ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/32

Appeal brought on 10 January 2014 by Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-147/12 Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG v European Commission

(Case C-7/14 P)

2014/C 52/58

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG (represented by: K. Landry and G. Schwendinger, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2013 in Case T-147/12 and annul Commission Decision C(2011) 6393 final of 16 September 2011 in Case REM 02/09;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code (1) in holding that the error on the part of the German customs authorities could have been detected by the appellant. That is untrue. The individual provisions are complex and their wording is unclear and confusing. This is evidenced in particular by correspondence between the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Commission. In addition, the duration and extent of the erroneous practice of the German customs authorities also militate against the contention that the error could have been detected by the appellant.

Secondly, the General Court infringed the second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code in erroneously finding that there had been obvious negligence on the part of the appellant.

Thirdly, the General Court failed to give sufficient reasons for its judgment on two points, with the result that the reasoning which it followed in order to arrive at its decision is incomprehensible for the appellant.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Christie’s France SNC v Syndicat National des Antiquaires

(Case C-41/14)

2014/C 102/28

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christie’s France SNC

Defendant: Syndicat National des Antiquaires

Question referred

Must the rule laid down by Article 1(4) of Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, (1) which makes the seller responsible for payment of the royalty, be interpreted as meaning that the seller is required definitively to bear the cost thereof without any derogation by agreement’s being possible?

(1) OJ 2001 L 272, p. 32.
2.

If such an award is regarded as compatible with Community law, must there be a prior comparison of tenders from several homogeneous (and possibly also Community) operators and recipients of a direct award in order to limit the risk of exposure to inefficient and unreasonable costs, and must the national law under which direct awards are permitted accordingly be construed to that effect?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2014 — BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz

(Case C-20/14)

2014/C 129/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH

Defendant: Bodo Scholz

Question referred

Must Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of identical and similar goods and services, there may be taken to be a likelihood of confusion for the public if a distinctive sequence of letters which dominates the earlier word/figurative trade mark of average distinctiveness is made use of in a third party’s later mark in such a way that the sequence of letters is supplemented by a descriptive combination of words relating to it which explains the sequence of latters as an abbreviation of the descriptive words?

(1) Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.
1.

Should Directive 2002/22/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), and in particular Articles 9 and 32 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the social tariff for universal service as well as the compensation mechanism provided for in Article 13(1)(b) of the Universal Service Directive are not only applicable to electronic communications by means of a telephone connection at a fixed location to a public communications network but also to electronic communications by means of mobile communication services and/or internet subscriptions?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 17 February 2014 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Nuova Invincibile

(Case C-82/14)

2014/C 142/25

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant: Nuova Invincibile

Question referred

[Is a measure such as the tax amnesty provided for in Article 9(17) of Law No 289/2002, which relates to periods in the distant past and is intended to provide some degree of compensation to persons affected by natural disasters], in so far as it has an effect on the total amounts received (or receivable) after the application of VAT, caught by the prohibition underlying the judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union of 17 July 2008 in Case C-132/06?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2014 — Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato v Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona ‘San Valentino’ and Others

(Case C-61/14)

2014/C 135/25

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato

Defendants: Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona ‘San Valentino’ — Città di Levico Terme, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento

Other party to the proceedings: Associazione Infermieristica D & F. Care

Question referred

Do the principles laid down in Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 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, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992, as subsequently amended and added to, preclude a provision of national law, such as that set out in Article 13(1a), (1c) and (6a) and in Article 14(3b) of Decree of the President of the Republic No 115 of 30 May 2002 (as progressively amended by subsequent legislative interventions) which laid down high amounts of the standard fee for access to administrative proceedings relating to public contracts?

(1) Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 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 (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

(2) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).
2.

If the first question is to be answered in the negative: Does subheading 8543 7010 of the Combined Nomenclature cover also apparatus the translation or dictionary functions of which are secondary by comparison with their main function (in this case, a reading function)?
2.

Is it compatible with EU law for the national court to interpret and apply national law in such a way that, as regards fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector entered into in circumvention of the law which are transformed into non-permanent contracts of indefinite duration, the public authorities may fill or eliminate the posts held by persons employed under such contracts unilaterally, without paying any compensation to the worker, where the legislation does not lay down other measures to limit the misuse of temporary contracts?
1)

Must Article 11(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the cost price of land or other substances or materials in respect of which the taxable person has paid VAT in respect of their acquisition, in this case through the grant of a right in rem to use immovable property, is not part of the taxable amount in respect of a supply within the meaning of Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive? Is the position different if the taxable person has deducted this VAT on the basis of national law — whether or not in conflict with the Sixth Directive in that respect — upon that acquisition?
1.

Is Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) (1) compatible with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as it subjects the application of the ne bis in idem principle to the condition that if a penalty has been imposed, it has been enforced, is actually in the process of being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing Contracting Party?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas lodged on 17 March 2014 — Sveda UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-126/14)

2014/C 175/29

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Sveda UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Interested third party: Klaipėdos apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Question referred

May Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as granting a taxable person the right to deduct the input VAT paid in producing or acquiring capital goods intended for business purposes, such as those in the present case, which (i) are directly intended for use by members of the public free of charge, but (ii) may be recognised as a means of attracting visitors to a location where the taxable person, in carrying out his economic activities, plans to supply goods and/or services?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/26

Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-134/14)

2014/C 175/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Mölls, and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Directive 2013/62/EU of 17 December 2013 amending Directive 2010/18/EU implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union (1);

— Maintain the effects of Directive 2013/62/EU until such time as a new directive founded on an appropriate legal basis enters into effect;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission seeks the annulment of Directive 2013/62/EU, which the Council adopted on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU.

The Commission alleges that the Council adopted that directive when it had proposed to base that act on a sectoral legal basis, namely Article 155(2) TFEU.

It considers that, in accordance with the purpose and aim of the contested directive, Article 349 TFEU cannot validly be used as a legal basis. Article 349 TFEU only applies when derogating from the principle of the application of primary law to the outermost regions, as established in Article 355(1) TFEU. However, the directive in question, if it is not to derogate from the Treaties, only adapts the secondary law in order to respond to the situation created by the change in status of Mayotte. That interpretation is supported not only by the wording of Article 349 TFEU, but also by the system of legal bases of the Treaty and by the historical origins of that article.

(1) OJ 2013 L 353, p. 7.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 4 April 2014 — A and Others; other party: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

(Case C-158/14)

2014/C 194/19

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: A, B, C, D

Other party: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

Questions referred

1. Having regard to, inter alia, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (1) would an action for the annulment of Implementing Regulation No 610/2010, (2) in so far as that regulation included the LTTE on the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, (3) brought before the General Court by the appellants in the present proceedings in their own name on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, undoubtedly have been admissible?

2. (a) Having regard to, inter alia, recital 11 in the preamble to Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA, (4) can actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict, within the meaning of international humanitarian law, be terrorist offences within the meaning of that Framework Decision? (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative, can actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict, within the meaning of international humanitarian law, be terrorist acts within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (5) and of Regulation No 2580/2001?

3 Are the actions which formed the basis of Implementing Regulation No 610/2010, in so far as it included the LTTE on the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict within the meaning of international humanitarian law?

4. Having regard to, inter alia, the answers to Questions 1, 2(a), 2(b) and 3, is Implementing Regulation No 610/2010, in so far as the LTTE was thereby included on the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, invalid?

5. If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, does that invalidity then also apply to the earlier and later Council decisions updating the list referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001, in so far as those decisions resulted in the inclusion of the LTTE on that list?

(1) OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 of 12 July 2010 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1285/2009 (OJ 2010 L 178, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).

(4) Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (OJ 2002 L 164, p. 3).

(5) Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Inalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2014 — ING Pensii Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA v Consiliul Concurenței

(Case C-172/14)

2014/C 212/15

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Inalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ING Pensii Societate de Administrare a unui Fond de Pensii Administrat Privat SA

Defendant: Consiliul Concurenței

Question referred

In relation to a practice by virtue of which clients are shared out, is the specific and definitive number of those clients relevant in deciding whether the condition of a significant distortion of competition for the purposes of Article 101(1)(c) TFEU is fulfilled?
1.

Is Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters to be interpreted in such as way that ‘natural mineral water from one and the same spring’ means: a) water from one and the same point of exit, but not water that is drawn from different exits even when such water originates in the same aquifer or body of groundwater within the meaning of the definitions of ‘aquifer’ and ‘body of groundwater’ given in Directive 2000/60/EC (2), or b) water from one and the same point of exit, but not water that is drawn from different exits even when such water originates in the same aquifer or body of groundwater within the meaning of the definitions of ‘aquifer’ and ‘body of groundwater’ given in Directive 2000/60/EC, although, in interpreting the expression, account should be taken of factors such as the distance between exits, the depth of the exits, the specific qualities of the water drawn from individual exits (such as its chemical and microbiological composition), hydraulic connectivity between exits and the confinement of the water held by the aquifer, or c) water springing from the same aquifer or body of groundwater within the meaning of the definitions of ‘aquifer’ and ‘body of groundwater’ given in Directive 2000/60/EC irrespective of whether it reaches the surface at a number of different exits, or; d) water springing from the same aquifer or body of groundwater within the meaning of the definitions of ‘aquifer’ and ‘body of groundwater’ given in Directive 2000/60/EC irrespective of whether it reaches the surface at a number of different exits, although, in interpreting the expression, account should be taken of factors such as the distance between exits, the depth of the exits, the specific qualities of the water drawn from individual exits (such as its chemical and microbiological composition), hydraulic connectivity between exits and the confinement of the water held by the aquifer?
1)

Is the Hoge Raad, as the highest national court, required, because of a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a lower national court, to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or must it await the answer to that question referred by the lower national court, even if it takes the view that the correct application of EU law on the matter to be decided by it is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to how that question must be answered?
4)

For the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004, has Royal Legislative Decree 3/2011 of 14 November 2011 adopting the consolidated text of the Law on Public Sector Contracts incorrectly transposed that directive into Spanish law and, if that is the case, has the Spanish legislature, through Articles 62 and 65 of Royal Legislative Decree 3/2011 of 14 November 2011, limited the access of public administrations to the business classification registers?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 March 2014 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Nordzucker AG

(Case C-148/14)

2014/C 235/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondent: Nordzucker AG

Additional party: Der Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Question referred

Must Article 16(3) and (4) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the excess emissions penalty must also be applied in the case where an operator has, by 30 April of a given year, surrendered a number of allowances corresponding to the total emissions stated in its report on emissions from the installation for the preceding year, and that report has been assessed as satisfactory by the verifier, but where the competent authority, after 30 April, has established that the verified emissions report had erred by understating the total quantity of emissions, the report was duly corrected and the operator surrendered the additional allowances within the new period for surrender?

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 15 January 2014 — Municipiul Piatra Neamţ v Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice

(Case C-13/14)

2014/C 261/19

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Municipiul Piatra Neamţ

Defendant: Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice

By Order of 12 June 2014, the Court (Eighth Chamber) has declared that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/21

Action brought on 11 June 2014 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-286/14)

2014/C 253/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, A. Troupiotis and M. Menegatti, agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014 (1) of 7 January 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action the Parliament raises a single plea, alleging that the Commission exceeded the powers conferred on it in Article 21(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 (2). The contested regulation amends Annex I of the basic act, adding a new Part VI, which concerns transport funding priorities of multiannual and annual work programmes. According to the Parliament, the Commission thus exceeded the powers conferred on it by the basic regulation in adopting a delegated act which ‘modifies’ that basic regulation, instead of merely ‘completing’ it, as required of it by Article 21(3).

(1) OJ 2014 L 80, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2013 L 348, p. 129.
1.

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is Article 19(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU (1) to be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legal provisions to the effect that screen splitting is not regarded as a break bumper that keeps the audiovisual programme distinct from television advertising, where one part of the screen is reserved for the programme’s closing credits and the other part to a schedule menu presenting the upcoming programmes on a broadcaster’s channel and no acoustic or optical device expressly announcing the start of an advertising break is broadcast either in the split screen or thereafter?