be granted under Article 3 of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) and the substantial self-financing of such authorities referred to in Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC (2) preclude national legislation (such as that relevant to the present proceedings) which additionally makes such authorities subject, in general, to legislation on public finance and, in particular, to specific provisions relating to containing and streamlining expenditure incurred by public administrative authorities?

(1) 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) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

(2) Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).
1.

Must Article 7(2) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and the related case-law be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may lawfully object to the continued marketing of a medicinal product by a parallel importer, where the importer has repackaged the medicinal product in a new, outer packaging and reaffixed the trade mark in a situation where the trade mark proprietor has marketed the medicinal product in the same volume and packet sizes in all EEA countries where the medicinal product is sold?
3.

Does a situation such as that in the case in the main proceedings, in which a resident of a Member State has opened a (securities) account with a banking institution outside the European Union, also come within the definition of ‘the movement of capital ... involving … the provision of financial services’ within the meaning of Article 64(1) TFEU, and does it matter in this connection whether (and if so, to what extent) that banking institution carries out activities for the benefit of the account holder?
—

Declare that by adopting Articles 23 and 24 of the programme law of 27 December 2012, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 11, 12 and 76(6) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Decision Al of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems (3).
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the provisions of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex 1 to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate the same to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;
1.

In the light of the principles established in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 July 2013 in Case C-100/12 (1) Fastweb SpA, is Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665/EEC on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (2), in the version amended by Directive 2007/66/EC amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (3) (‘Directive 89/665’), to be interpreted as meaning that a tenderer whose bid was definitively excluded by the contracting authority and who is therefore not a tenderer concerned within the meaning of Article 2a of Directive 89/665 may be refused access to a review of the award decision (decision on the conclusion of a framework agreement) and of the conclusion of the contract (including the award of damages required under Article 2(7) of the Directive), even where only two tenderers submitted bids and the bid submitted by the successful tenderer, to whom the contract was awarded, should, in the submission of the tenderer not concerned, also have been excluded? If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2013/28/EU of 17 May 2013 amending Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that Directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/8

Appeal brought on 29 July 2015 by Stichting Woonlinie and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 12 May 2015 in Case T-202/10 RENV Stichting Woonlinie and Others v European Commission

(Case C-414/15 P)

(2015/C 337/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Stichting Woonlinie, Stichting Allee Wonen, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting WoonInvest, Stichting Woonstede (represented by: P. Glazener, advocaat, and L. Hancher, professor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside, in whole or in part, the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2015 in Case T-202/10 RENV, in accordance with the grounds raised in the present appeal;

— refer the case back to the General Court for a new ruling consistent with the legal findings of the Court of Justice;

— order the Commission to pay the costs both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

According to the first ground, the General Court infringed EU law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the order in finding that the applicants’ objections were in fact directed against the Article 17 letter and that the General Court’s review could not be extended to those objections. By its assessment, the General Court disregards the fact that, as is apparent from Article 108(1) TFEU, the justification for the legal consequences of the decision must stem from the fact that the previous situation had been incompatible with the Treaty. The General Court misinterprets the TF1 judgment by inferring from it that its review of the contested decision had to be limited to the question of whether the Commission had correctly assessed the compatibility of the existing system of aid as modified by the commitments undertaken by the Netherlands authorities.

According to the second ground, the General Court infringed EU law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the order in finding that it could not assess the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission given that they were mere proposals and that it was the adoption by the Netherlands authorities which gave the appropriate measures binding force.
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are Articles 49 (ex Article 43 TEC) and 63 (ex Article 56 TEC) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (in the version in force since the amendment and numbering by the Treaty of Lisbon) to be construed as precluding a national rule that does not waive Belgian advance tax on income from investments in respect of dividend payments made by a Belgian subsidiary to a parent company established in the Netherlands that fulfils the condition of a minimum participating interest and the holding of such an interest, on the ground that the Netherlands parent company is a fiscal investment institution that is required to pay all its profits to its shareholders and, subject to that proviso, is eligible for the zero rate of corporation tax?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/24

Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Labour Court, Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 August 2015 — Dr David L. Parris v Trinity College Dublin, Higher Education Authority, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Education and Skills

(Case C-443/15)

(2015/C 354/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

The Labour Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dr David L. Parris

Defendants: Trinity College Dublin, Higher Education Authority, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Education and Skills

Questions referred

1. Does it constitute discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to Article 2 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1), to apply a rule in an occupational benefit scheme limiting the payment of a survivor’s benefit to the surviving civil partner of a member of the scheme on their death, by a requirement that the member and his surviving civil partner entered their civil partnership prior to the member’s 60th birthday in circumstances where they were not permitted by national law to enter a civil partnership until after the member’s 60th birthday and where the member and his civil partner had formed a committed life partnership before that date.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative,

2. Does it constitute discrimination on grounds of age, contrary to Article 2, in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC, for a provider of benefits under an occupational benefit scheme to limit an entitlement to a survivor’s pension to the surviving civil partner of a member of the scheme on the member’s death, by a requirement that the member and his civil partner entered their civil partnership before the member’s 60th birthday where (a) The stipulation as to the age at which a member must have entered into a civil partnership is not a criterion used in actuarial calculations, and (b) The member and his civil partner were not permitted by national law to enter a civil partnership until after the member’s 60th birthday and where the member and his civil partner had formed a committed life partnership before that date

If the answer to questions 2 is in the negative:

3. Would it constitute discrimination contrary to Article 2 in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC if the limitations on entitlements under an occupational benefit scheme described in either question 1 or question 2 arose from the combined effect of the age and sexual orientation of a member of the scheme?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation OJ L 303, p. 16.
1.

Are the provisions of Directive 2006/112 (1) concerning the deduction of VAT to be interpreted as meaning that the tax authorities may in general require a taxable person, who wishes to exercise his right to deduct VAT to check, in order that the tax authorities should not treat the financial transaction as a sham, whether the issuer of the invoice for the services in respect of which he wishes to exercise the right to deduct has the necessary personal and material resources for providing the service in question, both when the service is provided and when the check is made, and whether he has satisfied his obligations as regards declaration and payment of VAT, or to be in possession of documents relating to the financial transaction, other than the invoice, that do not contain formal defects? May the issuer of the invoice be required to carry on its economic activity without any irregularity, not only at the time of the legal transaction forming the basis of the right to deduct VAT, but also at the time of the tax inspection?
1c.

If the answer is in the negative, is that circumstance in itself a ground for reducing the deduction of input VAT on the taxable supplies acquired and used for the preparation of the breeder/trainer’s own horses for races, or must the running of a horse in a race be regarded as a component of the economic activity of a person who operates in the field of breeding and training his own and other owners’ racehorses, and the expense of breeding his own horses and running them in races be included in the overheads associated with that person’s economic activity? If the answer to that part question is in the affirmative, must prize money be included in the taxable amount and output VAT accounted for, or is this income which does not affect the taxable amount for VAT at all?
1.

The General Court erred in holding that the Hearing Officer’s competence, under the Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (1), does not encompass an assessment of the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment. In addition, the judgment distorts the facts by purporting that the Hearing Officer did assess the arguments raised by the Appellants in relation to the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 September 2015 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Marco Identi

(Case C-493/15)

(2015/C 406/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Respondent: Marco Identi

Question referred

Must Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Directive 77/388 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes be interpreted as precluding the application, in relation to value added tax, of a provision of national law which provides for the extinguishment of debts arising from VAT in favour of taxable persons admitted to the bankruptcy discharge procedure governed by Articles 142 and 143 of Royal Decree No 267/1942?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 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).
1.

Is it compatible with the rules of primary and/or secondary EU law (in particular Article 45 TFEU (formerly Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1)), in the case of an employee who pursues an occupational activity in Germany, who is resident in another Member State and not subject to income tax liability in Germany, and for whom insolvency benefit, under the provisions applicable to him, is not taxable, that, in the event of his employer’s insolvency, the remuneration from employment used to calculate his insolvency benefit is subject to the notional taxation that would be charged as a deduction on his remuneration from employment were he subject to income tax liability in Germany, if he no longer has the possibility of asserting a claim against his employer for his residual gross remuneration?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas lodged on 22 September 2015 — W. and V. v X.

(Case C-499/15)

(2015/C 414/21)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: W. and V.

Defendant: X.

Question referred

On the basis of Articles 8 to 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, which Member State — that is to say, the Republic of Lithuania or the Kingdom of the Netherlands — has jurisdiction to deal with the case concerning the changes to the place of residence, to the child maintenance amount and to the applicable contact arrangements in respect of the minor child, V., who is habitually resident in the Kingdom of the Netherlands?

(1) OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/23

Appeal brought on 12 November 2015 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-91/13: LG Electronics, Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-588/15 P)

(2016/C 016/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: LG Electronics, Inc. (represented by: G. van Gerven, T. Franchoo, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the Judgment under appeal;

— annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1.1(d) and 1.2(g), Articles 2.l(d) and 2.1(e), and Articles 2.2(d) and 2.2(e) of the Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 of 5 December 2012, insofar as they concern the Appellant; and/or

— reduce the fines imposed on the Appellant in Articles 2.1 (d) & (e) and Articles 2.2(d) & (e);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant raises four pleas in law.

First Plea: the General Court violated the Appellant's rights of defence in so far as it upheld the Commission's Decision to keep LPD outside the administrative proceedings as a defendant and, in particular, not to address the statement of objections to LPD. In rejecting LGE's plea, the General Court violated also the principle of proportionality in defining LGE's duty of care.

Second Plea: the General Court violated Article 101 TFEU and Article 23.2 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) in so far as it held that the Commission was entitled to base LGE's fine on Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products made by LGE and Philips, which are undertakings different from LPD.

Third Plea: in the alternative, the General Court violated Article 101 TFEU, Article 23 .2 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of personal liability in so far as it held that the Commission was entitled to base LGE's fine on Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products made by Philips.

Fourth Plea: the General Court violated the principle of equal treatment in so far as it ruled that the Commission was entitled to apply the methodology of Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products to LGE, but not to Samsung SDI.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty OJ L 1, p. 1.