ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
13.

Having regard to the judgment of the Court in Digital Rights Ireland and Others, paragraphs 58-68 and the operative part, is access to and use of retained data which takes place in the course of criminal proceedings under a general data retention scheme established pursuant to Directive 2006/24/EC and/or Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC, which meets the requirements of paragraphs 60, 61, 62, 67 and 68 of the above judgment, but not the requirements of paragraphs 58, 59, 63 and 64 of the same, compatible with Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the Charter? [Namely, when the retention status, first, requires prior approval by the court based on specific substantive and procedural conditions and, in particular, for the prevention, detection and prosecution of precisely defined crimes contained in the list drawn up by the national legislature and categorised by the latter as serious, and ensures the effective protection of retained data from the risk of abuse and against any unauthorised access and use (see paragraphs 60, 61, 62, 67 and 68 of the above judgment) and, secondly, allows data retention (a) without distinction to all persons who make use of electronic communications services, without previous evidence showing that the person (defendant or suspect) whose retained data are requested might have been involved, even indirectly, in a serious crime before the incident upon the occurrence of which the data were requested from the communications services providers, (b) without the requested data being relevant prior to the occurrence of the investigated event (i) to a specific time period and/or a geographical area and/or a group of specific persons who might be involved, in one way or another, in a serious crime, or (ii) to persons who might, for other reasons, contribute to, by retaining their data, the prevention, detection or prosecution of serious offences, (c) based on a time period (12 months in this case) specified without any distinction between the categories of data specified in Article 5 of that Directive, based on their probable usefulness for the intended purpose or in accordance with the persons concerned; see paragraphs 58, 59, 63 and 64 of the above judgment]
2.

Insofar as Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 is applicable: Where passengers are transported on two flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airports, is the passenger’s final destination to be regarded as the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 even when the claim advanced in the application for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is based on a disruption to the first leg of the journey and the action is brought against the operating air carrier of the first flight, which is not party to the contract of carriage?
1.

Does Article 43 in conjunction with Article 48 EC (now Article 49 in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU) preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which denies relief from investment income tax on distributions of profits made to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is resident within the country, to the extent that persons have holdings in it who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and (1) there are no economic or other substantial reasons for the involvement of the non-resident parent company, or (2) the non-resident parent company does not earn more than 10 % of its entire gross income for the financial year in question from its own economic activity (there being no such activity, inter alia, if the foreign company earns its gross income from the management of assets), or (3) the non-resident parent company does not take part in general economic commerce with a business establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, whereas resident parent companies are granted relief from investment income tax without regard to the aforementioned requirements?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 26 September 2016 — José Joaquim Neto de Sousa v Portuguese State

(Case C-506/16)

(2016/C 454/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: José Joaquim Neto de Sousa

Defendant: Portuguese State

Question referred

Do the requirements of the Second (1) and Third (2) Directives on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles preclude the national legislation from providing for the culpable driver to be compensated, in respect of pecuniary damage, in the event that his spouse, who was a passenger in the vehicle, dies, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Decree-Law No 522 of 31 December 1985, as amended by Decree-Law No 130 of 19 May 1994?

(1) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

(2) Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).
2.

On the correct interpretation of articles 2(1), 14, 62, 63, 65, 73 and 79(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax what, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is the consideration obtained by Madbid in return for the supplies of goods that it makes to users, for the purposes of articles 2(1)(a) and 73? In particular, and taking into account the answer to Question 1: a) is the money paid by a user to Madbid for Credits a ‘payment…on account’ for a supply of goods within the scope of article 65, so that VAT is ‘chargeable’ on receipt of that payment, and such that the payment received by Madbid from the user is consideration for a supply of goods; b) if a user buys goods through the Buy Now or Earned Discount features, is the value of Credits used in placing bids in auctions and, where the bid is unsuccessful, has the effect of generating Earned Discount or reducing the Buy Now price: i. a ‘price discount’ within the meaning of article 79(b), such that the consideration for Madbid's supply of the goods is the money actually paid to Madbid by the user at the time of purchasing the goods and no more; or ii. part of the consideration for the supply of goods, such that the consideration for Madbid's supply of goods includes both the money paid to Madbid by the user at the time of purchasing the goods and the money paid by the user for Credits used in placing unsuccessful bids in auctions; c) if a user exercises the right to buy goods after winning an online auction, is the consideration for the supply of those goods the stated auction winning price (plus shipping and handling charges) and no more, or is the value of the Credits that the winner used to bid in that auction also part of the consideration for the supply of those goods by Madbid to the user; or what principles should be applied in determining the answer to those questions?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/24

Appeal brought on 2 June 2016 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2015 in Case T-347/14: Yanukovych v Council

(Case C-318/16 P)

(2017/C 006/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ukraine (represented by: M. Kostytska, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych, Council of the European Union, European Commission

By order of 5 October 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
2.

Is the second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112/ЕC to be interpreted as precluding compulsory removal from the VAT register under an amendment to the ZDDS (Law on VAT) as at 1 January 2007 where, at the time of compulsory removal from the VAT register, the taxable person meets the conditions for compulsory re-registration for VAT, the taxable person is party to current contracts and states that it has not ceased business and continues to carry on an economic activity, and where the taxable person must actually pay the tax calculated and payable upon the compulsory removal in order to retain entitlement to deduct VAT input tax on assets taxed upon removal from the register and available on subsequent registration? If compulsory removal from the register under the circumstances set out is permissible, may entitlement to deduct input tax on assets taxed upon removal from the register, which are available on the subsequent registration for VAT and with which the person effects or will effect taxable transactions, be made dependent on the actual payment of the tax to the exchequer or may the tax calculated upon removal from the register be set off against the amount of tax credit determined on subsequent registration for VAT, in particular where the tax is payable by a person in respect of whom entitlement to deduct input tax arises …?
3.

For the purposes of guaranteeing the practical effect of Directive 1999/70 EC, if there should be found to be no reasonable justification under clause 4.1, is the unequal treatment of temporary and permanent employees with regard to compensation for termination of their contracts, laid down in the Spanish legislation referred to above, to be interpreted as constituting discrimination of the kind prohibited by Article 21 of the Charter, and therefore as contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination that are part of the general principles of EU law?
1.

Do the provisions of Article 28 et seq. of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, (2) permit an agreed transfer price, which is composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, using an allocation key, regardless of whether a subsequent debit charge or credit is made to the declarant at the end of the accounting period?
2.

Is Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation or practice in accordance with which the entitlement to an allowance in lieu on termination of the employment relationship presupposes that, for reasons beyond his control, the worker was unable to exercise his right to paid annual leave before the end of the employment relationship?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 of Pamplona lodged on 9 December 2016 — Wilber López Pastuzano v Delegación del Gobierno de Navarra

(Case C-636/16)

(2017/C 046/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo of Pamplona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wilber López Pastuzano

Defendant: Delegación del Gobierno de Navarra

Question referred

Must Article 12 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC (1) of 25 November [2003] concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that issue in the main proceedings, and the case-law interpreting it, which does not provide for the application of the requirements of protection against the expulsion of a long-term resident foreign national to all administrative expulsion decisions regardless of the legal nature or type thereof, but instead restricts the application of those requirements to a specific type of expulsion?

(1) OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 21 November 2016 — Mario Alexander Filippi and Others

(Case C-589/16)

(2017/C 038/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mario Alexander Filippi, Martin Manigatterer, Play For Me GmbH, ATG GmbH, Christian Vöcklinger, Gmalieva s.r.o., PBW GmbH, Felicitas GmbH, Celik KG, Christian Guzy, Martin Klein, Shopping Center Wels Einkaufszentrum GmbH, Game Zone Entertainment AG, Fortuna Advisory Kft., Finanzamt Linz, Klara Matyiko

Defendants: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich, Bezirkshauptmann Eferding, Bezirkshauptmann Ried im Innkreis, Bezirkshauptmann Linz-Land

Question referred

Is Article 47 of the Charter (1) in conjunction with Article 56 et seq. TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in cases in which it is necessary to make an assessment of consistency, national provisions (such as Paragraph 86a(4) of the Verfassungsgerichtshofgesetz (VfGG), Paragraph 38a(4) of the Verwaltungsgerichtsgesetz (VwGG), Paragraph 87(2) of the VfGG or Paragraph 63(1) of the VwGG) are incompatible with those provisions of EU law where — as part of an overall system which in practice has the effect that supreme courts do not carry out any autonomous assessment of the facts or weighing of evidence, and in numerous cases which are in the same position in terms of the question of law raised make only a single decision on the facts in one of those cases and on that basis dismiss all the other appeals in limine — they permit, or do not reliably exclude, that judicial (within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or Article 47 of the Charter) decisions — in particular those made in relation to core areas of EU law, such as for example access to markets or free trade — can then be precluded by decisions of institutions of higher instance which for their part do not comply with the requirements of Article 6(1) of the ECHR or Article 47 of the Charter, without a prior reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling?

(1) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/18

Action brought on 23 December 2016 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-669/16)

(2017/C 063/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Norris-Usher, C. Hermes, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to designate sites for the protection of the species phocoena phocoena (harbour porpoise) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1), Annex II and Annex III of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

— declare that by its corresponding failure to contribute to the creation of a Natura 2000 network in proportion to the representation within its territory of the habitats of the species harbour porpoise (phocoena phocoena), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of the same Directive;

— order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The harbour porpoise (phocoena phocoena) is an aquatic cetacean species which is listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive as a species of community interest requiring the designation of specific areas of conservation. A significant population of the species within the European Union is hosted in marine waters in which the United Kingdom exercises sovereign rights.

Pursuant to Articles 3(2) and 4(1) as well as Annexes II and III of the Habitats Directive, Member States hosting the harbour porpoise in their marine waters shall propose sites for their protection and, by so doing, contribute to the creation of the Natura 2000 network. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the proposed list of sites must be exhaustive.

The United Kingdom has not proposed sufficient sites for the harbour porpoise.

(1) OJ 1992, L 206, p. 7.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/26

Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2016 in Case T-543/15: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency

(Case C-666/16 P)

(2017/C 053/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (represented by: M. Grunchard, avocate, K. Van Maldegem, avocat, P. Sellar, Advocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-543/15; and

— rule on admissibility and refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the merits of the case;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the admissibility of appellants’ application for annulment of the contested act; and, as appropriate, thereafter to rule on the merits of the case;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs related to the objection to admissibility before the General Court).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the law which led it to err in law in declaring the appellants’ application for annulment of the contested act inadmissible.

In particular, the appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its reasoning and in its interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making the following errors in law:

— The General Court erred in its interpretation and application of article 130, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, by entering into the substantive merits of the case;

— The General Court erred in its interpretation and application of article 130, paragraph 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, by failing to reserve its judgment on admissibility until it had heard a full exposition of the arguments on the substance of the case.

Furthermore, by declaring the appellants’ application inadmissible, the General Court infringed the appellants’ rights of defence, their right of access to justice and the duty to state reasons which pertain to fundamental rights of the individuals and thus reflect general principles of EU law.

For these reasons the appellants claim that the order of the General Court in Case T-543/15 should be set aside and the Court should rule on admissibility and refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the merits of the case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/8

Appeal brought on 15 September 2016 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2016 in Case T-745/14: TeamBank v EUIPO — Easy Asset Management (EASY CREDIT)

(Case C-495/16 P)

(2017/C 078/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Easy Asset Management AD

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/3

Appeal brought on 15 July 2016 by Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2016 in Case T-312/15: Market Watch v EUIPO — GLAXO GROUP (MITOCHRON)

(Case C-402/16 P)

(2017/C 095/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 1 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 7 December 2016 — X BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

(Case C-631/16)

(2017/C 086/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Questions referred

1. Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 (1) of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by [A] Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, valid?

2. Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 (2) of 28 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by [I] Ltd (China), and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, valid?

3. If the answer to the first and/or the second question is in the negative, does it then mean that the duties paid should be repaid to the applicant with interest?

4. If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, how should that interest then be calculated?

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016 L 245, p. 16).

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 of 28 September 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by General Footwear Ltd (China), Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016 L 262, p. 4).