ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Property Development Company NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-16/14)

2014/C 102/20

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Property Development Company NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Is interest on borrowed capital which, according to Article 35(4) of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC (1) of 25 July 1978, may be included in the production costs to the extent that it relates to the period of production, part of the taxable amount of an application within the meaning of Article 5(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) of 17 May 1977, that is to say, part of the ‘cost price’ within the meaning of Article 11A(1) of the Sixth Directive and/or the incidental expenses within the meaning of Article 11A(2) of the Sixth Directive?

(1) Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54 (3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11).

(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
Must Rule 5(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature be interpreted as meaning that cages used for transportation of live animals intended for laboratory research should be categorised as packing materials or packing containers for the purposes of that rule?

If so, must the words ‘clearly suitable for repetitive use’ in relation to such packing materials or packing containers be assessed in general or only in respect of re-use within the Union?
Third ground of appeal: Misapplication of the principle of good faith and sincere cooperation in performing a contract EMA submits that the General Court made an error in its assessment of Belgian law with regard to the application of the principle of good faith and sincere cooperation in performing a contract. In relation to the Dicoems and Cocoon projects, the Commission failed to fulfil its own monitoring obligations as laid down in Article 11.3.4 of the general conditions of each of the contracts in question, which makes specific reference to the Commission’s obligation to ensure that the project is correctly carried out from a scientific, technological and financial point of view. The General Court wrongly concluded that the Commission had not failed in its duty of supervision and that it had not infringed any specific provision of either contract and that it had thus been right in terminating immediately the two contracts relating to the Dicoems and Cocoon projects. The General Court also dismissed EMA’s claim for damages under those contracts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 16 January 2014 — CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA and Others v De Nederlandsche Bank NV, De Nederlandsche Bank NV v CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA and Others

(Case C-18/14)

2014/C 112/29

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA, Depsa 96 SA, INOC SA, Corporación Catalana Occidente SA, La Previsión 96 SA, Grupo Catalana Occidente SA, Grupo Compañia Española de Crédito y Caución SL, Atradius NV, Atradius Insurance Holding NV, J.M. Serra Farré, M.A. Serra Farré, J. Serra Farré

Respondent: De Nederlandsche Bank NV

and

Appellant: De Nederlandsche Bank NV

Respondents: CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA, Depsa 96 SA, INOC SA, Corporación Catalana Occidente SA, La Previsión 96 SA, Grupo Catalana Occidente SA, Grupo Compañia Española de Crédito y Caución SL, Atradius NV, Atradius Insurance Holding NV, J.M. Serra Farré, M.A. Serra Farré, J. Serra Farré

Questions referred

1. If the competent authority explicitly approves a proposed acquisition as referred to in Article 15a of the Antonveneta Directive, (1) is it permitted to impose limitations or conditions on such approval under national law? Does it make a difference in this regard whether such limitations or conditions are based on previous commitments given by the proposed acquirer, as referred to in recital 3 in the preamble to the Directive?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must the limitations or conditions imposed by the competent authority be necessary in the sense that, were they not to be imposed, the competent authority would find it necessary to oppose the proposed acquisition in the light of the assessment based on the criteria laid down in Article 15b(1) of the Antonveneta Directive?

3. If it is permissible to impose limitations or conditions, does Article 15b(1) of the Directive provide a basis for the competent authority to lay down requirements for the acquisition in regard to the ‘corporate governance’ of the undertaking the acquisition of which is proposed, such as a two-tier supervisory board structure?

(1) Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 1).

* NB. It is probable that the case concerns Articles 15a and 15b of Directives 92/49/EEC (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) and 2002/83/EC (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1) rather than any corresponding provisions of Directive 2007/44/EC.
1.

Should Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation in which economic operators participate in a common computerised information system of the type described in this case and the Competition Council has proved that a system notice on the restriction of discounts and a technical restriction on discount rate entry were introduced into that system, it can be assumed that those economic operators were aware, or must have been aware, of the system notice introduced into the computerised information system and, by failing to oppose the application of such a discount restriction, expressed their tacit approval of the price discount restriction and for that reason may be held liable for engaging in concerted practices under Article 101(1) TFEU?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Openbaar Ministerie v Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer and Others

(Case C-56/14)

2014/C 135/24

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendants: Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer, Michiel Martinus Zeeuws, Staalbeton NV/SA

Question referred

Is the prior declaration requirement for employees imposed under the LIMOSA system, as provided for in Articles 137 to 152 of the Belgian Programme Law of 27 December 2006, incompatible with the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 49 EC and Article 56 TFEU?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Dragoș Constantin Târșia v Romanian State, through the Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Inmatriculare a Autovehiculelor

(Case C-69/14)

2014/C 142/20

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dragoș Constantin Târșia

Defendants: Romanian State, through the Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Inmatriculare a Autovehiculelor

Question referred

Can Articles 17, 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union, Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the principle of legal certainty laid down in European Union law and in the case-law of the Court of Justice be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that found in Article 21(2) of Law No 554/2004 which allows for revision of national judicial decisions when there is an infringement of the principle of the primacy of [European Union] law exclusively in administrative proceedings and which does not allow for revision of national judicial decisions delivered in proceedings other than administrative proceedings (civil or criminal proceedings) when there is an infringement of the same principle of primacy of [European Union] law at issue in those decisions?
4.

If the answer to the third question should be that the right to decide of the recipient of the supply of services is limited, must Article 55 of the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that: — until 31 December 2009, it may be considered that the supply of services was performed under the VAT identification number indicated by the recipient of that supply, if the latter also has the status of taxable person registered (established) in another Member State and the goods are sent or transported outside the Member State in which the supply has been physically performed? — is determination of the place of performance of the services influenced by the fact that the recipient of the supply is a taxable person established in another Member State which delivers the finished goods, sending or transporting them outside the Member State where the services have been supplied to an intermediate purchaser, who in turn re-sells the goods in a third Member State of the Community without the recipient of the services covered by the contract transporting the goods back to its establishment?
1.

Since the wording of the decisions of the ECB of 6 September 2012 on a number of technical features regarding the Eurosystem’s Outright Monetary Transactions in secondary sovereign bond markets and on additional measures to preserve collateral availability for counterparties in order to maintain their access to the Eurosystem’s liquidity-providing operators, and — in the alternative, the wording of Guideline 2012/641/EU of the ECB of 10 October 2012 amending Guideline ECB/2012/18 on additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral (ECB/2012/23) (1) entail legal effects, the decisions may be the subject-matter of an action. According to settled case-law with regard to Article 19 TEU, the binding nature of an act is determined with reference to its purpose.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/24

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

(Case C-132/14)

2014/C 175/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009, (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union; (1)

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament seeks the annulment of Council Regulation No 1385/2013 which the Council adopted on the basis of Article 349 TFEU.

The Parliament contests the choice of legal basis operated by the Council as Article 349 TFEU cannot provide a legal basis for all the measures adopted, but only some of them consisting of derogations from the application of EU law to Mayotte. The contested regulation also implements measures which fall within the areas of the common fisheries policy and the protection of public health, without those measures being based on the structural social and economic situation specific to Mayotte.

In the opinion of the Parliament, the act in question should therefore have been adopted on the basis of Articles 43(2), 168(4)(b) and 349 TFEU jointly, and not on the basis of Article 349 alone.

(1) OJ 2013 L 354, p. 86
2.

Within the ambit of the EU legislation on the protection of consumers contained in Directive 93/13/EEC, is it compatible with the principle of the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial in accordance with the principle of equality of arms, affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (2) for a provision of national law of the kind laid down in Article 695(4) of the Spanish Law on Civil Procedure, applicable to appeals against a decision determining the outcome of an objection to enforcement proceedings in relation to mortgaged or pledged goods, to allow an appeal to be brought only against an order staying the proceedings or disapplying an unfair term and to exclude appeals in other cases, the immediate consequence of which is that whilst the party seeking enforcement may appeal when an objection to enforcement is upheld and the proceedings are brought to an end or an unfair term is disapplied, the party against whom enforcement is sought may not appeal if his objection is dismissed?
2.

In the event that the answer to question 1 is in the negative, but the abovementioned regulations are not invalid as a whole: (a) In relation to which exporters and producers in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and in Vietnam, from which the applicant purchased goods in the period from 2006 to 2011, are Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive antidumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96, invalid? (b) Does a declaration that the abovementioned regulations are invalid in whole or in part constitute unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 236(2) of the Customs Code (CCC)?
5.

If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, does the prohibition on intervening in agreements that are already in existence and to which the State is a party by adopting measures which preclude late-payment interest impose — as regards a legislative measure governing interest, which provides, up to a certain point (in the present case, from 31 January 1982 to 31 December 1995), for the application of a non-statutory rate and compound interest, even on an annual basis and not six-monthly, as claimed by the creditor, and, after that point, only for the payment of statutory interest — a set of rules which, in view of the particular circumstances of the dispute at issue, is not necessarily unfavourable to the creditor?’
1.

First plea: the General Court erred in law by ruling that intra-group deliveries of LCD panels within the appellant’s factories in China and Taiwan come within the scope of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by the mere fact that computer monitors into which the LCD panels are incorporated as components in the factories in question are sold in the EEA by the appellant. This plea is based on the following grounds: a. The finding of infringement in the Contested Decision only covers deliveries in the EEA of LCD panels, whether sold to third parties or supplied intra-group, and makes no distinction between intra-group deliveries by vertically-integrated cartel participants who form a single undertaking with their related purchaser and those who do not; b. The use of the concept of so-called ‘direct EEA sales through transformed products’ is inconsistent with the rationale underlying Europa Carton to treat intra-group deliveries in exactly the same way as sales to third parties; c. It is inconsistent with the Wood Pulp I implementation doctrine to apply Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA to deliveries of LCD panels that take place outside the EEA; d. The concept of so-called ‘direct EEA sales through transformed products’ leads to the unlawful exclusion from the scope of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA of transactions concerning LCD panels which take place and restrict competition within the EEA, on the basis of a reasoning which was expressly rejected by this Court in Commercial Solvents; e. The extra-territorial application of EU competition law resulting from the use of the concept of so-called ‘EEA direct sales through transformed products’ gives rise to a risk of double jeopardy for undertakings and jurisdictional conflict with other competition authorities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/4

Action brought on 16 April 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-190/14)

2014/C 223/05

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, U. Nielsen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to publish the final river basin management plans by 22 December 2009 and by failing to send a copy thereof to the Commission by 22 March 2010 and, in any event, by having failed to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy; (1)

— order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Denmark has repeatedly acknowledged — most recently by reply of 18 December 2013 to the Commission’s supplementary reasoned opinion — that none of Denmark’s four river basin districts are currently covered by a river basin management plan, and that a copy of the final river basin management plans for the six-year period ending 22 December 2015 has not been sent to the Commission.

The Commission finds that Denmark has still not complied with Article 13(1), (2) and (6) of the Directive. According to Denmark’s reply of 8 May 2013, the infringement of Article 13 of the Directive may be expected to continue until May 2014 (approximately 3,5 years after the prescribed time limit). Furthermore, it is the Commission’s view that Denmark has still not complied with the requirements of Article 15(1) of the Directive, under which the time limit for informing the Commission was set at 22 March 2010.

(1) OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 14 May 2014 — Abdoulaye Amadou Tall v Centre public d’action sociale de Huy (CPAS de Huy)

(Case C-239/14)

2014/C 223/14

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abdoulaye Amadou Tall

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Huy (CPAS de Huy)

Question referred

According to Article 39/1 of the Law of 15 December 1980 on entry to Belgian territory, residence, establishment and expulsion of foreign nationals read in conjunction with Articles 39/2(l), 3rd subparagraph, Article 39/76, Article 39/82(4), 2nd subparagraph (d) and 57/6/2 of the same law, only appeals seeking annulment and suspension due to extreme urgency may be brought against a decision refusing to consider a multiple asylum claim. Given that in such an appeal the court does not have full jurisdiction to determine issues of fact and law, the appeal does not have suspensory effect and that the applicant does not have the right of residence nor to material assistance while it is under consideration, are such appeals compatible with the requirements of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States (1) for granting and withdrawing refugee status which lay down the right to an effective remedy?

(1) OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2014 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-195/14)

2014/C 245/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Defendant: Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG

Question referred

Is it permissible for the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs to give the impression, by means of their appearance, description or pictorial representation, that a particular ingredient is present, even though that ingredient is not in fact present and this is apparent solely from the list of ingredients provided for under Article 3(1)(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC (1)?

(1) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29), as most recently amended by Council Directive 2013/20/EU of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 234).