ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 25 August 2014 — PST CLC a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel

(Case C-405/14)

(2014/C 431/17)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PST CLC a.s.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Question referred

Was Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 (1) of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid at the time of its effectiveness from 22 March 2004 to 22 December 2009 insofar as point 2 of the annex thereto is concerned, which specifies that products consisting of a heat sink and a fan fall within CN Code 8414 59 30, and was it thus applicable to the present case?

(1) OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21.
1.

Is the ex nunc effect of the first issue of an invoice, as established by the Court of Justice in the judgment in Case C-152/02 Terra Baubedarf-Handel v Finanzamt Osterholz-Scharmbeck (1), qualified by the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-368/09 Pannon Gép Centrum v Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Dél-dunántúli Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztáy (2) and Case C-271/12 Petroma Transports v Belgium (3) as regards cases, such as the present, in which an incomplete invoice is completed, so that the Court of Justice ultimately intended to permit retrospective effect in such cases?
3)

For the purposes of considering the exclusion, on the grounds of his participation in a terrorist organisation, of a person seeking international protection, is the judgment convicting him of being a leading member of a terrorist organisation, which finds that the person seeking international protection has not committed, attempted to commit or threatened to commit a terrorist act, sufficient for a finding of the existence of an act of participation or instigation within the meaning of Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/83/EC imputable to that person, or is it necessary for an individual examination of the facts of the case to be made and participation demonstrated in the commission of a terrorist offence or instigation of a terrorist offence as defined in Article 1 of Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/31

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 5 December 2014 — Mimoun Khachab v Delegación de Gobierno en Álava

(Case C-558/14)

(2015/C 046/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mimoun Khachab

Defendant: Delegación de Gobierno en Álava

Question referred

Must Article 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows an application for family reunification to be refused on the grounds that the sponsor does not have stable and regular resources sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, according to a prospective assessment by the national authorities of the likelihood of the economic resources in question being retained in the year following the date of submission of the application, taking into account the pattern of those resources in the six months preceding that date?

(1) OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2014 — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-505/14)

(2015/C 065/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Question referred

In civil proceedings concerning the performance of a civil-law contract granting aid, does EU law, in particular Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU (or Articles 87 TEC and 88 TEC) and the principle of effectiveness, require that a final declaratory judgment under civil law which has been delivered in the same case and which confirms that the civil-law contract remains in force, without any consideration of the law on aid, be disregarded if under national law the performance of the contract cannot otherwise be prevented?
2.

Even if precious metal is hallmarked by a branch of a Netherlands hallmarking office in a third State, such products should be treated in the same way as goods originating in the European Union, in view of the fact that the precious metals are hallmarked in accordance with the Netherlands rules and are definitively released into free circulation.
1.

Do the provisions of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 preclude the executing State, in the course of the transfer procedure, from reducing the duration of the sentence of deprivation of liberty imposed by the issuing State, on account of work undertaken while that sentence was being served in the issuing State, as follows: A) Reduction of the sentence in application of the law of the executing State on the enforcement of the sentence in accordance with Article 17(1) [of the Framework Decision]: does that provision permit the law of the executing State on the enforcement of the sentence to be applied even at the stage of the transfer procedure in respect of matters (namely work undertaken in prison in the issuing State) which occurred while the sentenced person was under the jurisdiction of the issuing State? B) Reduction of the sentence as a result of a deduction made in accordance with Article 17(2) [of the Framework Decision]: does that provision permit the deduction of a period that is longer than the period of deprivation of liberty determined in accordance with the law of the issuing State, where the law of the executing State is applied and, as a result, a fresh legal assessment is made of matters which occurred in the issuing State (namely work undertaken in prison in the issuing State)?
1.

Error of law in interpreting Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(c) and (b) of Regulation No 659/99, inasmuch as it was held that the extension of aid does not ipso facto constitute new aid, but that classification as such requires alteration of the aid’s substance.
2.

The General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU, was inconsistent with the judgments handed down in Cases T-332/06 and C-149/09 P and seriously distorted point (b) of Alcoa’s first plea, regarding the Commission’s finding that it was not necessary to conduct any economic analysis to demonstrate that the measure granted an economic advantage to Alcoa. The General Court erred in its judgment in so far as (i) it was inconsistent with previous judgments handed down on the same question (T-332/06 and C-194/09 P); (ii) when applying Article 107(1) TFEU, it confused two criteria, both necessary to prove the existence of aid, inferring that an advantage was conferred on Alcoa from the mere finding that the resources used were of State origin; (iii) it failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons in so far as it failed to observe that the Commission had erred in assuming that Alcoa had obtained an advantage from the measure and had not, therefore, to that end, carried out a proper economic analysis to calculate the extent of the advantage in this particular case.
1.

With regard to the exemption from VAT in Article 135(1)(d) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of VAT as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Case C-2/95 Sparekassernes Datacenter (SDC) v Skatteministeriet (ECLI:EU:C:1997:278; [1997] ECR I-3017), what are the relevant principles to be applied in determining whether or not a ‘debit and credit card handling service’ (such as the service that is supplied in this case) has ‘the effect of transferring funds and entails changes in the legal and financial situation’ within the meaning of paragraph 66 of that judgment.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Nicolae Ilie Nicula v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-609/14)

(2015/C 107/25)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nicolae Ilie Nicula

Defendants: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Intervener: Cristina Lenuța Stoica

Question referred

Are Article 110 TFEU, Article 6 TEU and Articles 17, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, together with the principle of legal certainty and the principle prohibiting reformatio in peius, affirmed in EU law and in the case-law of the Court of Justice, to be interpreted as precluding legislation such as OUG No 9/2013?
2.

If such compensation is covered by the employment conditions, must workers with an employment contract or relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment contract or relationship is determined by objective conditions, such as reaching a specific date, completing a specific task or service, or the occurrence of a specific event, receive, on termination of the contract, the same compensation as that to which a comparable permanent worker is entitled when his contract is terminated for objective reasons?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 17 December 2014 — Manfred Naderhirn

(Case C-581/14)

(2016/C 111/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Manfred Naderhirn

Interveners: Jungwirth und Fabian OHG, Krenn KG, Michael Weber, Übermaßer KG, Gunhild Mayr

By order of 15 October 2015, the Court ruled:

EU law must be interpreted as precluding a situation in national law which is characterised by, first, the lack of domestic legal provisions governing the manner in which a national court must take account of the fact that it follows from a judgment of the Court of Justice that a national provision must be held to be contrary to EU law when it is dealing with cases pending before it and, second, the existence of rules of domestic law which provide that the court in question is unconditionally bound by another national court’s interpretation of EU law, in so far as, on account of such a rule of domestic law, the national court is precluded from ensuring that the primacy of EU law is duly guaranteed by taking, in the context of its jurisdiction, all the necessary measures to that effect.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/24

Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-686/13, Unibail v OHIM

(Case C-512/14 P)

(2015/C 138/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Unibail Management

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment under appeal,

— Rule on the dispute pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and

— Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises a single ground of appeal in support of its appeal. OHIM submits that the General Court infringed the first sentence of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation. The General Court misconstrued not only the scope of the concept of general reasoning, but also its own case-law. Finally, the appellant criticises the General Court for having reversed the burden of proof.

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 12 January 2015 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën; other party: Argos Supply Trading BV

(Case C-4/15)

(2015/C 107/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party: Argos Supply Trading BV

Question referred

In an examination of the economic conditions governing an outward processing customs procedure, must the term ‘Community processors’ in Article 148(c) of the Customs Code (1) be interpreted as also covering Community producers of basic products or intermediate products identical to those processed, as non-Community goods, in the processing operation?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
Action brought on 6 January 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-1/15)

(2015/C 073/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by adopting and maintaining Paragraph 1(2)(1), Paragraph 2(1)(9), Paragraph 10(3)(4), Paragraph 14 in conjunction with Paragraph 14a and Paragraph 14b as well as Paragraph 21(1) and Paragraph 21a of the Bundesgesetz über die Niederlassung und den Aufenthalt in Österreich (Federal Law on establishment and residence in Austria), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol (1) and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80;

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Some of the provisions of the Federal Law on establishment and residence in Austria are incompatible with EU law, in so far as they concern Turkish nationals. Those include, in particular:

— the duty of the applicant to make the initial application to enter Austrian territory to the competent local representing authority abroad and to await the decision abroad;

— the fixing of a minimum age of 21 years for the application for a right of residence under the title of family reunification;

— the proof of knowledge of the German language upon submission of the initial application for a residence permit and the introduction of an ‘integration agreement’.

The Republic of Austria’s objection that, by a circular letter of the Bundesministerium für Inneres (Federal Ministry of the Interior), it instructed the establishment and residence authorities to subject applications from Turkish nationals to a case-by-case examination in conformity with EU law cannot remedy the infringement of the obligations under Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80.

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of the Council of 19 December 1972 concluding the Additional Protocol and also the Financial Protocol signed on 23 November 1970 and annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and relating to the measures to be adopted to bring them into force; OJ 1972 L 293, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/21

Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Global Steel Wire, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission

(Case C-56/15 P)

(2015/C 118/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Global Steel Wire, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.

The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in assessing the legal interest of Global Steel Wire in bringing proceedings, as regards both the action for annulment in Case T-578/10 against the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel), and the amendment of the pleas in law and forms of order sought in Case T-429/10 in relation to the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 January 2015 — Cdiscount SA v Ministère public

(Case C-13/15)

(2015/C 107/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Cdiscount SA

Respondent: Ministère public

Question referred

Do Articles 5 to 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (1) preclude a rule which prohibits, in all circumstances and regardless of the impact they may have on the decision of the average consumer, price reductions which are not calculated against a reference price laid down by regulation?

(1) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
1)

Must Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (1), and more specifically Articles 2, 4, 10 and 11 thereof read together, be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law, such as Articles 161 and 162 of the Belgian Inheritance Tax Code, amended by the Programme-Law of 22 December 2003, concerning the tax on undertakings for collective investment, in so far as that tax is imposed annually on undertakings for collective investment established as companies with share capital in another Member State and marketing their shares in Belgium, on the total amount of their shares subscribed in Belgium reduced by the amount of repurchases or refunds of those subscriptions, with the consequence that the sums collected in Belgium by such undertakings for collective investment are subject to that tax while they remain at the disposal of those undertakings?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/10

Action brought on 2 February 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-38/15)

(2015/C 127/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations: — under Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, in relation to the agglomeration of Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu (Galicia); and — under Article 5(2) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment in relation to the agglomerations of Bollulos Par del Condado; Abrera; Berga; Capellades; Figueres; El Terri (Banyoles) and Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu.

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an investigation carried out in the context of infringement procedure 2002/2123, the European Commission, by a letter of formal notice of 19 December 2003, drew the Kingdom of Spain’s attention to its duty to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 5 6 and 14 of Directive 91/271, in particular as regards the treatment of urban waste water in ‘sensitive areas’.

The subject-matter of the proceedings has been reduced as Spain has brought the sanitation, treatment and waste facilities of certain agglomerations into compliance. Nevertheless, at the time of bringing the application the infringement of Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive continues in respect of the situation of the agglomerations of Bollulos Par del Condado (in the Autonomous Community of Andalucia); Abrera, Berga, Capellades, Figueres and El Terri-Banyoles (in the Autonomous Community of Cataluña) and Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu (in the Autonomous Community of Galicia).

(1) OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
—

the General Court misapplied Article 65 ECSC and, in the present case, the concepts of agreements and concerted practices referred to in that provision and the related principles regarding the burden of proof in finding that both a single and continuous agreement on the Italian market for concrete reinforcing bars and Feralpi’s involvement in that agreement had been established for the periods 1989-1992 and 1993-1995. In that context, the General Court failed to take into account the particular nature of the ECSC legal framework applicable to the concrete reinforcing bars sector. The General Court also manifestly distorted the meaning and scope of the essential evidence adduced. In this respect, the statement of reasons is both inadequate and illogical;
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: to what extent is the national court permitted, in assessing a cost-oriented price regulation measure: a. in the light of Article 8(3) of the Framework Directive, to evaluate the NRA’s argument that the development of the internal market is promoted by reference to the degree to which the functioning of the internal market is in fact influenced? b. to assess, in the light of the policy objectives and regulatory principles laid down in Article 8 of the Framework Directive and Article 13 of the Access Directive, whether the price regulation measure: (i) is proportionate; (ii) is appropriate; (iii) has been applied proportionately and is justified? c. to require the NRA to demonstrate adequately that: (i) the policy objective, referred to in Article 8(2) of the Framework Directive, that the NRAs should promote competition in the provision of electronic communications networks and electronic communications services is genuinely being attained and that users are genuinely deriving maximum benefit in terms of choice, price and quality; (ii) the policy objective, referred to in Article 8(3) of the Framework Directive, that NRAs should contribute to the development of the internal market is genuinely being attained; and (iii) the policy objective, referred to in Article 8(4) of the Framework Directive, that the interests of the citizens should be promoted is genuinely being attained? d. in the light of Article 16(3) of the Framework Directive, and of Article 8(2) and (4) of the Access Directive, when assessing whether the price regulation measure is appropriate, to take into account the fact that the measure has been imposed on the market on which the regulated undertakings possess significant market power but, in the form chosen (pure BULRIC), has the effect of promoting one of the objectives of the Framework Directive, namely the interests of end users, on another market which has not been earmarked for regulation?