ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015? In particular, does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU allow the Member States, in particular, to transpose the extended power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU retroactively, with the result that even applications which were lodged before that extended power was transposed into national law but which were not yet the subject of a final decision at the time of transposition are inadmissible?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/30

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 17 July 2017 — Monachos Eirinaios (Brother Eirinaios), lay name Antonios Giakoumakis v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

(Case C-431/17)

(2017/C 309/40)

Language of the case: Greece

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Monachos Eirinaios (Brother Eirinaios), lay name Antonios Giakoumakis

Defendant: Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

Question referred

Is Article 3 of Directive 98/5/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the registration of a monk of the Church of Greece as a lawyer, with the competent authority of a Member State other than that in which he obtained his professional qualification, in order for him to practise there under his home-country professional title, may be prohibited by the national legislature on the ground that monks of the Church of Greece cannot, under national law, be entered in the registers of bar associations since, on account of that status possessed by them, they do not provide certain guarantees necessary for practice as a lawyer?

(1) Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36).
If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:

Can the applicant be recognised as an organisation with similar objects for the purposes of Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax on the basis of the provisions on the driving instructor examination and the issue of a driving instruction and driving school licence in the Law on driving instructors (Gesetz über das Fahrlehrerwesen) of 25 August 1969 (Bundesgesetzblatt I 1969, 1336), last amended by the Law of 28 November 2016 (Bundesgesetzblatt I 2016, 2722, Fahrlehrergesetz, Law on driving instructors), and of the public interest in the training of learner drivers to be safe, responsible and environmentally aware road users?
3.

Does a contract or statutory relationship whereby a recognised social housing association rents out social housing to a consumer fall within the scope of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and should a recognised social housing association which rents out social housing to a consumer at a rental price which depends, on the one hand, on the market value determined by that association itself and, on the other hand, by the income and family composition of the tenant, be considered a seller or supplier within the meaning of that Directive?
4)

Fourthly, the General Court failed to appreciate the effect in law of an assignment of a right to a name i.e. that the assignment gives no further right to the assignor (i.e., the EUTM proprietor) to grant or refuse consent to the use of the name (i.e., the contested EUTM), with the result that there is no further consent under Union law following the date of the assignment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 338/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 18 July 2017 — Argo Kalda Mardi talu v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

(Case C-435/17)

(2017/C 338/09)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Argo Kalda Mardi talu

Defendant: Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

Questions referred

1. Is a requirement to preserve cairns, established by a Member State for an applicant for a single area payment and a payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment, for the breach of which a reduction of the payment by 3 % is imposed as an administrative penalty laid down by Article 39 of Commission Delegated Regulation No 640/2014, (1) compatible with Article 93(1) and Article 94 of Regulation No 1306/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council and the minimum standards laid down in Annex II to that regulation?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is No, must, in accordance with Article 72(1)(a), Article 91(1) and (2), Article 93(1) and Article 94 of Regulation No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 4(1)(b), (c) and (e) of Regulation No 1307/2013 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council, an applicant for a single area payment and a payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment comply with the requirements of good agricultural and environmental condition on the whole of his holding or solely on the agricultural area in respect of which the payment is specifically applied for, in order to exclude the imposition of an administrative penalty?

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 48).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(3) Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).
If the answer to Question 1.2. is in the affirmative:

Does the judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 November 2005 in Mangold (C-144/04, EU:C:2005:709) and in other cases specifying that EU law takes precedence over national legislation mandate that provisions applicable to currently employed civil servants at the time prior to transition, which had been retroactively repealed, must continue to be applied so that those civil servants can be retroactively classified in the old system in a non-discriminatory manner and are thus reclassified in the new remuneration system in a non-discriminatory manner?
2.

Does the principle of non-discrimination under clause 4 of the framework agreement preclude a national provision (such as that contained in Article 485(1) of Legislative Decree No 297 of 16 April 1994) which lays down that, in order to determine seniority at the time of admittance to the permanent staff under a permanent employment contract, the first four years of service performed on a fixed-term basis are counted in full but subsequent periods are reduced by one-third for legal purposes and by two-thirds for salary purposes if one considers the absence, for the purposes of fixed-term employment, of a requirement to pass an initial objective test of professional qualifications in a public selection procedure?
1.

For the purposes of the VAT exemption for transport operations and services relating to the export of goods, in accordance with Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, does a TIR carnet certified by the customs authorities of the country of destination constitute a document which proves that the goods transported were indeed exported, taking into account the procedure for such a customs transit document laid down in the Transit Manual (TIR procedure) No TAXUD/1873/2007 by the Customs Code Committee — Transit section, Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 65 of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, for taxation purposes, a payment on account received by a taxable person supplying tourist services, taxed under the special scheme for travel agents provided for in Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC, is reduced by the cost referred to in Article 308 of Directive 2006/112/EC actually incurred by the taxable person up to the time when he receives the payment on account?
1.

Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude a national rule under which compulsory contributions to an occupational pension scheme made by a non-resident taxpayer (on the basis of his membership of a bar association in the Member State, which is mandatory on professional grounds for the purposes of his activity carried on in several Member States) are not treated as deductible from income within the framework of limited tax liability, whereas in the case of resident taxpayers national law permits their deduction from income up to a specific ceiling within the framework of unlimited tax liability?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Olympus Italia Srl v Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico — Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata di Rionero in Vulture (I.R.C.C.S. CROB)

(Case C-486/17)

(2017/C 374/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Olympus Italia Srl

Defendant: Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico — Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata di Rionero in Vulture (I.R.C.C.S. CROB)

Question referred

Do the Community principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of Article 95(10) and Article 83(9) of Legislative Decree No 50/2016, according to which the failure to list the corporate safety and security costs separately in the financial tender in a procedure for the award of public contracts inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned without the possibility of supplementing or amending its tendering documentation, even in the case where the obligation to list those costs separately was not set out on the attached form to be completed for the submission of the tender, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question actually took into account the minimum costs of corporate safety and security?

(1) 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 (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Wolfgang Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd.

(Case C-532/17)

(2017/C 402/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Wolfgang Wirth, Theodor Mülder, Ruth Mülder, Gisela Wirth

Defendant: Thomson Airways Ltd.

Question referred

Is the concept of ‘operating air carrier’ in 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), to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which leases to another air carrier an aircraft, including crew, for a contractually-stipulated number of flights under a so-called wet lease, but which does not bear the principal operational responsibility for the individual flights, and where it is stated in the passengers’ booking confirmation that the flight is ‘operated by …’ that very carrier, is the operating air carrier within the meaning of that regulation?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
3.

If it is possible to register, as a colour mark, a mark represented in the form of a drawing in the trade mark application, is it necessary for the registration as a colour mark of a mark which has been graphically illustrated in the trade mark application with the accuracy required by the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to colour marks (and which is not the registration as a mark of a colour in itself, abstract, without shape or contours), is it necessary to submit in addition solid evidence of use as required by the Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus or any such evidence?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 September 2017 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Adel Hamed

(Case C-540/17)

(2017/C 402/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Adel Hamed

Questions referred

1. Does EU law preclude a Member State (in this case, Germany) from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that refugee status has been granted in another Member State (in this case, Bulgaria), in implementation of the power under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) or under the rule in Article 25(2)(a) of Directive 2005/85/EC (2) that preceded it, if the form which the international protection takes, and, more specifically, the living conditions of persons qualifying as refugees, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant international protection (in this case, Bulgaria), (a) does not meet the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU (3) and/or (b) infringes Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

2. If Question 1(a) or (b) is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where (a) persons qualifying as refugees in the Member State in which they so qualify (in this case, Bulgaria) do not receive any subsistence benefits at all, or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, but they are to that extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State, (b) persons qualifying as refugees are, admittedly, formally treated in the same way as nationals of that State with regard to the conditions relating to subsistence but in fact have greater difficulty in accessing the corresponding benefits and there is no integration programme appropriately tailored and addressing the special needs of the persons concerned such as to ensure de facto equivalent treatment to that of nationals of that State?

(1) Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

(2) Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13).

(3) Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).
2.

If spindles with the specific features as described must be classified under CN heading 7318 15 90, the EU Court of Justice is requested to provide a preliminary ruling on the following question: — Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid as a result of the fact that the Commission and the Council — according to the WTO’s Appellate Body — based themselves on a process that linked the definition of EU industry to EU producers’ willingness to be part of a sample and be inspected, resulting in a self-selecting process in the industry, which gave rise to a material risk of distortion of the investigation and the result?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 3 October 2017 — BUAK Bauarbeiter-Urlaubs- u. Abfertigungskasse v Gradbeništvo Korana d.o.o.

(Case C-579/17)

(2017/C 424/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BUAK Bauarbeiter-Urlaubs- u. Abfertigungskasse

Defendant: Gradbeništvo Korana d.o.o.

Question referred

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that proceedings involving the assertion of claims by the Bauarbeiter-Urlaubs- und Abfertigungskasse (Construction Workers’ Leave and Severance Pay Fund, Austria) (‘BUAK’) for wage supplements against employers as a result of the posting to Austria of workers without a habitual place of work in Austria for the purposes of performing work or in connection with the hiring-out of workers, or against employers established outside Austria as a result of the employment of workers with a habitual place of work in Austria, constitute ‘civil and commercial matters’ to which the aforementioned regulation applies, even where such claims by BUAK for wage supplements concern employment relationships governed by private law and serve to cover workers’ claims to annual leave and payment in respect of annual leave (‘annual leave pay’), governed by private law and arising from employment relationships with employers, but nevertheless

— both the amount of the workers’ claims against BUAK for annual leave pay and that of BUAK’s claims against employers for wage supplements are determined not by contract or collective bargaining agreement but, instead, by decree of a Federal Minister,

— the wage supplements owed by employers to BUAK serve to cover not only the expenses for the payment in respect of annual leave payable to workers but also BUAK’s expenses for administrative costs and

— in connection with the pursuit and enforcement of its claims for such wage supplements, BUAK has more extensive powers by law than a private person, in that — employers are required to submit reports to BUAK on specific occasions as well as at monthly intervals, using communication channels set up by BUAK, to take part in and allow BUAK’s inspection measures, grant BUAK access to wage and business records and other documents, and provide information to BUAK, failing which a fine may be imposed, and — in the event that an employer breaches its reporting obligations, BUAK is entitled to calculate the wage supplements owed by the employer on the basis of BUAK’s own investigations, whereby, in that case, BUAK has a claim for wage supplements in the amount calculated by BUAK, irrespective of the actual circumstances of the posting or employment?

(1) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/23

Action brought on 16 October 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-599/17)

(2018/C 005/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Rius and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt, before 3 July 2016, the laws, regulatory and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2015/2392 of 17 December 2015 on Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) as regards reporting to competent authorities of actual or potential infringements of that Regulation, (2) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of that Directive;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition of Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2015/2392 into national law expired on 3 July 2016.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC (OJ 2014, L 173, p. 1).

(2) OJ 2015, L 332, p. 126.
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as allowing a national court before which an action for damages has been brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to apply a jurisdiction clause set out in the contract binding the parties, including in cases where that clause does not expressly refer to disputes relating to liability incurred from an infringement of competition law?
1)

Where an application for remission has been made and the Commission notifies its decision that the case has elements of fact and law similar to a previous case already resolved by the Commission or its decision that there is a comparable case pending resolution, is either of those decisions to be regarded as an act with legal content which is binding on the authorities of the Member State in which application for remission is made and is therefore open to appeal by the person seeking remission [Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1)] or requesting that there be no entry in the accounts (Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code)?