ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Do Article 39 EC, prior to the adoption of Directive 98/49, (1) and Article 42 EC, individually or in conjunction with each other, preclude the following situation: In the case where an employee who is in the service of the same legal entity/employer, otherwise than in the context of postings, is employed successively in a number of operating units of that employer in various Member States and in each case is subject to the supplementary pension plans applicable to those operating units, — for the determination of a period for the acquisition of definitive entitlements to supplementary pension benefits (based on the contributions of the employer and the employee) in a particular Member State, no account is taken of the years of service already completed with the same employer in another Member State or of the employee’s membership of a supplementary pension scheme there, and — the transfer of an employee, with his agreement, to an operating unit of the same employer in another Member State is treated as equivalent to the situation, as envisaged in the pension rules, of an employee voluntarily leaving an operating unit, in which case entitlements to a supplementary pension are limited to the employee’s own contributions, — and that situation has the unfavourable consequence that the employee loses his entitlements to supplementary pension benefits in relation to his employment in that Member State, which would not have been the case had he worked for his employer in only one Member State and remained a member of the supplementary pension scheme of that Member State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/23

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2009 — Günter Fuß v Stadt Halle (Saale)

(Case C-429/09)

2010/C 24/41

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Halle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Günter Fuß

Defendant: Stadt Halle (Saale)

Questions referred

1. Do secondary claims result from Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, where an (official) employer has determined a working time which exceeds the limit laid down in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC?

2. In the event that the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, does the claim result from an infringement of Directive 2003/88/EC alone, or does Community law establish further requirements for the claim, for example, an application to the employer for a reduction in working time, or fault in determining the working time?

3. In the event that a secondary claim exists, the question then arises whether the remedy should be time off in lieu or financial compensation, and what requirements exist under Community law for calculating the level of the claim?

4. Are the reference periods laid down in Article 16(b) and/or the second paragraph of Article 19 of Directive 2003/88/EC directly applicable in a case such as the present one, in which national law merely determines a working time which exceeds the maximum working time laid down in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC, without providing for compensation? Should direct applicability be affirmed, the question then arises whether, and if necessary how, the compensation should be effected, if the employer does not grant compensation by the end of the reference period?

5. How must questions one to four be answered during the period when Council Directive 93/104/EC (2) of 23 November 1993 was in force?

(1) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299 p. 9).

(2) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307 p. 18).
—

Declare that, by failure to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of the necessary provisions for fully transposing the directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of the directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 29 October 2009 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X

(Case C-423/09)

2010/C 24/36

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: X

Question referred

What criteria are to be applied in order to determine whether vegetables (garlic bulbs) which have been dried to some degree, but from which not all, or not almost all, of the moisture has been removed, and which are imported in a chilled state, are to be classified under tariff subheading 0703 20 00 of the CN or under tariff subheading 0712 90 90 of the CN?
2.

If this question is answered in the affirmative: (a) In view of the purpose of the Directive which, as set out in Article 1(1) thereof, is to lay down minimum safety and health requirements for the organisation of working time, must Article 17 thereof be interpreted as allowing: — under Article 17(1), the occasional or seasonal activity of persons with educational commitment contracts to be regarded as an activity for which ‘on account of the specific characteristics of the activity concerned, the duration of the working time is not measured and/or predetermined or can be determined by the workers themselves’, or — under Article 17(3)(b), the occasional or seasonal activity of persons with educational commitment contracts to be regarded as ‘security and surveillance activities requiring a permanent presence in order to protect property and persons’? (b) in the latter case, should the conditions laid down in Article 17(2), in terms of ‘equivalent periods of compensatory rest’ or ‘appropriate protection’ to be afforded to the workers concerned, be regarded as being satisfied by a rule restricting the activity of a person with the contracts in question to 80 days of work a year in holiday and leisure activity centres?
11.

The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules regarding the assessment of evidence and by deciding not to require disclosure of the evidence requested by the applicant with respect to certain Commission documents that, in the light of the arguments used by the CFI in order to dismiss the applicant's application, are essential to the defence of its interests. The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial, the principle of equality of arms and the rights of defence.
If either Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

Must Article 3(1) and Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 be interpreted as meaning that any contamination of food of animal origin, such as honey, through genetically modified material lawfully present in the environment triggers the obligation for such to be authorised and supervised or can thresholds applicable elsewhere (for example, under Article 12(2) of the Regulation) apply mutatis mutandis?
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (1) and, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of that directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 30 November 2009 — Vandoorne NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-489/09)

2010/C 37/23

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vandoorne NV

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Is Belgian law, in particular Article 58(1), in conjunction with Article 77(1)(7), of the Value Added Tax Code (Wetboek van de belasting over de toegevoegde waarde), compatible or incompatible with Article 27 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, (1) which allows the Member States to adopt simplification measures, and/or with Article 11.C(1) of that directive, which grants a right to a refund of value added tax (VAT) in the case of total or partial non-payment, by reason of the fact that such national law (1) lays down a simplified procedure for charging VAT on supplies of manufactured tobacco products by imposing a single charge at source; and (2) does not give persons liable to tax at the various intermediary stages of the chain of supply who have borne VAT on those products a right to a refund of VAT on account of the total or partial loss of the purchase price?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation 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)
3.

In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is the term ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ in Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as covering only ‘take away’ foodstuffs as typically sold in the grocery business, or does it also cover dishes and meals which have been prepared by boiling, grilling, roasting, baking or other means for immediate consumption?
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, (1) and by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/15

Appeal brought on 10 September 2009 by Mr Hans Molter against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 August 2009 in Case T-141/09 Hans Molter v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-361/09 P)

2010/C 113/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Hans Molter (represented by: T. Damerau, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

The Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 5 February 2010 and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2009 — Dieter May v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg — Die Gesundheitskasse

(Case C-519/09)

2010/C 80/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Wuppertal

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Dieter May

Defendant: AOK Rheinland/Hamburg — Die Gesundheitskasse

Question referred

Does the concept of worker within the meaning of Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/88/EC (corresponding to Article 7 of Directive 93/104/EC) … (1) also cover an employee subject to staff regulations (Dienstordnungsangestellter) in a public-law body whose autonomous regulations issued on the basis of authorisation under federal legislation (Paragraph 351 of the Reichsversicherungsordnung (National Social Insurance Code)) refer, in respect of the holiday entitlement of such an employee, to the provisions applicable to public servants (here Paragraph 101 of the Landesbeamtengesetz NW (Law on public servants of the Land North Rhine-Westphalia) in conjunction with the Verordnung über den Erholungsurlaub der Beamtinnen und Beamten und Richterinnen und Richter im Lande Nordrhein-Westfalen (Regulations on the holiday leave of public servants and judges in the Land North Rhine-Westphalia))?

(1) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003, L 299, p. 9).
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of that directive;
3.

Should Article 2 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA be interpreted as meaning that the State authorities may not disregard the freely expressed wishes of victims where the imposition or maintenance in force of an injunction to stay away from the victim when the offender is a member of their family are opposed by the victim and where no objective circumstances indicating a risk of re-offending are established, where it is possible to identify a level of personal, social, cultural and emotional competence which precludes any possibility of subservience to the offender or, rather, as meaning that such an order should be held appropriate in every case in the light of the specific characteristics of such crimes?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/30

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Vicenza — Sezione distaccata di Schio (Italy) lodged on 15 February 2010 — Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA

(Case C-87/10)

2010/C 100/45

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Vicenza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Electrosteel Europe SA

Defendant: Edil Centro SpA

Question referred

Must Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/01 (1) — and, in any event, Community law — which lays down that, in the case of the sale of goods, the place of performance of an obligation is the place where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered, be interpreted as meaning that the place of delivery, relevant for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction, is the place of final destination of the goods covered by the contract or the place in which the seller is discharged of his obligation to deliver, in accordance with the substantive rules applicable to the individual case, or is that rule open to a different interpretation?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1).
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium), lodged on 15 January 2010 — Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach e.V. v État belge — Service Public Fédéral Finances

(Case C-25/10)

2010/C 100/25

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach e.V.

Defendant: État belge — Service Public Fédéral Finances

Question referred

Must Articles 18 (ex Article 12 EC), 45 (ex Article 39 EC), 49 (ex Article 43 EC) and 54 (ex Article 48 EC) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as prohibiting the legislature of a Member State from adopting or maintaining a rule the purpose of which is to reserve the benefit of taxation at the reduced rate of 7 % to non-profit-making associations, friendly societies or national unions of friendly societies, professional unions and international non-profit-making associations, private foundations and public-interest foundations established in a Member State in which the deceased — a resident of Wallonia — actually resided or where she had her place of work at the time of death, or in which she had previously actually resided or had her place of work?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/29

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Dax (France) lodged on 22 February 2010 — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Bourdil — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Boucalaise de Boulangerie — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Baba-Pom’

((Case C-97/10) - (Case C-98/10) - (Case C-99/10))

2010/C 113/45

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’Instance de Dax (Landes)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AG2R Prévoyance

Defendants: SARL Bourdil, SARL Boucalaise de Boulangerie, SARL Baba-Pom’

Question referred

Does an extensive collective agreement granting an exclusive right to the management of a single scheme for the supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs (in this case, to AG2R Prévoyance) infringe the provisions of Article 82 of the EC Treaty where that agreement does not provide for and even expressly excludes any waiver of affiliation to that scheme (in so far as the Community competition rules do not obstruct the performance of the tasks assigned to AG2R Prévoyance, entrusted with the scheme)?
—

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such provisions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 24 February 2010 — Patrick Kelly v National University of Ireland

(Case C-104/10)

2010/C 134/29

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Patrick Kelly

Defendant: National University of Ireland

Questions referred

1. Does Article 4(1) of Council Directive 97/80/EC (1) entitle an applicant for vocational training, who believes that he or she has been denied access to vocational training because the principle of equal treatment was not applied to him or her, to information on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training so that the applicant can ‘establish, before a court or other competent authority, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination’?

2. Does Article 4 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (2) entitle an applicant for vocational training who believes that he or she has been denied access to vocational training ‘on the basis of the same criteria’ and discriminated against ‘on grounds of sex’ in terms of accessing vocational training to information held by the course provider on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training?

3. Does Article 3 of Council Directive 2002/73/EC (3) prohibiting ‘direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex’ in relation to ‘access’ to vocational training entitle an applicant for vocational training who claims to have been discriminated against ‘on the grounds of sex’ in terms of accessing vocational training to information held by the course provider on the respective qualifications of the other applicants for the course in question and in particular the applicants who were not denied access to vocational training?

4. Does the nature of the obligation under Article 267, para. 3 TFEU differ in a Member State with an adversarial (as opposed to inquisitorial) legal system and, if so, in what respect?

5. Can any entitlement to information under the aforesaid Directives be affected by the operation of national or European laws relating to confidentiality?

(1) Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex

OJ L 14, p. 6

(2) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions

OJ L 39, p. 40

(3) Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (Text with EEA relevance)

OJ L 269, p. 15
2.

Does Community law preclude a situation in which, when a Member State levies charges on a private individual who is in turn obliged to pass the charges on to other private individuals with whom he carries on a commercial activity in a sector on which the Member State has imposed a hybrid system of aid and charges, but that system was subsequently found to be not only partially illegal but also partially incompatible with Community law, those individuals are then, by reason of national provisions, subject to a shorter limitation period with regard to the Member State in respect of the recovery of contributions levied in breach of Community law, whereas they have a longer limitation period with regard to recovery of that same amounts from a private intermediary, with the result that such an intermediary might find itself in a situation where the claim against it is not time-barred but the claim against the Member State is, and the intermediary may thus have an action brought against it by other parties and consequently have to seek indemnification from the Member State concerned, but cannot recover from that Member State the contributions which it paid directly to that Member State?
1.

Must Article 282 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, in particular the phrase ‘[t]o this end, the Community shall be represented by the Commission’, contained in the second sentence of that article, be interpreted as meaning that an institution is properly authorised to represent the Community simply by virtue of the existence of an authority by which the Commission has delegated to that institution its powers of representation in legal proceedings, irrespective of whether or not that authority appointed by name a natural person empowered to represent the delegate institution?