ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/7

Appeal brought on 11 April 2017 by International Management Group against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2017 in Case T-29/15: International Management Group v European Commission

(Case C-183/17 P)

(2017/C 221/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: International Management Group (represented by: L. Levi, Avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— consequently, — annul the amended annex to the Commission Implementing Decision of 7.11.2013 on the Annual Action Programme 2013 in favour of Myanmar/Burma to be financed from the general budget of the European Union (1) adopted on 16 December 2014; and — order the European Commission to pay for the costs.

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs of both the appeal and of the first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law:

1) Violation of the duty to state reasons — Violation of the duty to state reasons of the judge — Distortion of the file

2) Violation of Financial Regulation of 2002 (2) and of Financial Regulation of 2012 (3) — Violation of the Commission Regulation (4) and of the Commission Delegated Regulation (5) — Violation of the duty of the judge state reasons — Distortion of the file

3) Infringement of the principle of sound financial management — Infringement of the duty to state reasons — Infringement of the duty of the judge to state reasons — Infringement of the Financial Regulation of 2012 (articles 61(1) and 60(2))

4) Infringement of the principle of good administration — Infringement of the right to be heard

The appellant also challenges the decision to reject the appellant's request for production of the OLAF report.

(1) C(2013) 7682 final.

(2) Council Regulation No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended (OJ 2002, L 248, p. 1).

(3) Regulation No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012, L 298, p. 1).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended (OJ 2002, L 357, p. 1).

(5) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012, L 362, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 12 April 2017 — flightright GmbH v Iberia Express SA

(Case C-186/17)

(2017/C 221/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Iberia Express SA

Question referred

Can a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also exist in the case where a passenger does not catch a directly connecting flight as a result of 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 was made through a tour operator who carried out the booking of the entire flight journey via another air carrier?

(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).
—

Give a final judgment in the matter that is the subject of this appeal and hold that the General Court was wrong in law to decline jurisdiction and order the respondent in case T-257/16 to pay the costs of the appellant in respect of the order of the General Court and of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this appeal;
2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?
2.

For the purposes of the provisions of Directive 2014/24 (Articles 1(4), 18(1) and (2), 19(1), 32 and 57, read together with recital (5) thereof), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Articles 49 and 56) and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Articles 16 and 52), and the principles of equal treatment, transparency and proportionality, is it permitted for the public authorities to have recourse to other means, including employment contracts, to the exclusion of public contracts, in order to meet the same public interest requirements, and if so, on what conditions, when that recourse is not part of the recurrent organisation of the public service, but — as in the case of Article 63 of Law 4430/2016 — takes place for a defined period of time and to deal with extraordinary circumstances, as well as for reasons that relate to the effectiveness of competition or the legitimacy of the operations of undertakings who are active in the public procurement market? Can reasons of that kind, as well as circumstances such as the weakness of the unhindered performance of public contracts or the realisation of greater financial benefit compared with a public contract, be regarded as overriding reasons in the public interest, which justify the adoption of a measure which leads to a serious restriction, in extent and duration, on business activity in the field of public procurement?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 20 March 2017 — Catia Passeri v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

(Case C-143/17)

(2017/C 249/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Catia Passeri

Respondent: Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

Question referred

Are the provisions of national law in Article 3(7) of Decree Law No 64 of 30 April 2010, converted into Law No 100 of 29 June 2010, according to which ‘for workers in the performing arts belonging to the category of dancers, the retirement age is fixed for men and women at the forty-fifth year of chronological age, with the use, for workers to whom the contributory or mixed system applies in full, of the transformation coefficient referred to in Article 1(6) of the Law of 8 August 1995, No 335, relative to the higher age. For the two years following the date of entry into force of this provision, the workers referred to in this paragraph employed on contracts of indefinite duration, who have reached or passed the retirement age, are afforded the option, renewable annually, of remaining in service. This option must be exercised through a formal application to be presented to the ENPALS within two months of the date of entry into force of this provision, or at least three months before pension rights are fully vested, without prejudice to the maximum retirement age of forty-seven years for women and fifty-two for men’, contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sex, laid down in Directive 2006/54 (1) and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 21)?

(1) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
2.

In view of the nature, seriousness and method of imposing the administrative penalty of temporary inaccessibility of electronic data for a period of 90 days, and, above all, of the impossibility of appealing against it, can it be considered, in accordance with Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), that that penalty is in itself a disproportionately serious restriction of Article 56 TFEU and of Article 17(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a restriction which, in its current form, cannot be justified by the objectives of consumer protection established by the Member State in the field of games of chance?
1.

Are national legislation and case-law consistent with Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU (1) regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, in so far as they preclude a challenge, either directly as an appeal against a court decision or indirectly by means of a separate claim for damages, to the substantive grounds of a court decision issuing a European investigation order for a search on residential and business premises and the seizure of specific items, and allowing examination of a witness?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2017 — Graziano Garavaldi v Ministero della Giustizia

(Case C-178/17)

(2017/C 277/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Graziano Garavaldi

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

Question referred

Does the principle that everyone is entitled to a hearing by an impartial tribunal within a reasonable time, affirmed in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which has become a principle of European Union law by virtue of Article 6(3) TEU, read in conjunction with the principle arising from Article 67 TFEU, according to which the Union is to constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights, and the principle arising from Articles 81 and 82 TFEU, according to which, in civil and criminal matters having cross-border implications, the Union is to develop judicial cooperation based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases, preclude national provisions, such as the Italian provisions contained in Article 5 sexies of Law No 89/2001, which impose on persons entitled to the payment by the Italian State of ‘fair compensation’ in respect of the unreasonable duration of legal proceedings a series of obligations which they must fulfil in order to obtain such payment, and to await the expiry of the period referred to in Article 5 sexies (5) of Law No 89/2001 without, in the meanwhile, being entitled to take any legal action for enforcement and without subsequently being able to claim damages in respect of late payment, even in cases in which the ‘fair compensation’ has been awarded in respect of the unreasonable duration of civil proceedings which have cross-border implications or which involve a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the European Union and/or a matter in relation to which the European Union provides for the reciprocal recognition of judgments?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 June 2017 — Neli Valcheva v Georgios Babanarakis

(Case C-335/17)

(2017/C 269/15)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Neli Valcheva

Defendant: Georgios Babanarakis

Question referred

Is the concept of ‘rights of access’ used in Article 1(2)(a) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility to be interpreted as encompassing not only access between the parents and the child but also the child’s access to relatives other than the parents, that is to say the grandparents?

(1) OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.
1.

Is Article 316(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as meaning that taxable dealers may apply the margin scheme also to the supply of works of art supplied to the taxable dealer within the Community by their creators or their successors in title where such creators or successors in title are not persons referred to in Article 314 of Directive 2006/112?
1.

Do activities such as those at issue in the present case, that is to say, the recording, in a police station, of police officers carrying out procedural measures and publication of the video on the Internet site www.youtube.com, fall within the scope of Directive 95/46? (1)
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: In which local currency may the prices referred to in Article 2(18) and the second and third sentences of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 be indicated, where an air carrier established in a Member State (in the present case Germany) advertises and offers an air service with a point of departure in another Member State (in this case the United Kingdom) to a consumer on the internet? In this respect, does it depend on whether an internet address with a country-specific top-level domain (in this case: www.germanwings.de) that refers to the Member State in which the air carrier is established and in which the consumer resides is used for the offer? Is it relevant that all or the overwhelming majority of air carriers indicate the prices in question in the local currency used in the place of departure?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny (France) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Caisse de retraite du personnel navigant professionnel de l’aéronautique civile (CRPNPAC) v Vueling Airlines SA

(Case C-370/17)

(2017/C 283/34)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caisse de retraite du personnel navigant professionnel de l’aéronautique civile (CRPNPAC)

Defendant: Vueling Airlines SA

Question referred

Is the effect of an E 101 certificate issued, in accordance with Article 11(1) and Article 12a(1a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, (1) by the institution designated by the authority of the Member State whose social security legislation remains applicable to the situation of the employee to be preserved even though the E 101 certificate has been obtained as a result of fraud or an abuse of right, which has been established in a final decision of a court of the Member State in which the employee carries out or should carry out his activity?

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, does the issuing of E 101 certificates prevent the victims of the damage suffered as a result of the conduct of the employer, who has committed the fraud, from being compensated for that damage, without the affiliation of the employees to the schemes designated by the E 101 certificate being called into question by the action for damages brought against the employer?

(1) OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1.
2.

Must the above question be answered applying the principle of acte éclairé with reference to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Handte v Traitements mécano-chimiques des surfaces SA, C-26/91, EU:C:1992:268, despite the fact that it concerned the liability for defects in goods of a manufacturer who could not foresee to whom the goods would subsequently be sold, and thus who would be able to bring claims against him, whereas the present action against a buyer ‘seeking a declaration that a contract for the sale of immovable property is ineffective’ on the ground of detriment to the seller’s creditors, requires, in order to be effective, knowledge on the part of the buyer that the legal act (contract of sale) was done with detriment to creditors, and thus the buyer must anticipate that such an action may be brought by a personal creditor of the seller?
2.

Does the system provided for by Council Directive 2003/86/EC … preclude a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an application for consideration for family reunification on the basis of the more favourable provisions of Chapter V of that directive can be rejected for the sole reason that it was not submitted within the period laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 12(1)? For the purpose of answering this question, does any relevance attach to the fact that it is possible, in the event of the aforementioned period being exceeded, to submit an application for family reunification, whether or not after a rejection, in which an assessment is made as to whether the requirements laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/86/EC have been met and in which the interests and circumstances indicated in Articles 5(5) and 17 of that directive are taken into account?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria (Italy) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Amt Azienda Trasporti e Mobilità SpA and Others v Atpl Liguria — Agenzia regionale per il trasporto pubblico locale SpA, Regione Liguria

(Case C-328/17)

(2017/C 309/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Amt Azienda Trasporti e Mobilità SpA, Atc Esercizio SpA, Atp Esercizio Sr, Riviera Trasporti SpA, Tpl Linea Srl

Defendants: Atpl Liguria — Agenzia regionale per il trasporto pubblico locale SpA, Regione Liguria

Question referred

Do Article 1(1), (2) and (3) and Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1) 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, preclude a national law which recognises only economic operators that applied to take part in a tendering procedure as being able to challenge the documents relating to a tendering procedure, even when the action criticises the tendering procedure as a matter of principle because the rules of the tendering procedure make it highly unlikely that the economic operator would be awarded the contract?

(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 L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2017 — Finanzamt B v A-Brauerei

(Case C-374/17)

(2017/C 309/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt B

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: A-Brauerei

Question referred

Is Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that there is aid prohibited under that provision in the case where legislation of a Member State provides that real property transfer tax is not charged on a taxable acquisition pursuant to a transformation (merger) in the event that certain legal entities (a controlling undertaking and a dependent company) are involved in the transformation procedure and the controlling undertaking’s 100 % holding in the dependent company has existed for five years prior to the legal procedure and for five years thereafter?
4.

If the date of expiry of a directly awarded contract falls after the end of the 30-year period ending on 3 December 2039 (that period commencing on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) does that render the award inconsistent with the principles laid down in the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 8(3) of the regulation, or may such an irregularity be regarded as automatically remedied, for all legal purposes, by an implied shortening of the length of the contract by operation of law (Article 8(3)), so as to fall within the 30-year period?
2.

If the requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, and interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 22 March 2017 in Joined Cases C-497/15 and C-498/15, Euro-Team, is not a directly applicable provision of the directive: does the interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law permit and require the national court and administrative authority to supplement — in the absence of legislative action at national level — the relevant Hungarian legislation in the present proceedings with the substantive criteria of the requirement of proportionality, laid down in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 22 March 2017 in Joined Cases C-497/15 and C-498/15, Euro-Team?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 330/2

Appeal brought on 15 May 2017 by Ccc Event Management GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) made on 14 March 2017 in Case T-889/16, Ccc Event Management GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-261/17 P)

(2017/C 330/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Ccc Event Management GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

By order of 13 July 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 8 August 2017 — AS Viking Motors, OÜ TKM Beauty Eesti, AS TKM King, Kaubamaja AS, Selver AS v Tallinna linn, Maksu- ja Tolliamet

(Case C-475/17)

(2017/C 347/20)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AS Viking Motors, OÜ TKM Beauty Eesti, AS TKM King, Kaubamaja AS, Selver AS

Defendants: Tallinna linn, Maksu- ja Tolliamet

Question referred

Is Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national tax which applies generally and is proportionate to the price, but which, pursuant to the relevant provisions, is to be levied only at the stage of the sale of goods or services to a consumer, with the result that the final tax burden rests ultimately with the consumer, and which compromises the operation of the common system of value added tax and distorts competition?

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