ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/30

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 16 May 2013 — Elena Petru v Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Sibiu and Casa Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate

(Case C-268/13)

2013/C 207/50

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elena Petru

Defendants: Casa Județeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Sibiu, Casa Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate

Question referred

In the light of the second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, (1) is the requirement that the person concerned be unable to obtain treatment in the country of residence to be construed as categorical or as reasonable; that is to say, where, although the required surgery could, in technical terms, be carried out in good time in the country of residence — in that the necessary specialists are present there and have the same level of specialist skills as those abroad — does the lack of medicines and basic medical consumables mean that such a situation can, for the purposes of that provision, be equated with a situation in which the necessary medical treatment cannot be provided?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2, English special edition: Series I Volume 1971(II) P. 416 — 463).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/26

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2013 — Provincie Antwerpen v Belgacom NV van publiek recht

(Case C-256/13)

2013/C 207/42

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Provincie Antwerpen

Respondent: Belgacom NV van publiek recht

Question referred

Must Article 6 and/or Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted as precluding a public authority of a Member State from being allowed to tax, for budgetary or other reasons, the economic activity of telecommunications operators which arises in the territory or a part thereof through the presence on public or private property of GSM masts, pylons or antennae which are used for that activity?

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 13 June 2013 — Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer v Katerina Pokorná

(Case C-322/13)

(2013/C 226/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Tribunale di Bolzano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer

Defendant: Katerina Pokorná

Question referred

Whether the interpretation of Articles 18 and 21 TFEU precludes the application of provisions of national law, such as those in dispute here, which grant the right [to use] the German language in civil law proceedings pending before the courts in the province of Bolzano only to Italian citizens domiciled in the province of Bolzano, but not to nationals of other EU Member States, whether or not they are domiciled in the province of Bolzano.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 215/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varas Cíveis de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio, Lda v Instituto da Segurança Social, IP

(Case C-258/13)

2013/C 215/08

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Varas Cíveis de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio, Lda

Defendant: Instituto da Segurança Social, IP

Questions referred

Does Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) which lays down the right to effective legal protection preclude national legislation that prohibits legal persons pursuing a commercial objective from obtaining legal aid?

Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be construed as having ensured the right to effective judicial protection, where the domestic law of the Member State, whilst excluding legal persons pursuing a commercial objective from receiving legal aid, automatically grants them an exemption from the costs and charges relating to legal proceedings where they are insolvent or in receivership?

(1) OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Isabelle Gielen v Ministerraad

(Case C-299/13)

(2013/C 226/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Isabelle Gielen

Defendant: Ministerraad

Question referred

Is Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC (1) of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital to be interpreted as precluding the taxation of the conversion — prescribed by law — of bearer securities into registered securities or dematerialised securities, and, if so, can such a tax be justified on the basis of Article 6 of that directive?

(1) OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11.
3.

Should the Court find that there is a prohibition under EU law on discrimination on grounds of obesity in the labour market generally or in particular for public-sector employers, is the assessment as to whether action has been taken contrary to a potential prohibition on discrimination on grounds of obesity in that case to be conducted with a shared burden of proof, with the result that the actual implementation of the prohibition in cases where proof of such discrimination has been made out requires that the burden of proof be placed on the respondent/defendant employer (see recital 18 in the preamble to Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex (1))?
3.

Does an interpretation of Article 112 of the Commercial Companies Code according to which it does not imply termination of proceedings for an administrative offence committed before the merger, or of the corresponding fine to be imposed, conflict with the abovementioned Community Directive, which sets out the consequences of a company merger, thereby constituting a broad interpretation of the provision contrary to the principles of Community law and, in particular, Article 19 of the Directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/35

Appeal brought on 8 July 2013 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 17 May 2013 in Case T-294/11 Greece v Commission

(Case C-391/13 P)

2013/C 260/64

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: The Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the appeal;

— set aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union as more specifically requested;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal, in the sector of olive oil production, the Hellenic Republic submits that the judgment under appeal manifestly erred in law by reason of the misinterpretation and misapplication of the guidelines contained in the documents AGRI/VI/5330/1997, AGRI/17933/2000 and AGRI/61495/2002, then in force, since it regarded the manifest improvement of the control system in the sector of olive oil production in the 2004-2005 period, as compared with the 2003-2004 period, as repeat offending, continuing weaknesses and marked deterioration justifying an increased correction for the 2004/2005 period, although it was clearly inappropriate to increase the correction from the 10 % which was imposed for the 2003/2004 period to 15 % for the 2004/2005 period on the ground of repeat offending, given that there were numerous improvements (further updating of the Olive cultivation-GIS, improved on-the-spot checks and cross-checks which detect irregularities and impose penalties) which reinforced their control system.

By the second ground of appeal, in the sector of arable crops, it is claimed that:

1. there is an infringement of European Union law and a breach of the principle of proportionality by reason of the misinterpretation and misapplication of the non-updated guidelines in respect of flat-rate corrections of the old CAP to the new CAP since the amounts of the flat-rate corrections related to different control rules and
1.

In consideration of the individual character of a design which is claimed to be entitled to be protected as an unregistered Community design for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12th December, 2001 on Community designs (1), is the overall impression it produces on the informed user, within the meaning of Article 6 of that Regulation, to be considered by reference to whether it differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by (a) any individual design which has previously been made available to the public, or (b) any combination of known design features from more than one such earlier design?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 3 July 2013 — Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-377/13)

2013/C 274/13

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Do Article 4(1)(c) and (2)(a), Article 7(1) and Article 10(a) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 (as amended by Council Directive 85/303 EEC (2) of 10 June 1985) preclude national legislation, such as Decree-Law No 322-8/2001 of 14 December 2001, which subjected to stamp duty any increases in the capital of capital companies through the conversion into capital of the claims of shareholders in respect of ancillary services provided previously to the company, even if those ancillary services had been provided in cash, bearing in mind that, as at 1 July 1984, national legislation subjected those increases in capital, made in that way, to stamp duty at the rate of 2 %, and that, at the same date, it exempted from stamp duty capital increases made in cash?

(1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital

OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.

(2) Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital

OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2013 — Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders legally represented by Marianne Sanders v David Verhaegen

(Case C-400/13)

2013/C 274/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders legally represented by Marianne Sanders

Defendant: David Verhaegen

Question referred

Is Paragraph 28(1) of the Gesetzes zur Geltendmachung von Unterhaltsansprüchen im Verkehr mit ausländischen Staaten [Act on the Recovery of Maintenance in Relations with Foreign States] (Auslandsunterhaltsgesetz — AUG) of 23 May 2011, BGBl I S. 898, contrary to Article 3(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008? (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations; OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1.
—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002 and of the obligation of inquiry under the first and second sentences of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 This infringement consists of the following four parts: — incorrect finding of the General Court that an expert’s report submitted during the administrative procedure could be disregarded; — inadequate consideration of the expert’s report and the statement of facts to the expert’s report in the decisions of the Board of Appeal and of the General Court; — failure to properly provide a statement of reasons in the decisions of the Board of Appeal and of the General Court in relation to the infringement of national copyright, in particular insufficient determination of the scope of national copyright protection; — inadequate finding by the Board of Appeal and by the General Court that it was for the applicant to explain the nature of the relevant national copyright protection in the context of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002, and at the same time misinterpretation of the scope of the duties of the Board of Appeal and of the Office for Harmonisation as regards the obligation to clarify of their own motion facts and the legal situation pursuant to the first and second sentences of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 291/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre v Minister Skarbu Państwa

(Case C-370/13)

2013/C 291/02

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre

Defendant: Minister Skarbu Państwa

Question referred

Must Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality, be interpreted as prohibiting the exclusion — as in Article 3(2) read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of the Law of 8 July 2005 on the right to compensation for property left beyond the present borders of the Republic of Poland (Dz. U. No 169, item 1418; Dz. U. 2006 No 195, item 1437; Dz. U. 2008 No 197, item 1223 and Dz. U. 2010 No 257, item 1726) — from the group of persons entitled to receive compensation of an heir of the owner of property left beyond the present borders of the Polish State who does not hold Polish citizenship?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 2 August 2013 — SC BCR Leasing IFN SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția generală de administrare a marilor contribuabili, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția generală de soluționare a contestațiilor

(Case C-438/13)

2013/C 325/22

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC BCR Leasing IFN SA

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția generală de administrare a marilor contribuabili, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția generală de soluționare a contestațiilor

Question referred

May a situation involving goods under a financial leasing contract which, following termination of the contract as a result of the user’s breach, have not been recovered from the user by the leasing company, even though that company has instituted and followed the statutory procedures for recovery and, after termination, has not received any further amount for the use of the goods, be considered a supply of goods for consideration within the meaning of Article 16 of Directive 2006/[112]/EC (1) or, possibly, a supply of goods for consideration within the meaning of Article 18 of Directive 2006/[112]/EC?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
3.

Is Article 2 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of graphic representability is satisfied by a drawn representation alone or with such additions as a description of the layout or indications of absolute dimensions in metres or of relative dimensions with indications as to proportions?
2.

Error of law in relation to the concept of ‘work’, in holding that the whole of a network constitutes a single work within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (2). The judgment under appeal departs from the case-law in Case C-16/98 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-8315 in failing to take account of the need for geographical continuity of the works taken as a whole and for interdependence between them, namely, the need for interconnection for the provision of the service.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 12 August 2013 — Germanwings GmbH v Ronny Henning

(Case C-452/13)

2013/C 325/25

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Germanwings GmbH

Defendant: Ronny Henning

Question referred

What time is relevant for the term ‘time of arrival’ used in Articles 2, 5, 6 and 7 of 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: (1)

(a) the time that the aircraft lands on the runway (‘touchdown’);

(b) the time that the aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or the chocks have been applied (‘in-block time’);

(c) the time that the aircraft door is opened;

(d) a time defined by the parties in the context of party autonomy.

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/48

Action brought on 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-493/13)

2013/C 344/84

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, L. Nicolae and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to ensure, in the case of the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium, effective structural separation of the regulatory function from activities associated with ownership or control of undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services; (1)

— order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium (Ministry of the Economy and Communications) is included in the scope of the concept of ‘national regulatory authority’ defined in Article 2(g) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and the provisions of Article 3 of the Framework Directive apply to it, especially in connection with the structural separation referred to in Article 3(2).

The Commission submits that in addition to regulatory tasks the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium of the Republic of Estonia also carries out activity associated with the ownership or control of undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services. Effective structural separation of the two functions is not ensured, which is contrary to the requirements of Article 3(2) of the Framework Directive.

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.
—

The Republic of Estonia considers that the following provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC: 1. Article 4(6) and (8), 2. Article 16(3), and 3. Article 6(3) are not consistent with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, and asks the Court to annul them on the ground of breach of the Treaties or the rules implementing them. The Republic of Estonia considers that, when those provisions were adopted, the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU — an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU — was also infringed. The Republic of Estonia consequently asks the Court to annul the words ‘and the disclosure requirement is contained in the national tax legislation for the strict purposes of tax collection’ in Article 4(6), the words ‘required by national tax legislation’ and ‘as referred to in paragraph 6’ in Article 4(8), and Article 16(3) and Article 6(3) as a whole. Should the Court take the view that those provisions are not to be regarded as separate and cannot be severed from the remaining text of the directive without changing it, and that the annulment of those provisions may affect the general system of the directive, the Republic of Estonia asks the Court to annul the directive as a whole on the same grounds and for the same reasons;
1.

Does the personal ground for the suspension of penalties in Article 31 of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (‘GC’) also include, beyond its wording, forgery of documents, which took place on presentation of a forged passport to a police officer on the occasion of entry by air into the Federal Republic of Germany, when the forged passport is not in fact necessary to apply for asylum in that State?
3.

Is the introduction of internal measures which result in natural persons registered under the ZDDS and as farmers being denied a tax reduction that is provided for sole traders and legal persons — although they have fulfilled their legal obligations to constitute their taxable income in the same way as sole traders and to determine their annual basis of assessment in the same way as sole traders — an infringement of the principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 26 September 2013 — Ettayebi Bouzalmate v Kreisverwaltung Kleve

(Case C-514/13)

2013/C 367/41

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ettayebi Bouzalmate

Defendant: Kreisverwaltung Kleve

Question referred

Does it follow from Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (1) that a Member State is required, as a rule, to detain a person for the purposes of removal in a specialised detention facility if such facilities exist only in a part of the federal structure of the State, but not in another part in which the detention is carried out in accordance with the provisions governing the federal structure of that Member State?

(1) OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.