ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be reconciled with a national provision such as Article 19 of the Besluit algemene rechtspositie politie (Decree on the general legal status of the police) (‘the Barp’), under which a public servant who has been wrongly dismissed does not accumulate any leave hours during the period between the date of dismissal and the date of reinstatement of the employment relationship, or the date on which the employment relationship is finally validly terminated?
2.

May liability of a Member State for a breach of Community law arise before a party to proceedings has used all legal remedies available in the legal order of the Member State in proceedings for enforcement of an award? In the light of the facts of the case, may that liability of a Member State arise in the present case before the actual conclusion of the proceedings for enforcement of the award and before exhaustion of the applicant’s possibility of requiring an account for unjust enrichment?
2.

Must those provisions be interpreted as precluding a Member State from applying the principle of benign retroactivity (in mitius) in respect of persons who, before 1 January 2007 (or other subsequent date on which the treaty took full effect), the date on which Romania’s accession to the European Union took effect, were responsible for breach of Article 12 of Legislative Decree No 286/1998 (consolidated text on immigration) in that they facilitated the immigration of Romanian nationals, which ceased to be an offence as from 1 January 2007?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 254/10

Appeal brought on 29 May 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union

(Case C-253/15 P)

(2015/C 254/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT, Council of the European Union, Maxcom Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015, notified to the Commission on 23 March 2015, in Case T-412/13 Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v. Council of the European Union, reject the Application at first instance, and order the Applicant to pay the costs; or, alternatively,

— refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal brought by the Commission concerns the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13. In that judgment, the General Court annulled, to the extent that it concerns Chin Haur Indonesia, PT, Article 1(1) and 3 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 (1) of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not.

The Commission relies, in support of its appeal, on three grounds of appeal.

First, the Commission argues that the General Court could not legally draw the conclusion that the Council had breached Article 13(1) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (2), because such a conclusion is based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant recital of the contested Regulation and on an incorrect interpretation of Article 13(1) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation. Second, the Commission argues that the General Court provided an insufficient and contradictory reasoning for its conclusion, in breach of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Third, the Commission considers that the General Court breached the procedural rights of the Commission under Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ L 153, p. 1.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community OJ L 343, p. 51.
8.

Is it compatible with the principle that consumers are not bound by unfair terms, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC, and with the right to effective judicial protection affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (2) for the same limitation of the restitutory effects deriving from the nullity of a ‘floor clause’, declared in proceedings brought by a consumers’ association against financial bodies, to be automatically extended to individual actions for a declaration that a ‘floor clause’ is void because unfair brought by consumer customers who have concluded a mortgage loan with other financial bodies?
1)

Must Article 101 TFEU (or Article 102 TFEU) be interpreted as meaning that the UEFA rule known as the ‘break-even requirement’ or ‘break-even rule’ infringes that provision of EC law in so far as the UEFA rule gives rise to a restriction of competition (or the abuse of a dominant position), in particular a restriction ‘by its object’ in that it limits the right to invest, which is either ‘by its object’ anticompetitive or is not necessary for the achievement of the objectives pursued by UEFA, namely the long-term financial stability of football clubs and the sporting integrity of UEFA’s competitions — or, in the alternative, which is not proportionate to the achievement of those objectives?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/33

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2015 — Hörmann Reisen GmbH v Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg

(Case C-292/15)

(2015/C 294/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Vergabekammer Südbayern

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hörmann Reisen GmbH

Defendants: Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg

Questions referred

1. In the case of an award procedure under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) in conjunction with Directive 2004/18/EC (2) or Directive 2014/24/EU, (3) in principle are the provisions of those directives alone applicable, with the result that any provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 which derogate from those directives are not to be applied?

2. In the case of an award procedure under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in conjunction with Directive 2004/18/EC or Directive 2014/24/EU, is the permissibility of subcontracting therefore governed exclusively by the rules developed by the Court of Justice in connection with Directive 2004/18/EC and by the provisions of Article 63(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU or can a contracting authority, in derogation from the foregoing, stipulate a percentage rate of self-provision (measured in timetable kilometres), in accordance with Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, even in the case of an award procedure of the kind mentioned above?

3. In the event that Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 is applicable to award procedures under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in conjunction with Directive 2004/18/EC or Directive 2014/24/EU, does the determination of the self-provision rate lie within the discretion of the contracting authority, taking into account recital 19 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, with the result that the requirement by the contracting authority of a self-provision rate of 70 %, measured in timetable kilometres, is justifiable?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

(3) 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 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/26

Action brought on 9 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-347/15)

(2015/C 279/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, J. Hottiaux and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, in so far as it did not oblige ÖBB Personenverkehr (Austrian Federal Railways) to publish the public service compensation and the costs and revenues for each public service contract, the Republic of Austria has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) and under Article 6(1) read in conjunction with Rule 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (2);

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The defendant failed to comply with its obligations under Directive 2012/34/EU and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.

The defendant has failed to ensure that the invoices corresponding to public funds for the provision of public transport services are separately broken down according to each contract and that their costs and revenues are evidenced and published separately. The defendant has thereby infringed the corresponding rules of EU law in the area of rail transport.

(1) Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/32

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovak Republic) lodged on 15 June 2015 — Jozef Grundza

(Case C-289/15)

(2015/C 294/40)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Party to the main proceedings

Jozef Grundza

Question referred

On a proper interpretation of Articles 7(3) and 9(1)(d) of the Framework Decision (1), is the condition of double criminality to be considered satisfied only where the facts to which the decision to be recognised refers constitute an offence in concreto, i.e. on the basis of a concrete assessment of the facts (whatever its constituent elements or however it is described) also in the law of the executing State, or is that condition sufficiently satisfied where the facts generally constitute (in abstracto) an offence also in the legal order of the executing State?

(1) Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/43

Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Claire Staelen against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman

(Case C-338/15 P)

(2015/C 294/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment delivered on 29 April 2015 by the General Court in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman;

— therefore, uphold the appellant’s application for compensation for non-material damage suffered on account of the conduct adversely affecting her, the amount of which the appellant calculates at EUR 50 000;

— rule according to the appellant’s pleas sought at first instance except her application for compensation for material damage;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant invokes six grounds in support of her appeal all alleging errors of law and distortion of the facts.

In the first place, the appellant considers that the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts in so far as the appellant refused to allow the investigation on the initiative of the Ombudsman. The General Court also distorted the subject-matter of the complaint.

In the second place, she claims that the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 228 TFEU and Decision 94/262 (1) by depriving them of effectiveness.

In the third place, she claims that the General Court distorted the facts with regard to the duration of the discrimination relating to inclusion in the lists of suitable candidates.

In the fourth place, she complains that the General Court distorted the facts and erred in law by holding that the Ombudsman did not infringe its duty of transparency and due diligence.

In the fifth place, she complains that the General Court declared inapplicable the Decision of the President of the European Parliament, of 23 February 2003, and the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

In the last place, she considers that the General Court was wrong to hold that the Ombudsman did not have to examine the entire destruction of the competition dossier.

(1) Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/22

Appeal brought on 9 July 2015 by Steinbeck GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Joined Cases T-707/13 and T-709/13 Steinbeck GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-346/15 P)

(2015/C 302/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Steinbeck GmbH (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 30 April 2015 in Joined Cases T-707/13 and T-709/13;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal is in breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1):

1. The single ground stated by the General Court for holding that the mark ‘BE HAPPY’ lacked distinctive character was that it could be perceived as an advertising slogan. That is directly contradictory to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to which that alone is not sufficient to exclude distinctive character.

2. The General Court failed further to set out any specific connection between the mark ‘BE HAPPY’ and the goods for which that mark was to be registered which did not require some interpretation by the relevant public. On the contrary an arbitrary link between the goods and the sign was made, which, even if it were correct, required an effort of interpretation from the relevant public.

3. The General Court thereby erred in law in applying the criteria for the assessment of the distinctive character of the mark ‘BE HAPPY’.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/18

Action brought on 19 June 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-304/15)

(2015/C 302/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici, S. Petrova, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to correctly apply the Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (1) with regard to the Aberthaw Power Station in Wales, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3), read in conjunction with Annex VI, Part A, of Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the United Kingdom has failed to correctly apply Article 4(3), read in conjunction with Part A of Annex VI to the Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants with regard to the Aberthaw Power Station. The Aberthaw Power Station, a coal-fired combustion plant with a rated thermal input of 4 090 MWth, thus entering the category of installations with a capacity exceeding 500 MWth, exceeds the applicable emission limit value for nitrogen oxides (NOx) under Article 4(3) of the said Directive as read together with its Article 14(1)(a) and Annex VI, Part A. Pursuant to the applicable provisions, the United Kingdom must ensure that a plant of this capacity, from 1 January 2008, does not exceed the limit value of 500 mg/Nm3 for NOx, reducing it to 200 mg/Nm3 as of January 2016. However, the plant’s emission limit value as set out in its permit is currently 1 050 mg/Nm3 for NOx.

(1) OJ L 309, p. 1
1.

Is the agreement between a bank and a consumer for the granting of credit, which is linked to an agreement to take out life assurance and an agreement for advising on and brokering a capital investment, which in turn serves as security for the credit amount, to be regarded as a contract for the supply of services within the meaning of Article 5(2) of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (1)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/33

Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2015 in Case T-169/12: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union

(Case C-345/15 P)

(2015/C 311/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer, D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Euroalliages

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— Set aside the Judgment of the General Court;

— Give a final judgment on the matter where the stage of the procedure so permits;

— In the alternative, refer the case for reconsideration to the General Court;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

— Order the interveners to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the General Court infringed EU law in its appraisal of the appellants’ pleas in law in its judgment as follows:

— In their first plea in law on appeal, the appellants contend that the General Court erred in its interpretation of Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) (‘the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation’) and erred in its legal appraisal when it rejected the plea at first instance that Article 11(9) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation and its reference to Article 2 of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation require the institutions to calculate a dumping margin in all interim reviews of dumping, thereby also infringing the legal principles of good administration, transparency and legal certainty;

— In their second plea in law on appeal, the appellants contend that the General Court erred in its interpretation of the reasoning of the General Court in its judgment in Case T-143/06 MTZ Polyfilms v Council of the European Union.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community OJ L 343, p. 51.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 July 2015 — Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie v ESET spol. s r.o. sp. z o.o., oddział w Polsce

(Case C-393/15)

(2015/C 337/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

Defendant: ESET spol. s r.o. sp. z o.o., oddział w Polsce

Question referred

Do Articles 168 and 169(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) not preclude, in the case of a branch registered for VAT purposes in one Member State and carrying out mainly intra-company transactions for a parent company established in another Member State and occasionally also transactions taxable in the State where the branch is registered, the taxable person from being entitled to deduct input tax in the State in which the branch is registered, despite the fact that the tax is linked to transactions carried out by the parent company in another Member State?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
1.

Is Article 1(3) of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that extradition for the purposes of prosecution is impermissible where there are strong indications that detention conditions in the issuing Member State infringe the fundamental rights of the person concerned and the fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, or is it to be interpreted as meaning that, in such circumstances, the executing Member State can or must make the decision on the permissibility of extradition conditional upon an assurance that detention conditions are compliant? To that end, can or must the executing Member State lay down specific minimum requirements applicable to the detention conditions in respect of which an assurance is sought?
2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: may the exclusive licensee of a Community design, with the consent of the right holder, bring an action on its own claiming damages for its own loss under Article 32(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs or can the licensee only intervene in an action brought by the right holder for an infringement of its Community design under Article 32(4) of that regulation?