ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 31 July 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj v Attila Balazs

(Case C-432/13)

2013/C 298/06

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj

Respondent: Attila Balazs

Question referred

Is Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope a bilateral agreement which two Member States entered into before the date on which that regulation became applicable and by which the two states agreed to the termination of obligations relating to social security benefits owed by one state to nationals of the other state who had been political refugees in the territory of the first state and who have been repatriated to the territory of the second state, in exchange for a payment by the first state of a lump sum for the payment of pensions and to cover periods during which social security contributions were paid in the first Member State?

(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, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/17

Action brought on 24 July 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-425/13)

2013/C 274/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana, F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 2, second sentence, and Section A of the Addendum/Annex to the Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on linking the EU emissions trading scheme with an emissions trading system in Australia, or, in the alternative,

— annul the Council Decision and to maintain the effects of the contested decision in case it is totally annulled, and

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: breach of Articles 13(2) TEU, 218(2) to (4) TFEU and 295 TFEU and the principle of institutional balance. The Commission submits that the Council infringed Article 218 TFEU by imposing unilaterally upon the Commission a detailed procedure that creates ex novo powers for the Council and obligations upon the Commission that are not based in that provision. The Council has also infringed Article 13(2) TEU, in conjunction with Article 218(4) TFEU, and the principle of institutional balance, because the Council has expanded its powers conferred on it by the Treaties to the detriment of the Commission and the European Parliament

Second plea: breach of Articles 13(2) TEU and 218 TFEU, and the principle of institutional balance, since the contested Decision provides that the detailed negotiating positions of the Union shall be established by the Special Committee or the Council. Article 218(4) TFEU gives only a consultative role to the Special Committee.
4.

Does the framework agreement implemented by the directive preclude national legislation (in the present case the rules of the Italian Navigation Code) that, in the event of the use of successive contracts (in such a way as to be considered abusive for the purposes of clause 5) excludes the transformation of those contracts into contracts of indefinite duration (as provided by Article 326 of the Italian Navigation Code only in situations in which the seaman works continuously for more than a year and in situations in which the period between the ending of one contract and the drawing-up of the following contract is no more than 60 days)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Société Fonderie 2A v Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances

(Case C-446/13)

2013/C 304/12

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Société Fonderie 2A

Respondent: Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances

Question referred

Do the provisions of the Sixth Directive [77/388/EEC] (1) for defining the place of an intra-Community supply mean that the supply of goods by a company to a customer in another country of the European Union, after the goods have, on the vendor’s behalf, undergone processing at the place of business of another company in the country of the customer is a supply between the country of the vendor and the country of the final recipient or a supply within the territory of the country of the final recipient, from the place of business of the processor?

(1) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
1.

Is a passenger entitled to receive in full the compensation provided for in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) for long delay of flights, even when a third party, other than a passenger, has already made a payment to the passenger as compensation for the delay suffered, or should such payment be deducted?
If Question 1(a) or Questions 1(b) and 2(b) are answered in the affirmative:

Does the EU-law principle of effectiveness under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights und Article 19(1) TEU require that the period of limitation for claims founded in EU law cannot start to run until the legal position has been conclusively clarified by the pronouncement of a relevant decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/49

Action brought on 18 September 2013 — European Commission v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-502/13)

2013/C 344/86

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac, C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

— declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation, (2)

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises a single plea in law in support of its action, alleging that, by subjecting the supply of electronic books to a super-reduced rate of 3 % from 1 January 2012, the national legislation is not compatible with the VAT directive.

According to the Commission, the application of a reduced rate of VAT is incompatible with the wording of Articles 96 and 98 of the VAT directive, in so far as such a rate may be applied only to the supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex III to that directive. In the absence of express mention of the supply of digital books in that annex, the latter may not enjoy a reduced rate of VAT. That is moreover confirmed by the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 98(2), which explicitly excludes electronically supplied services from the benefit of reduced rates of VAT, and by the adoption by the VAT Committee of guidelines according to which reduced rates of VAT do not apply to the supply of digital books.

The Commission considers also that the reduced rate of 3 %, that is to say a rate which is below the minimum rate of 5 % fixed by Article 99 of the VAT directive, to the supply of digital books, may not be covered by the exception provided for by Article 110 of the VAT directive, or in accordance with Article 114 of that directive.

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

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for the VAT directive (OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1).
2.

On the basis of Article 3(1) [of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts], is a contractual clause to be regarded as unfair that makes disputes concerning a loan contract entered into by a consumer and a bank subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Chamber made up of three arbitrators of the Permanent Arbitration Court of the Financial and Capital Market, save in the exceptional cases provided for in the contract, regardless of the fact that the contract contains general information concerning differences between the procedure governed by Law LXXI of 1994 on Arbitration and ordinary legal proceedings?
2.

(a) Does the concept of architect within the meaning of Article 10(c) of the Directive require that the migrant in the Member State of origin, beyond carrying out the technical activities of construction planning, construction supervision and actual construction, has also or could also have, after his training, carried out creative, urban planning, economic and possibly historic building conservation activities, and if so to what extent? (b) Does the concept of architect within the meaning of Article 10(c) of the Directive require the migrant to have a university-level education, of which the principal component is architecture, meaning that it goes beyond technical matters of construction planning, construction supervision and actual construction, and also covers creative, urban planning, economic and possibly historic building conservation matters, and if so to what extent? (c) (i) Do the answers to a) and b) depend on how the professional title of ‘architect’ is normally used in other Member States (Article 48(1) of the Directive); (ii) or is it sufficient to establish how the professional title of ‘architect’ is normally used in the Member State of origin and in the host Member State; (iii) or can the spectrum of activities normally associated with the professional title of ‘architect’ in the territory of European Union be derived from Article 46(1) paragraph 2 of the Directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 25 September 2013 — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin v TEKNIQ, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS

(Case C-515/13)

2013/C 359/06

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin

Defendant: TEKNIQ, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS

Question referred

Is the prohibition of direct discrimination on grounds of age contained in Articles 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from maintaining a legal situation whereby an employer, upon dismissal of a salaried employee who has been continuously employed in the same undertaking for 12, 15 or 18 years, must, upon termination of the salaried employee’s employment, pay an amount equivalent to one, two or three months’ salary respectively, while this allowance is not to be paid where the salaried employee, upon termination of employment, is entitled to receive a State retirement pension?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 377/5

Appeal brought on 15 January 2013 by Constantin Hârsulescu against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2012 in Case T-400/12 Constantin Hârsulescu v Romania

(Case C-78/13 P)

2013/C 377/09

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: Constantin Hârsulescu (represented by: I.L. Cioplea, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Romania

By order of 3 October 2013, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and the application for legal aid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ferrol (Spain) lodged on 1 October 2013 — Ministerio de Defensa, Navantia S.A. v Concello de Ferrol

(Case C-522/13)

2013/C 367/44

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ferrol

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministerio de Defensa, Navantia S.A.

Defendant: Concello de Ferrol

Question referred

Is the tax exemption enjoyed by NAVANTIA, S.L. in respect of the Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles (Tax on Real Property) compatible with Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and is it compatible with Article 107 TFEU for a Member State (SPAIN) to establish a tax exemption in respect of State-owned land (property registered as 2825201QA5422N0001YG), made available to a private company whose capital is entirely publicly owned (NAVANTIA, S.L.), on which that company provides goods and services that may be traded between Member States?
3.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is a distinction, which continues to be maintained upon the introduction of a non-discriminatory system for new civil servants, in respect of the remuneration status of old civil servants who are afforded favourable treatment and who do not opt in, on the one hand, and old civil servants who still suffer discrimination despite opting in, on the other, justified in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6 of the directive, as a transitional phenomenon, on grounds of procedural economy, or protection of established advantages or legitimate expectations even where (a) the national legislature is not, in regulating the advancement system, required to obtain the approval of parties to the collective bargaining agreement and is obliged merely to act within the fundamental limits of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, which does not necessitate the full protection of established advantages in the form of the complete retention of the earlier system for old civil servants who are afforded favourable treatment and who do not opt in; (b) the national legislature would also have been free, in this connection, to establish equality among old civil servants by crediting periods before the age of 18 whilst retaining the earlier rules on advancement for old civil servants who previously suffered discrimination; (c) the associated administrative burden would be considerable on account of the large number of requests to be expected but, as far as its expenditure is concerned, does not come anywhere near the total amount of earnings lost and to be lost in future by the civil servants who suffer discrimination in comparison with the civil servants who are afforded favourable treatment; (d) the transitional periods with the continued existence of unequal treatment between old civil servants last many decades and will also affect the vast majority of all civil servants for a very long time (as a result of the general ‘freeze on recruitment’ of new civil servants in a public-law employment relationship); (e) there was a retroactive introduction of the system that impaired, to the detriment of the civil servant, the legal situation which had to be implemented, having regard to the primacy of EU law, at least between 1 January 2004 and 30 August 2010 and was more favourable to the civil servant, which the civil servant had requested be applied to his case even before the amending law was adopted? If Questions 1 or 2 are answered in the negative or Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2013 — Douane Advies Bureau Rietveld v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-541/13)

2014/C 9/30

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Douane Advies Bureau Rietveld

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Question referred (1)

Is the concept of ‘reagent’, as used in the phrase ‘diagnostic or laboratory reagents’ in tariff heading 3822 of the CN, to be interpreted as meaning a substance which by means of its chemical transformation as a result of a chemical reaction on or with a substance under investigation is used to indicate a state or property of the latter substance?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 304, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/7

Action brought on 14 November 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-576/13)

2014/C 24/12

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— Declare, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that, by requiring, as a general rule, cargo handling undertakings operating in Spanish ports of general interest to participate in a SAGEP (Sociedad Anónima de Gestión de Estibadores Portuarios, a public limited company for the management of port cargo handlers) and in any event by not permitting them to have recourse to the market, for the purposes of recruiting their own personnel, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, unless the workers put forward by the SAGEP are unsuitable or insufficient, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action brought by the European Commission against the Kingdom of Spain concerns the body of rules established by the Law on State Ports and the Merchant Navy in relation to cargo handling undertakings, with regard to the management of the workers involved in port cargo handling services.

The Commission takes the view that those rules — by requiring, as a general rule, cargo handling undertakings operating in Spanish ports of general interest to participate in a SAGEP and in any event by not permitting them to have recourse to the market, for the purposes of recruiting their own personnel, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, unless the workers put forward by the SAGEP are unsuitable or insufficient — are contrary to the Kingdom of Spain’s obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on freedom of establishment.
1.

Are the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its judgment in Joined Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07 [Ecotrade spa v Agenzia delle Entrate [2008] ECR I-3457] — to the effect that Article 18(1)(d) and Article 22 of Sixth Directive 77/388, (1) as amended by Directive 91/680/EEC (2) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, preclude a practice whereby declarations are reassessed and value added tax recovered which penalises a failure to comply with, first, the formal requirements laid down by national law in implementation of Article 18(1)(d) and, second, obligations relating to accounts and tax returns under Article 22(2) and (4) respectively, by denying the right to deduct where the reverse charge procedure applies — also applicable in the case of total failure to comply with the obligations laid down by national law where there is, however, no doubt as to the status of a person as a person liable for payment of the tax or that person’s right to deduct?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 28 November 2013 — Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances v Gérard de Ruyter

(Case C-623/13)

2014/C 31/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Defendant: Gérard de Ruyter

Question referred

Do the tax levies on income from assets, such as the social contribution on income from assets, the social debt repayment contribution based on that same income, the social levy of 2 % and the additional contribution to that levy, have, by virtue of the mere fact that they contribute to the financing of compulsory French social security schemes, a direct and relevant link with some of the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, (1) and do they thus fall within the scope of that regulation?

(1) OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.
1.

Is Article 2 of Directive 90/232/EEC, (1) as amended by Article 4 of Directive 2005/14/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the parties to an insurance contract do not have the right to agree on a territorial restriction of the insurance cover for the person insured (to apply a different insurance premium depending on the territory in which the vehicle is used — either in the whole of the European Union or only in the Republic of Lithuania), but in any event without the cover of victims being restricted, that is to say, to define use of the vehicle outside the Republic of Lithuania in another Member State of the European Union as a factor increasing the insurance risk, in which event an additional insurance premium has to be paid?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 29 October 2013 — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Marián Vasko

(Case C-558/13)

2014/C 45/30

Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CD Consulting s.r.o.

Defendant: Marián Vasko

Question referred

Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 4 of Council Directive 87/102/EEC (2) of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which in principle does not allow the national court deciding on rights under an endorsed bill of exchange at any stage of the proceedings to examine of its own motion the agreement and the basis of the legal relationship and the possible unfair nature of a contractual term and any breach of the law regulating the consequences of the failure to state the APR in the consumer credit agreement from which the bill of exchange arose?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2) OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48.
1.

Is Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a company which has been set up by more than one investor for the sole purpose of investing the assets assembled in immovable property may be regarded as a special investment fund within the meaning of that provision?
2.

Must the derogation provided for in Article 51 TFEU be interpreted as covering an activity such as the certification carried out by private-law bodies which, on the one hand, are required to be formed as limited companies and operate in a competitive market and, on the other hand, are connected with the exercise of official authority and, for that reason, are subject to authorisation and rigorous controls by the Supervisory Authorities?