ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/15

Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA, Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd, Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-93/10: Bilbaina de Alquitranes and others v European Chemicals agency (ECHA)

(Case C-287/13 P)

2013/C 252/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA, Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd, Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o. (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-93/10; and

— annul Decision ED/68/2009 of the European Chemicals Agency (the ‘Contested Decision’) identifying pitch, coal, tar, high temp, CAS Number 65996-93-2 (‘CTPHT’) as a substance to be included on the Candidate List in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (‘REACH’) (1); or

— alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the appellants’ application for annulment; and

— order the respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for partial annulment in respect of the contested decision, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making a number of errors in law; in particular:

— in finding that the case related to complex scientific and technical facts and that the identification of CTPHT s having PBT and vPvB properties on the basis of its constituents present in a concentration of at least 0.1% was not vitiated by a manifest error;

— that the constituents of CTPHT do not have to be individually identified as having PBT or vPvB properties in a separate ECHA decision based on a thorough assessment for that purpose; and

— that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment

For these reasons the appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-93/10 should be set aside and the contested decision should be annulled.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/33

Appeal brought on 3 July 2013 by Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) against the judgment delivered on 19 April 2013 by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-52/11 Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) v Commission

(Case C-380/13 P)

2013/C 260/60

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (represented by: N. Morais Sarmento and L. Pinto Monteiro, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the Commission to bear its own costs in addition to those incurred by the appellant.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Failure to adopt a decision within a reasonable period of time

(i) The proceedings are time-barred

The appellant submits that the contested decision was adopted after the four-year limitation period for proceedings, as set out in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, (1) had expired. Equally, even if there had been a possible interruption of the limitation period for proceedings, more than twice the limitation period had expired without any decision being taken in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95. Since the corresponding right was thus time-barred, the contested decision should be declared unlawful and unenforceable.

(ii) Infringement of the principle of legal certainty

The appellant considers that the fact that the Commission allowed more than 20 years to pass between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the contested decision amounts to a failure to observe the principle of legal certainty. That fundamental principle of European Union law provides that all individuals have the right to have their cases dealt with by the European Union institutions within a reasonable period of time.

(iii) Infringement of the rights of the defence

The appellant considers that its rights of defence have been infringed in so far as, given that more than 20 years had passed between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision, the appellant was deprived of its right to submit its observations in good time, namely at a point in time when it was still in possession of documents enabling it to justify the expenses which the Commission deemed ineligible.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/24

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Scottish Land Court (United Kingdom) made on 18 June 2013 — Robin John Feakins v The Scottish Ministers

(Case C-335/13)

2013/C 260/42

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Scottish Land Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Robin John Feakins

Defendant: The Scottish Ministers

Questions referred

1. Whether, on a proper construction, Article 18(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 (1) applies:- (a) where a farmer meets the conditions for applying any two or more of the following articles: namely Article 19, Article 20, Article 21 Article 22, Article 23, Article 23a, of that Regulation and Article 37(2), Article 40, Article 42(3) and Article 42(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2); or only (b) where a farmer meets the conditions for two or more of Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 23a [OMISSIS] Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 or separately two or more of Articles 37(2), 40, 42(3) and 42(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.

2. If Article 18(2) is interpreted in the manner set out in paragraph (l)(a) above, whether Article 18(2) is invalid in whole or in part on one of or both of the following grounds which are advanced by the appellant: (a) on the basis that the Commission, in enacting Regulation (EC) No 795/2004, did not have power to enact Article 18(2) to that effect; or (b) on the basis that the Commission, in enacting Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 did not state reasons for Article 18(2).

3. If Article 18(2) is interpreted in the manner in paragraph (l)(a) above and question (2) falls to be answered in the negative, does Article 18(2) apply in the situation where a farmer has received a provisional approval of an allocation from the national reserve under Article 22 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 for a farm in 2005, but that allocation is not declared in the IACS form until 2007, when the farm was taken over by the farmer?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers

OJ L 141, p. 1

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001

OJ L 270, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/30

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 1 July 2013 — Pier Paolo Fabretti v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-367/13)

2013/C 260/56

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pier Paolo Fabretti

Defendants: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Roma — Ufficio Controlli

Question referred

Is it incompatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty for persons resident in Italy to be required to declare for tax purposes, and be liable for tax on, winnings obtained from casinos in Member States of the European Union, as provided for by Article 67(1)(d) of Presidential Decree No 917 of 22.12.1986 (‘the TUIR’), or must this be regarded as justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, pursuant to Article 46 of the EC Treaty?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2013 — Udo Rätzke v S+K Handels GmbH

(Case C-319/13)

2013/C 260/38

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Udo Rätzke

Respondant: S+K Handels GmbH

Questions referred

Is Article 4(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 (1) of 28 September 2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of televisions to be interpreted as meaning that dealers are subject to an obligation to label televisions (from 30 November 2011) only if those televisions were supplied by the supplier together with the relevant label (from 30 November 2011) in accordance with Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation, or does the labelling obligation also apply to dealers (from 30 November 2011) in respect of televisions supplied by suppliers before 30 November 2011 without the relevant labels, so that dealers are obliged to request suppliers (in good time, subsequently) to provide labels for those televisions?

(1) OJ L 314, p. 64.
1.

Can a contract such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a supplier of petroleum-based products is granted a right known as a ‘surface right’ for a period of 45 years for the purpose of building a service station and letting it to the owner of the land for a period equivalent to the duration of the right, and which contains an exclusive purchasing obligation for the same period, be regarded as being of negligible importance and as not being caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC (now Article 101(1) TFEU) on the grounds, principally, of the supplier’s modest market share of less than 3 %, compared to the total market share of about 70 % held by three suppliers alone, even though the duration of this contract exceeds the average duration of contracts generally concluded on the relevant market?
1.

Should Article 2(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (1) (OJ L 46, 21.2.2008, p. 11) be interpreted to mean that a limited joint-stock partnership should be regarded as a capital company within the meaning of those provisions if it follows from the legal nature of that partnership that only part of its capital and partners are able to meet the requirements set out in Article 2(1)(b) and (c) of the Directive?
4.

If the answer to the third question is no, is it obligatory under Community law to compensate the taxable person for the damage arising from the fact that the Member State did not fulfil its obligations as to harmonisation and, as a result, it was not possible for the taxable person to reduce its taxable amount.
3a.

Must European Union law, in particular the provisions concerning freedom of movement for workers and/or citizens of the Union, be interpreted as precluding, in the circumstances of the present cases, the application of a national provision such as Article 6a of the AOW and/or the AKW [Algemene kinderbijslagwet (Netherlands General Law on Child Benefits)], under which a migrant worker residing in the Netherlands is excluded there from insurance cover under the AOW and/or the AKW on the ground that he is subject exclusively to German social security legislation, even in circumstances where that worker, as a ‘geringfügig Beschäftigte’ (person in minor employment), is excluded in Germany from insurance cover for purposes of the ‘Altersrente’ (old-age pension) and is not entitled to ‘Kindergeld’ (child allowance)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/10

Appeal brought on 7 August 2013 by Delphi Technologies, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-515/11: Delphi Technologies, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-448/13 P)

2013/C 313/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Delphi Technologies, Inc. (represented by: C. Albrecht, J. Heumann, Rechtsanwälte)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision T-515/11 of the General Court dated 6 June 2013, annul the contested decision as far as it rejected the appeal brought by the appellant against the examiner’s decision of 25 August 2010 and order that the OHIM shall pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appeal is directed against the decision T-515/11 of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union dismissing an action for annulment against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal confirming the rejection of the CTM application ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’.

The appeal is based on three pleas:

1. The General Court violated Article 7 (1) (b) CTMR (1) by not determining the relevant public and their degree of awareness properly. The goods are exclusively directed at professionals who have a high degree of awareness with respect to promotional slogans.

2. The General Court further violated Article 7 (1) (b) CTMR by applying too strict a test in assessing whether the mark applied for had a distinctive character. In particular, the General Court misunderstood the guidelines laid down in the more recent case law, and, in particular, in Case C-398/08 P, Audi v OHIM.

3. Thirdly the General Court violated the general principles of equal treatment and sound administration, which are basic principles for the proper administration of the EU. The fact that the OHIM registered slogans with an identical structure containing the word ‘INNOVATION’ in the past should be taken into account, even though the previous decisions are not binding.

The applicant submits that the contested decision should, therefore, be set aside and that the inherent distinctiveness of the slogan ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’ should be affirmed.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 27 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1
1.

Is Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that in the case of long journeys for domestic Equidae and domestic animals of bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species, where the place of departure is in a Member State of the European Union but the place of destination is in a third country, the competent authority of the place of departure may stamp the journey log submitted by the organiser in accordance with Article 14(1)(c) only if the journey log meets the requirements set out in Article 14(1)(a)(ii) for the entire journey from the place of departure to the place of destination, and thus also for sections of the journey which lie entirely outside the territory of the European Union?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Brașov (Romania) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Imre Solyom, Luiza Solyom v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Brașov

(Case C-444/13)

2013/C 325/24

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Brașov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Imre Solyom, Luiza Solyom

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Brașov

Question referred

Where the parties agree a firm and final price in a sales contract and subsequently the tax authorities consider the transaction to be taxable as a result of the reclassification of the vendor as a taxable person, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the price is deemed to include the appropriate value added tax or that value added tax is to be added to that price? In other words, what is the taxable amount for such a transaction?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
2.

In cases in which national legislation of a Member State of the European Union, in whose territory the pecuniary claim is being enforced, does not determine whether the enforcement order is applicable to a pecuniary claim in insolvency proceedings which were initiated against the person whose property is affected by the enforcement, must the prohibition in Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation be interpreted strictly and does it only apply to the contested pecuniary claims to be enforced or does it also relate to the uncontested pecuniary claims to be enforced?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/5

Appeal brought on 7 February 2013 by H-Holding AG against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2012 in Case T-672/11 H-Holding AG v European Parliament

(Case C-64/13 P)

2013/C 336/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: H-Holding AG (represented by: R. Závodný, advokát)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 5 September 2013 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and decided to order the appellant to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/2

Appeal brought on 8 August 2013 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2013 in Case T-454/10 Italian Republic v Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav)

(Case C-460/13 P)

2013/C 352/02

Language of the Procedure: English

Parties

Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, S. Varone, Avvocato dello Stato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav),

Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon),

European Commission,

Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA),

Confederazione Cooperative Italiane

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— order the parties opposing the appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

These proceedings concern an appeal against the judgment in Case T-454/10 in which the General Court annulled:

(a) the second subparagraph of Article 52(2)a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 (1) and Article 50(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (2)‘in so far as they provide that the value of “[non-]genuine processing activities” is included in the value of marketed production of fruit and vegetables intended for processing’.

(b) Article 60(7) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011, which provides for investments and activities related to the transformation of products, in its entirety.

According to the Italian Republic, the provisions referred to in point (a) above do not conflict with Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, since they introduce support for activities for which no provision is made in the regulation and simply lay down in the interests, inter alia, of greater simplification, the method of calculating a value serving as a parameter for Community aid.

The interpretation adopted by the General Court would result in an unjustified difference of treatment within organisations of producers of fruit and vegetables as the marketing of the same product would be subsidised differently depending on whether or not the producer organisation carries out the actual processing.

As regards point (b) — annulment of Article 60(7) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 — the General Court’s decision is flawed to the extent that it finds that private processors are discriminated against as compared to processors, the majority of whom are set up as cooperatives, who are members of producer organisations.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2007 L 350 p. 1)

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1)
—

declare that, by establishing action programmes, within the terms of Article 5 of Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, on the basis of inadequately designated specific vulnerable zones, and by including in those programmes measures demonstrating deficiencies in the light of Annex II, point A.2, and Annex III, point 1.1 and 1.3, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II, point A.2, and Annex III, point 1.1 and 1.3 to, that directive;