ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 25 July 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-367/14)

(2014/C 395/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 2011 in Case C-302/09 concerning recovery from the recipients of aid found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market according to Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision and under Article 260 TFEU;

— order the Italian Republic to pay to the Commission a lump sum, the amount of which is the product of multiplying a daily sum equivalent to EUR 24 578,40 by the number of days of continued infringement from the day on which the judgment in Case C-302/09 was delivered until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the Commission a penalty on a six-monthly basis to be determined by the Commission, starting from six months after the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, by multiplying the daily penalty of EUR 187 264 by 182,5 and by the percentage of the aid still to be recovered at the end of the six-month period on the basis of the amount of the aid to be recovered at the date on which the Court delivers judgment in the present case;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian Republic has failed to adopt all the measures necessary to recover the aid declared by the decision to be unlawful and incompatible, which it was required to do by the judgment in Case C-302/09, given that, almost three years after the declaratory judgment, an amount of EUR 33 032 000 (at least) still has to be recovered from 99 recipients, amounting to approximately 70 % of the total amount to be recovered.

Despite the introduction, after the declaratory judgment, of additional regulatory measures, a large part of the aid has yet to be recovered and no significant progress has been made in that regard.

Therefore, according to the Commission, the Court should rule that the Italian Republic has failed to comply with the judgment declaring that an infringement had been committed.

(1) Commission Decision of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (notified on 10 January 2000 under document number C(1999) 4268) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 439/25

Action brought on 13 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-468/14)

(2014/C 439/34)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Clausen. C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by maintaining a legal situation in which the sale of loose snuff is permitted contrary to Article 8, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (1), the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— the order Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC by prohibiting only sales of snuff in porous portion sachets, but not loose snuff, in Denmark. Denmark has not disputed that its national rules do not comply with EU law in so far as regards the prohibition of marketing of tobacco for oral use. A legislative proposal which would have introduced a complete prohibition on the sale of snuff in Denmark was, however, rejected by the Danish Parliament (Folketing).

Denmark has not given any further commitments that it will bring Danish rules into line with EU law. The Commission must accordingly conclude that Denmark has still failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of the Directive, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) thereof.

(1) OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26.
4.

In what way may the quality/price ratio affect the review of the unfairness of non-essential terms of a contract? When conducting an indirect review of such factors, is it relevant to have regard to the limits imposed on prices under national legislation? Is it possible that terms that are valid when viewed in abstract cease to be so where it is found that the price of the transaction is very high by comparison with the market standard?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 448/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 3 October 2014 — Promoimpresa srl v Consorzio dei Comuni della Sponda Bresciana del Lago di Garda e del Lago di Idro, Regione Lombardia

(Case C-458/14)

(2014/C 448/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Promoimpresa srl

Defendants: Consorzio dei Comuni della Sponda Bresciana del Lago di Garda e del Lago di Idro, Regione Lombardia

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and safeguarding competition, respectively laid down in Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, and the precept of reasonableness implicit therein, preclude national legislation under which the validity of concessions of economically significant publicly-owned maritime, lakeside and waterway assets is to be repeatedly extended through a succession of legislative acts, the duration of that validity being statutorily increased for at least 11 years, with the effect that the same concessionaire retains the exclusive right to exploit the asset economically, even though the period of validity under the concession awarded to that concessionaire has meanwhile expired, whereby interested economic operators are deprived of any opportunity of obtaining a concession for the asset on the basis of a public tendering procedure?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/16

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) made on 27 October 2014 — Pillbox 38 (UK) Limited, trading as ‘Totally Wicked’ v Secretary of State for Health

(Case C-477/14)

(2015/C 007/21)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pillbox 38 (UK) Limited, trading as ‘Totally Wicked’

Defendant: Secretary of State for Health

Questions referred

Is Article 20 of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 2014 (1) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (2) invalid, either in whole or in a relevant part, for one or more of the following reasons:

— It imposes either as a whole or in a relevant part a series of obligations on electronic cigarette manufacturers and/or retailers which infringe the principle of proportionality, read in conjunction with the principle of legal certainty?

— For equivalent or similar reasons, it fails to comply with the principle of equality and/or unlawfully distorts competition?

— It fails to comply with the principle of subsidiarity?

— It infringes the rights of electronic cigarette manufacturers or retailers under Articles 16 and/or 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

(1) OJ L 127, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 194, p. 26.
2.

a legal link exists between the main application for immunity that an undertaking has submitted or is about to submit to the Commission and the simplified application for immunity submitted by that undertaking to an NCA in respect of the same cartel, with the effect that — notwithstanding the provision made under paragraph 38 of the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities — the NCA is obliged, under § 22 of the 2006 ECN Model Leniency Programme (now § 24 according to the numbering of the 2012 ECN Model Leniency Programme) and the related Explanatory Note 45 (now Explanatory Note 49 according to the numbering of the 2012 Model Leniency Programme), to take the following steps: (a) to assess the simplified application in the light of the main application for immunity, examining whether the simplified application accurately reflects the content of the main application; and (b) failing which — if the NCA believes that the simplified application received is narrower in material scope than the main application submitted by the same undertaking, on the basis of which the Commission has granted conditional immunity to that undertaking — to contact the Commission, or that undertaking, in order to ascertain whether, following the submission of the simplified application, the Commission has identified, through its internal investigations, actual and specific examples of conduct in the sector purportedly covered by the main application for immunity but not by the simplified one?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud’hommes de Paris (France) lodged on 22 September 2014 — David Van der Vlist v Bio Philippe Auguste SARL

(Case C-432/14)

(2014/C 431/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil de prud’hommes de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: David Van der Vlist

Defendant: Bio Philippe Auguste SARL

Question referred

Does the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age preclude national legislation (Article L. 1243-10 of the French Code du travail) which excludes young persons who work during their school holidays or university vacations from entitlement to an insecurity payment payable in the event that employment under a fixed-term contract is not followed by an offer of permanent employment?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2014 — Bernard Leloup v État belge

(Case C-401/14)

(2015/C 016/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bernard Leloup

Defendant: État belge

By order of 11 November 2014, the Court ordered that the case be removed from the register.
3)

If the term ‘the third party [who caused the death, accidental injury or sickness of a person]’ is to be interpreted in accordance with national law, does EU law require the national court to allow a subrogated claim lodged by the European Union where one of its officials has been the victim of a road traffic accident involving a vehicle in respect of which liability has not been established, inasmuch as Article 29a of the Law of 21 November 1989 on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles provides for the automatic compensation of vulnerable road users by insurers who cover the civil liability of the owner, driver or keeper of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, without the civil liability of the owner, driver or keeper having to be established?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 November 2014 — Rossa dels Vents Assessoria, S.L. v U Hostels Albergues Juveniles, S.L.

(Case C-491/14)

(2015/C 026/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rossa dels Vents Assessoria, S.L.

Defendant: U Hostels Albergues Juveniles, S.L.

Question referred

Must Article 5(1) 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 be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right of the proprietor of a trade mark to prevent all third parties from using, in the course of trade, signs identical with or similar to its trade mark extends to a third-party proprietor of a later trade mark, without the need for that latter mark to have been declared invalid beforehand?

(1) OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.
1.

(a) By making services supplied by lawyers subject to VAT without taking account, having regard to the right to the assistance of a lawyer and the principle of equality of arms, of whether or not a client who does not qualify for legal aid is subject to VAT, is Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) compatible with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in so far as that article recognises that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and has the possibility of being advised, defended and represented and that there is a right to legal aid for those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice? (b) For the same reasons, is Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 compatible with Article 9(4) and (5) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998, in so far as those provisions establish a right of access to justice without the cost of those procedures being prohibitively expensive through ‘the establishment of appropriate assistance mechanisms to remove or reduce financial and other barriers to access to justice’? (c) May services provided by lawyers under a national legal aid scheme be included in the services referred to in Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC which are closely linked to welfare and social security work, or may they be exempted under another provision of the directive? If that question is answered in the negative, is Directive 2006/112/EC, interpreted as not permitting a VAT exemption for services supplied by lawyers for clients who qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme, compatible with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 28 October 2014 — Sabine Hünnebeck v Finanzamt Krefeld

(Case C-479/14)

(2015/C 034/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sabine Hünnebeck

Defendant: Finanzamt Krefeld

Question referred

Must Article 63(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 65 TFEU, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that, for the calculation of gift tax, the allowance to be set against the taxable value in the case of a gift of real property situated in that Member State is lower in the case where the donor and the recipient had their place of residence in another Member State on the date of execution of the gift than the allowance which would have been applicable if at least one of them had had his or her place of residence in the former Member State on that date, even if other legislation of the Member State provides that, on the application of the recipient of the gift, the higher allowance is to be applied, on condition that account is taken of all assets transferred gratuitously by the donor ten years prior to and within ten years following the date of execution of the gift?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/31

Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 25 September 2014 in Case T-306/12 Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea v European Commission

(Case C-562/14 P)

(2015/C 046/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Czech Republic and Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 September 2014 in Case T-306/12,

— Declare invalid the decision of the European Commission of 21 June 2012 to deny Mr and Mrs Spirlea access to the requested documents, and

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the Kingdom of Sweden.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

By the first ground of appeal, it is argued that the General Court misinterpreted the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (‘the openness regulation’) by taking the view that the Commission, when it relies on the exception for investigations, may base its decision on a general presumption that access should be denied in an EU pilot procedure insofar as it constitutes a step which precedes the possible initiation of Treaty infringement proceedings, and that the Commission did not err in law in interpreting the above provision of the openness regulation as meaning that it could refuse a request for access to the requested documents in an EU pilot matter without examining the documents specifically and individually.

By the second ground of appeal, it is argued that the General Court misinterpreted the third indent of Article 4(2) of the openness regulation by ruling that the Commission’s assessment that there was no overriding public interest within the meaning of the final part of Article 4(2) of the openness regulation was not vitiated by any error.

By the third ground of appeal, it is argued that the General Court misapplied EU law by taking the view that when considering purpose under the openness regulation the lawfulness of the legal acts at issue in an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU should also be assessed in relation to the facts and law obtaining at the time when the legal acts were adopted.

(1) OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
4.

Fourth plea in law, that the General Court erred in holding that, in relation to the plea that there had been a breach of the rights of defence, Senator Georgias had not explained what he would have relied on had he been heard (para. 108 of the Judgment): — It was clearly stated in the Application that Senator Georgias wrote to the Council (the letter was produced) and was then taken off the list — Furthermore, the Application made a long a list of points which would plainly have been made to the Council had Senator Georgias been given an opportunity to make them — In those circumstances, the General Court erred in law in holding that Senator Georgias had not explained what he would have relied on had he been heard
4.

If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, the Court is asked to indicate: (a) What guidelines should be used to carry out the restriction test and proportionality assessment. The Court is asked inter alia to indicate whether the same principles must be followed as those laid down in its case-law on family reunification in connection with the free movement of EU citizens, which are based on the Free Movement Directive (Directive 2004/38) and the provisions of the Treaty, or whether another assessment must be applied? (b) If an assessment other than that which stems from the Court’s case-law on family reunification in connection with the freedom of movement of EU citizens must be applied, the Court is asked to indicate whether the proportionality assessment carried out in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights on respect for family life and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights should be adopted as the point of reference and, if not, what principles must be followed? (c) Irrespective of which assessment method is to be applied: Can a rule such as Paragraph 9(13) of the Danish Udlændingeloven (Law on aliens) — under which it is a condition for family reunification between a person who is a third-country national and has a residence permit and is resident in Denmark, and his minor child, where the child and the child’s other parent is resident in the country of origin or another country, that the child has, or has the possibility of establishing, such ties with Denmark that there is a basis for successful integration in Denmark — be regarded as ‘justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, is suitable to achieve the legitimate objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it’?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/17

Appeal brought on 30 July 2014 by Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 May 2014 in Case T-553/12 Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-368/14 P)

(2015/C 065/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (represented by: E. Piwnica, lawyer)

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

By order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 2014, the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA to bear its own costs.
1.

Does the ‘right to be heard’ in European Union law require that an applicant for subsidiary protection, made pursuant to Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1), be accorded an oral hearing of that application, including the right to call or cross-examine witnesses, when the application is made in circumstances where the Member State concerned operates two separate procedures, one after the other, for examining applications for refugee status and applications for subsidiary protection, respectively?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2014 — Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-593/14)

(2015/C 073/23)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred

‘Does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC (now Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU), preclude a Member State from not allowing a resident company a tax exemption for interest income where an affiliated company within the same group established in another Member State is not entitled to a tax deduction for the corresponding interest expenditure as a result of rules (as in the present case) in the relevant Member State on interest deduction limitation in cases of thin capitalisation, where the Member State allows a resident company a tax exemption for interest income in cases where an affiliated company within the same group in that same Member State is not allowed a tax deduction for the corresponding interest expenditure as a result of national rules (as in the present case) on interest deduction limitation in cases of thin capitalisation?’