ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
7.

Article 3 of the SE Directive, which appears in Section II, entitled ‘Negotiating procedure’, provides: ‘1. Where the management or administrative organs of the participating companies draw up a plan for the establishment of an SE, they shall as soon as possible after publishing the draft terms of … a plan … to transform into an SE, take the necessary steps … to start negotiations with the representatives of the companies’ employees on arrangements for the involvement of employees in the SE. 2. For this purpose, a special negotiating body representative of the employees of the participating companies and concerned subsidiaries or establishments shall be created in accordance with the following provisions: … (b) Member States shall determine the method to be used for the election or appointment of the members of the special negotiating body who are to be elected or appointed in their territories. They shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, as far as possible, such members shall include at least one member representing each participating company which has employees in the Member State concerned. Such measures must not increase the overall number of members. Member States may provide that such members may include representatives of trade unions whether or not they are employees of a participating company or concerned subsidiary or establishment. … 3. The special negotiating body and the competent organs of the participating companies shall determine, by written agreement, arrangements for the involvement of employees within the SE. … 4. Subject to paragraph 6, the special negotiating body shall take decisions by an absolute majority of its members, provided that such a majority also represents an absolute majority of the employees. Each member shall have one vote. However, should the result of the negotiations lead to a reduction of participation rights, the majority required for a decision to approve such an agreement shall be the votes of two thirds of the members of the special negotiating body representing at least two thirds of the employees, including the votes of members representing employees employed in at least two Member States, – in the case of an SE to be established by way of merger, if participation covers at least 25% of the overall number of employees of the participating companies, or – in the case of an SE to be established by way of creating a holding company or forming a subsidiary, if participation covers at least 50% of the overall number of employees of the participating companies. Reduction of participation rights means a proportion of members of the organs of the SE within the meaning of Article 2(k), which is lower than the highest proportion existing within the participating companies. …’
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 June 2021 – Moro and Others v Commission

(Case C‑593/20 SA) ( 1 )

(Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Commission)

Privileges and immunities of the European Union – Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on an institution – Need for the Court’s authorisation – Scope of the Court’s jurisdiction – Coercive measures affecting the financing of common policies or the implementation of action plans established by the European Union – Risk of interference with the functioning of the Union – Rejection of the application for leave to serve an order

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Art. 1)

(see paras 13-19)

Operative part

1. The application is rejected.

2. Silvana Moro, Isabella Venturini, Stefania Venturini, Mario Matta, Marzio Francesco Matta, Massimo Matta and Paola Cotozzoni shall pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Judicial proceedings — Third party proceedings — Admissibility criteria — Third party — Non-participation of the third party opposing the dispute in the main proceedings — Scope — Status of third party for the purposes of participating in the main proceedings — No such status — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 42; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 157(1)(b) and (c))

(see paras 4-6, 19)
4

Article 26 of the ECT, entitled ‘Settlement of disputes between an Investor and a Contracting Party’, states: ‘(1) Disputes between a Contracting Party and an Investor of another Contracting Party relating to an investment of the latter in the area of the former, which concern an alleged breach of an obligation of the former under Part III shall, if possible, be settled amicably. (2) If such disputes cannot be settled according to the provisions of paragraph 1 within a period of three months from the date on which either party to the dispute requested amicable settlement, the investor party to the dispute may choose to submit it for resolution: (a) to the courts or administrative tribunals of the Contracting Party to the dispute; (b) in accordance with any applicable, previously agreed dispute settlement procedure; or ou (c) in accordance with the following paragraphs of this Article. (3) (a) Subject only to subparagraphs (b) and (c), each Contracting Party hereby gives its unconditional consent to the submission of a dispute to international arbitration or conciliation in accordance with the provisions of this Article. … (4) In the event that an investor chooses to submit the dispute for resolution under subparagraph (2)(c), the investor shall further provide its consent in writing for the dispute to be submitted to: (a) (i) The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, established pursuant to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States opened for signature at Washington, 18 March 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “[ICSID] Convention”), if the Contracting Party of the Investor and the Contracting Party party to the dispute are both parties to the ICSID Convention; or (ii) The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, established pursuant to the Convention referred to in subparagraph (a)(i), under the rules governing the Additional Facility for the Administration of Proceedings by the Secretariat of the Centre (hereinafter referred to as the “Additional Facility Rules”), if the Contracting Party of the Investor or the Contracting Party party to the dispute, but not both, is a party to the ICSID Convention; (b) a sole arbitrator or ad hoc arbitration tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (hereinafter referred to as “Uncitral”); or (c) an arbitral proceeding under the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. …’
2.

The review shall concern the question whether, having regard, in particular, to the general principle of legal certainty, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2018, HG v Commission (T‑693/16 P, not published, EU:T:2018:492), affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that the composition of the panel of judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal which had delivered the judgment of 19 July 2016, HG v Commission (F‑149/15, EU:F:2016:155), had been irregular, on the basis of an irregularity affecting the procedure for the appointment of one of the members of that panel of judges, leading to infringement of the principle of the lawful judge, laid down in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The review shall involve, in particular, the question whether, like the acts covered by Article 277 TFEU, the appointment of a judge may form the subject matter of a review of indirect legality or whether such a review of indirect legality is — by principle or after the passage of a certain period of time — excluded or limited to certain types of irregularity in order to ensure legal certainty and the force of res judicata.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/6

Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-469/07)

(2008/C 8/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Kraemer, Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to communicate the Community design courts to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1);

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not fulfilled the obligation laid down in Article 80(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, under which each Member State is to communicate to the Commission not later than 6 March 2005 a list of Community design courts, indicating their names and their territorial jurisdiction.

(1) OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/22

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 25 October 2007 — Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivières — TOS, Association OABA v Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables — Intervener: Association France Nature Environnement

(Case C-473/07)

(2008/C 22/42)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivières — TOS, Association OABA

Defendant: Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables

Questions referred

Must paragraph 6.6(a) of Annex I to Directive 96/61/EC (1), which applies to installations for the intensive rearing of poultry with more than 40 000 places, be interpreted:

1. as including within its scope quails, partridges and pigeons; and, if so,

2. as authorising a mechanism for calculating authorisation thresholds on the basis of a system of ‘animal-equivalents’, which gives weighting to the number of animals per place according to species so that account may be taken of the amount of nitrogen actually excreted by the various species?

(1) Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26).
5.

When answering the previous questions, is it relevant that Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 does not specify the period within which the competent authority, as referred to in Article 9(1) of that Regulation, must process the application for a certificate and ultimately grant a certificate, as a result of which a difference in the speed with which the authorities concerned in the Member States process applications may lead to differences between them as to the possibility of a certificate being granted?
(1)

Where a medicinal product falling outside the scope of the Annex to Regulation 2309/93 (1) has been placed on the market in a Member State, (Austria) under its national authorisation procedure prior to the accession of that Member State to the EEA or the EC and: (a) that Member State has subsequently acceded to the EEA and then the EC, and as part of the conditions of its accession it has transposed into its national law the authorisation provisions of Directive 65/65 (now Directive 2001/83 (2)), no transitional provisions applying in this respect; (b) the product in question has remained on the market in that Member State for some years after its accession to the EEA and the EC; (c) following the accession of that Member State to the EEA and the EE, the marketing authorisation for the product in question has been varied by adding a new indication, and the variation was considered by the authorities of that Member State to be consistent with the requirements of Community law; (d) the dossier of the product in question was not updated in accordance with Directive 65/65 (now Directive 2001/83) after that Member State's accession to the EEA and the EC; and (e) a product containing the same active ingredient has subsequently been authorised under Article 6 of Directive 2001/83 and placed on the market in the EC; is the medicinal product to be considered to be ‘a reference medicinal product which is or has been authorised under Article 6 … in a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83, and if so which of the above conditions is/are decisive in this respect?
—

declare that, by failing, for all calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, to make call-tracing information available, within the limits of technical feasibility, to the authorities called upon to act in cases of emergency, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1);
2.

If the location is to be understood as requiring designation of the registered parcel of land, can an exception relating to the protection of public order or other confidential matters protected by law preclude, on the basis of Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, now the European [Union], or of Directive 2003/4/EC (2) of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information or of a general principle of Community law, the disclosure of the registered reference number or numbers of the location of the release?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/36

Action brought on 11 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-554/07)

(2008/C 51/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to transpose correctly into Irish legislation Article 13 of Directive 2006/112 (including Annex I to the directive) and consequently by excluding from the scope of the tax all economic activities in which the State, local authorities and other bodies governed by public law engage, with certain limited exceptions, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 2, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1);

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In Ireland, the State and local authorities are treated as taxable persons only in so far as a specific order to that effect has been made by the Minister for Finance. In the Commission's view that situation is contrary to the scheme laid down in Article 13 of the VAT directive in several respects. First, no provision is made for the taxation of public bodies where they act other than in their capacity as public authorities. Secondly, no general provision is made for the taxation of public bodies where they act in their capacity as public authorities but engage in an economic activity whose non-taxation would result in a significant distortion of competition. The taxation of public bodies is wholly at the discretion of the Minister for Finance; no criteria for his decision are contained in the relevant provisions. Thirdly, no provision is made for taxation of the activities listed in Annex I to the VAT directive.

(1) OJ L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/17

Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-540/07)

(2008/C 37/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by keeping in force a tax system which is more onerous for dividends distributed to companies established in the other Member States and in the States Party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area compared to that applied to domestic dividends, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 EC and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area concerning the free movement of capital between the Member States and that between the States Party to the agreement in question, as well as its obligations under Article 33 of that agreement in relation to the freedom of establishment between the States Party to that agreement;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission refers to the Italian legislation in force in the matter, also that under the Treaty, which subjects the distribution of dividends to non-Italian companies (outgoing dividends) to tax treatment which is significantly less favourable than that applied to the distribution of dividends to Italian companies (domestic dividends).

The European Commission submits that such legislation, which, however, the Italian Government is about to amend, is contrary to the principle of the free movement of capital, since it has a negative effect on the profits and investment decisions of non-resident shareholders in Italian companies, making it, at the same time, more difficult for the same Italian companies to raise capital abroad. It should therefore be declared to be a clear infringement of Article 56 EC, which prohibits any restriction on the free movement of capital between the Member States, and of Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement), which governs in a similar manner the same free movement between the States Party to that agreement.

Moreover, in the European Commission's submission, such legislation may also conflict with the right of establishment as laid down by Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, since it is applicable also to controlling shareholdings in Italian companies owned by companies established in the States Party to that agreement, shareholdings for which their tax system harmonised to Community Directive 90/435/EEC (1) does not apply.

In the course of the procedure for infringement, the European Commission has had the opportunity of examining the Italian Republic's arguments in defence justifying the legislation in question, but considers that they do not do so. Recently however the Italian Government announced its own intention to amend the said legislation by making it compliant with the Community directive. This action may accelerate such process of reform.

(1) OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.
1.

Whether the provisions of Article 6 (Supply of services) and Article 13 (Exemptions within the territory of the country) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) can be interpreted as meaning that the letting of an apartment (and possibly of non-residential premises) on the one hand and the related cleaning of the common parts on the other hand can be regarded as independent, mutually-divisible taxable transactions.
2.

Are Article 40(3)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Article 93 of the Consolidated Laws of 14 July 1994 on medical care and sickness insurance benefit contrary to Article 18 of the EC Treaty in that, where a worker lives and works in a type A country (in this case, Belgium) and moves to a type B country (in this case, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), they give rise to discrimination to the detriment of a worker exercising her right of free movement in not permitting the grant to her, during the first year of incapacity for work, of an allowance that takes into account the length of time worked and the period of contribution in the type A country (Belgium)?
1.

Must Article 8(2) of First Council Directive No 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark can invoke the rights conferred by that trade mark against a licensee who contravenes a provision in the licensing contract prohibiting, on grounds of the trade mark's prestige, sale to discount stores?
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive (1), or in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53(1) of that directive;
2.

As regards the social purpose of the directive, is it sufficient for the national legislation to use the employee's initial claim relating to pay merely as a basis of comparison against which to determine per relationem the benefit to be guaranteed through the intervention of the guarantee institution or is it a requirement that the worker's claim relating to pay against the insolvent employer be protected, through the intervention of the guarantee institution, by ensuring that its scope, guarantees and time-limits and the procedures for its exercise are the same as those available for any other employment claim under the same legal order?
1.

Are Articles 10 and 12 of Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC (1)) to be interpreted as not precluding the national legislature from making a legal action brought by a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy subject to time-limits fixed in advance, such as the eight-day period laid down in the second subparagraph of Article [L.] 337(1) of the [Luxembourg] Code du Travail or the fifteen-day period laid down in the fourth subparagraph of that provision?
4.

If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the negative, in order to prevent distortion of competition, must it be possible under national legislation for the national authority to be placed under an obligation to initiate, of its own motion, an action for the annulment of trade marks which have previously been wrongly registered?
1.

Is the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 (1), which provides that, for the calculation of the requested refund in the case of a differentiated refund, ‘the differentiated part of the refund shall be calculated using the particulars of quantity, weight and destination provided pursuant to Article 47’, to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘particulars of quantity, weight and destination provided pursuant to Article 47’ refers to the particulars in the specific application made pursuant to Article 47(1), with the result that the differentiated part of the refund is requested only at the time of presentation of the application within the meaning of Article 47(1)?
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (1) on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;