ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Is a contract between an architect and a consumer, according to which the architect is required (only) to carry out the planning for the construction of a new single-family house, including the preparation of plans, a contract ‘for the construction of new buildings’ within the meaning of Article 3(3)(f) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council? (1)
1.

Is the second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an online check-in fee and an ‘administration fee’ for credit card purchases, which are additional to the price of the ticket, and the VAT applied to air fares and to optional supplements for national flights, fall within the category of unavoidable, foreseeable or optional price supplements?
2.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is it sufficient, in relation to the services referred to in question 1 and in respect of turnover in the context of ‘patient support programmes’, for the required evidence of professional qualifications if the consultations over the telephone are conducted by ‘health coaches’ (medical assistants, nurses) and a doctor is consulted in approximately one third of the cases?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich (Austria) lodged on 8 February 2019 — VO v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln

(Case C-96/19)

(2019/C 172/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VO

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Tulln

Questions referred

1. Should Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 (1), in particular the last sentence of Article 34(3) and Article 36(2) thereof, be interpreted as precluding national rules which require drivers of vehicles fitted with a digital tachograph within the meaning of Article 2(2)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 to keep on board and produce, during controls, confirmations by the employer, which must fulfil the minimum requirements of the form drawn up by the Commission in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2006/22/EC (2),for individual working days which are missing from the driver card (Article 2(2)(f) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014), but for which no record sheets need be kept on board?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: Is the form laid down by the Commission in its Decision 2009/959/EU (3) wholly or partially invalid?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ 2014 L 60, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35).

(3) Commission Decision of 14 December 2009 amending Decision 2007/230/EC on a form concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities (notified under document C(2009) 9895) (OJ 2009 L 330, p. 80).
1.

First, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), (2) insofar as: (i) when assessing whether there was a sufficiently serious breach, it applies criteria which are irrelevant; (ii) it rules out that, when the Commission intervenes in the event of serious market disturbances in the CAP, one of its objectives must be maintaining farmers’ standard of living (Article 39(1)(b) TFEU); (iii) it rules out that the Commission must collect data distinct from that prescribed by law; and (iv) it states that the Commission does not have to collect information on the prices received by farmers.
3.

For the purposes of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, does the analysis carried out by the airline (the defendant in this case), which concluded that sending another aircraft would not avoid the situation of delay and therefore the transfer of the transit passenger (the applicant in this case) to a flight scheduled for the following day, since the airline operates only one daily flight to the passenger’s final destination, correspond to conduct by the airline in which it took all reasonable measures, even if it was not possible to remedy the delay?
2.

Do Articles 45 and 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude national legislation which restricts an exemption from the training and diploma requirements laid down, in principle, for entry to the profession of lawyer, to certain members of the civil service of the same Member State who have performed legal work in that capacity, in France, in an administration or a public service or an international organisation, and which excludes from the scope of that exemption members or former members of the European civil service who have performed legal work in that capacity, in one or more fields of the law of the European Union, within the European Commission?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 January 2019 — CV v Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo

(Case C-37/19)

(2019/C 182/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: CV

Respondent: Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo

Question referred

Must Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, taken separately where applicable, be interpreted as precluding provisions of national legislation or national practices pursuant to which, once the employment relationship has ended, the right to payment of an allowance for paid leave accrued but not taken (and for a legal arrangement, such as ‘abolished public holidays’, which is comparable in nature and function to paid annual leave) does not apply in a context where the worker was unable to take the leave before the employment relationship ended because of an unlawful act (a dismissal established as unlawful by a national court by means of a final ruling ordering the retroactive restoration of the employment relationship) attributable to the employer, for the period between that unlawful act by the employer and the subsequent reinstatement only?

(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).
1.

Does the scope of Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, (1) and/or of Directive 2006/54/EC of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, (2) include legislation of a Member State if the effect of that legislation is that the former employer is to withhold sums of money from a considerably higher proportion of men entitled to an occupational pension than from women entitled to an occupational pension when those occupational pensions are paid out and those sums may be freely used by the former employer, and are such provisions discriminatory within the meaning of those directives?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus v Comune di Cisternino, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino

(Case C-109/19)

(2019/C 182/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus

Defendants: Comune di Cisternino, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino

Question referred

Does EU law (in particular the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, freedom of movement, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services) preclude a national legislative provision, such as Article 83(9), Article 95(10) and Article 97(5) of the Italian ‘Codice dei contratti pubblici’ (Public Procurement Code), under which failure to indicate labour costs and costs relating to the safety of workers by a tenderer in a public procurement procedure results in any event in the tenderer being excluded from the procedure without the tenderer being given, at a later stage, the benefit of the ‘soccorso istruttorio’ procedure [whereby a tenderer is given an opportunity to remedy shortcomings in his tender documentation after submission of his tender], even where the existence of such an obligation to indicate those costs is apparent from sufficiently clear legal provisions in the public domain and irrespective of the fact that the contract notice does not expressly refer to the legal obligation to provide specific information?
2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, taking into account the provisions of Articles 41(1) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and recitals 10, 29, 107, 109 and 111 and Articles 1(2) and 72 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, do recitals 19, 20 and 21 of Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, (2) and Article 2(2) of 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, (3) and Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, (4) preclude a national rule or a practice in relation to the interpretation and application of that rule which allows a penalty (fine) — other than a reduction in the duration of the contract — for unlawful failure to hold a public tendering procedure and for failure to comply with the rules on the modification of contracts to be imposed also on the successful tenderer which concluded the contract with the contracting entity?
—

Pursuant to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission asks the Court of Justice to declare that, by unilaterally seizing from the premises of the Bank of Slovenia documents connected to the performance of the ESCB’s and the Eurosystem’s tasks and by unfairly cooperating with the ECB on that subject, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 343 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 39 of Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Articles 2, 18 and 22 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union and Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Techbau SpA v Azienda Sanitaria Locale AL

(Case C-299/19)

(2019/C 213/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Techbau SpA

Defendant: Azienda Sanitaria Locale AL

Question referred

Does Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/35/EC (1) preclude a national provision, such as Article 2(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 231 of 9 October 2002, which excludes works contracts, whether public or private, and specifically public works contracts within the meaning of Directive 93/37/EEC, (2) from the concept of ‘commercial transaction’ — defined as contracts that ‘lead, exclusively or primarily, to the delivery of goods or the provision of services in exchange for remuneration’ — and therefore from the scope of that directive?

(1) Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35).

(2) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).
3.

What discretion does a Member State enjoy in responding to a reservation entered by another Contracting Party under article 15(3) of the WPPT? In particular, is the Member State required to mirror precisely the terms of the reservation entered by the other Contracting Party? Is a Contracting Party required not to apply the 30-day rule in Article 5 of the Rome Convention to the extent that it may result in a producer from the reserving party receiving remuneration under Article 15(1) but not the performers of the same recording receiving remuneration? Alternatively, is the responding party entitled to provide rights to the nationals of the reserving party on a more generous basis than the reserving party has done, i.e. can the responding party provide rights which are not reciprocated by the reserving party?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 29 April 2019 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Hydro Energo’

(Case C-340/19)

(2019/C 220/31)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: SIA ‘Hydro Energo’

Question referred

Must the Combined Nomenclature, as set out in Annex I of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, (2) be interpreted as meaning that heading 7407 (Copper bars, rods and profiles) includes copper or copper alloy ingots in a rectangular shape, the thickness of which exceeds one-tenth of the width and which are hot-rolled, but which have irregular pores, holes and cracks in their cross-section?

(1) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2011 L 282, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 27 February 2019 — MG, NH v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-190/19)

(2019/C 213/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MG, NH

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Question referred

Can a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also exist when a passenger does not catch a directly connecting flight due to a relatively minor delay in arrival, with the result that there is a delay in arrival at the final destination of three hours or more, but the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the booking confirmation was issued by a travel agency who combined the flights for its customer?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Appeal brought on 29 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 19 March 2019 in Case T-98/16, T-196/16 and T-198/16, Italy and Others v Commission

(Case C-425/19 P)

(2019/C 238/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by P. Stancanelli, L. Flynn, A. Bouchagiar, D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic, Banca Popolare di Bari Società Cooperativa per Azioni, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, Banca d’Italia

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2019, joined cases T-98/16, Italian Republic v European Commission T-196/16, Banca Popolare di Bari S.C.p.A. v European Commission T-198/16, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi v European Commission;

— dismiss the applications at first instance, in so far as they dispute that the decision at issue shows that the requirements relating to imputability to the State have been met for the measures in question and for their financing through State resources;

— refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration of the remaining pleas in law at first instance and

— reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the judgment under appeal, the General Court annulled the decision at issue on account of the fact that ‘the Commission has not proved to the requisite legal standard that the Italian public authorities were involved in the adoption of the measure at issue or, consequently, that that measure is imputable to the State within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU’ and ‘did not establish sufficiently, in the contested decision, that the resources at issue were controlled by the Italian public authorities and that, therefore, they were at their disposal’.

The Commission considers that the judgment under appeal is based on incorrect legal considerations and distortion of the facts, which irremediably invalidate its findings and the operative part of the judgment. The Commission raises two grounds of appeal:

— In the first place, the Commission claims that the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFUE for two reasons: — the General Court erred as regards the burden of proof to be discharged by the Commission in order to establish that the conditions concerning imputability and State resources were met, by requiring the Commission to demonstrate positively the existence of a dominant influence on the part of the public authorities, at every stage of the procedure which led to the adoption of the measures in question, over the entity granting the aid, solely on account of the fact that the latter is a private entity; — the General Court erred as regards the burden of proof to be discharged by the Commission in order to establish that the conditions concerning imputability and State resources were met, by examining and assessing the various evidence produced by the Commission in the decision at issue piecemeal, without considering it as a whole and without taking into account its broader context.
2.

Pursuant to the lot award limitation clause included in the call for competition for bus transport at issue, if the components of the subject matter of a contract that are won by a tenderer exceed the maximum number of vehicle days laid down in the clause, then the subject matter of the contract for which the points difference between the best and the second-best tender, multiplied by the number of vehicles of that subject matter of the contract, is the smallest is transferred to the tenderer that submitted the second-best tender. The use of the lot award limitation clause can mean that, on the basis of the call for competition, the tenderer that submitted the best tender for the subject matter of the contract in question is awarded a contract for fewer vehicle days in total than the tenderer that submitted the second-best tender for the subject matter of the contract. a) Can the specific outcome to which the inclusion of the lot award limitation clause in the call for competition could lead be taken into account when assessing the permissibility of the lot award limitation clause, or must this be assessed on an abstract basis, so that the inclusion of a lot award limitation clause such as that in question in the main proceedings is either permissible or not permissible pursuant to Directive 2004/17? b) Are the circumstances specified in the invitation to tender as justification for the clause — which are related to the preservation of the competitive situation in public bus transport in the Helsinki region and the reduction of the operational risk that the assumption of responsibility for a high volume of transport and the establishment of transport on changed lines entail for the quality of the transport service — relevant to the assessment of the permissibility of a lot award limitation clause such as that at issue in the main proceedings?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 April 2019 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Exter BV

(Case C-330/19)

(2019/C 238/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party: Exter BV

Question referred

Does Article 121(1) of the Community Customs Code (1) mean that a preferential tariff measure for the application of which the import goods were eligible at the time of their placement under the inward processing procedure using the suspension system may also be taken into account when determining the amount of the customs debt incurred when the goods were released for free circulation, whether or not in the unaltered state, if that tariff measure was suspended on the date of acceptance of the declaration for release for free circulation?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992, L 302, p. 1).