ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/41

Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-712/15, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank

(Case C-152/18 P)

(2018/C 161/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (represented by: H. Savoie, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of 13 December 2017 (T-712/15) by which the General Court dismissed Crédit mutuel Arkéa’s application seeking annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 5 October 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/28) setting the prudential requirements applicable to Groupe Crédit mutuel.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds, alleging that:

— the General Court erred in law when it held that Article 2(21)(c) of the SSM Framework Regulation allowed the ECB to exercise prudential supervision on a consolidated basis in respect of institutions affiliated to a central body despite the fact that that body does not have credit institution status;

— the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts when it held that Crédit mutuel is a supervised group since it meets the criteria set out in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 575/2013. (1)

(1) Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 5 March 2018 — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v État belge

(Case C-174/18)

(2018/C 166/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz

Defendants: État belge

Question referred

Is it contrary to Article 39 [EC, now Article 45 TFEU] for the Belgian tax system, in Article 155 of the CIR/92 and regardless of whether or not Circular No Ci.RH.331/575.420 of 12 March 2008 is applied, to have the effect that the Luxembourg pensions of the applicant Mr Jacob, which are exempted from tax pursuant to Article 18 of the Convention concluded between Belgium and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation, are taken into account for the purpose of calculating the tax payable in Belgium and used as the basis of assessment for the granting of tax advantages provided for under the CIR/92, even though they should not form part of that basis by reason of their total exemption as provided for in the Convention for the avoidance of double taxation, and that those advantages, such as the tax-free allowance, long-term savings, costs paid with service vouchers, costs incurred in saving energy in the home, costs incurred in protecting the home against theft or fire, and charitable donations made by the applicant Mr Jacob, are partly lost, reduced or granted to a lesser extent than if both applicants had income earned in Belgium, which, for its part, is taxable in Belgium and is not exempt and may thus absorb the tax advantages in their entirety?
1.

Does it constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of age, within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, for a Member State, in its capacity as an employer, to introduce lower salary scales for new entrants to the profession of national teacher while leaving unaltered the pay of those teachers already in employment, where: a) the revised salary scales and the existing salary scales apply to all teachers in the respective categories regardless of their age; b) at the point at which they were recruited and placed on the respective scales there was no difference in the age profile of those in the higher paid group and those in the lower paid group; c) the introduction of the revised scales has resulted in a substantial difference in pay as between two groups of teachers who are engaged in work of equal value; d) the average age of those placed on the reduced salary scales is lower than that of the average age of those on the original salary scales; e) at the point at which the lower salary scales were introduced, the State’s statistics showed that 70 % of teachers appointed were 25 years of age or under and it was acknowledged that this was typical of the age profile of entrants to national teaching in any given year; and f) national teachers who entered the profession in 2011 and later suffer a clear financial disadvantage in comparison to their teaching colleagues appointed prior to 2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 182/14

Action brought on 15 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-192/18)

(2018/C 182/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Szmytkowska, K. Banks, H. Krämer and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by introducing, in Article 13(1) to (3) of the Ustawa z dnia 12 lipca 2017 r. o zmianie ustawy — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 12 July 2017 amending the Law on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts), a distinction between the retirement age for men and women working as ordinary judges, Supreme Court judges, and prosecutors, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and under Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast); (1) and that,

— by lowering, by means of Article 13(1) of that law, the retirement age applicable to ordinary court judges, and at the same time granting the Minister for Justice the right to decide whether to extend the period of active service of judges pursuant to Article 1(26)(b) and (c) of that law, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that, by introducing, in Article 13(1) to (3) of the Ustawa z dnia 12 lipca 2017 r. o zmianie ustawy — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 12 July 2017 amending the Law on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts), provisions distinguishing between the retirement age for men and women working as ordinary judges, Supreme Court judges, and prosecutors, and by lowering, by means of Article 13(1) of that law, the retirement age applicable to ordinary court judges, and at the same time granting the Minister for Justice the right to decide whether to extend the period of active service of judges pursuant to Article 1(26)(b) and (c) of that law, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) and its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 182/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 12 March 2018 — Fazenda Pública v Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira

(Case C-184/18)

(2018/C 182/15)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fazenda Pública

Defendants: Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira

Question referred

Must the combined provisions of Articles 12, 56, 57 and 58 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Articles 18, 63, 64 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings (Article 43(2) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Singulares, approved by Decree-Law No 442-A/88 of 30 November 1988, as amended by Law No 109- B/2001 of 27 December 2001) which subjects capital gains resulting from the transfer of immovable property situated in a Member State (Portugal) where that transfer is made by a national of that Member State residing in a third country (Angola) to a tax burden greater than that which would be applicable for the same type of transaction to capital gains realised by a resident of the State in which that immovable property is situated?’
Case C-205/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 20 March 2018 — Maria-Cristina Dospinescu, Filofteia-Camelia Ganea, Petre Sinca, Luminița-Maria Ioniță, Maria Burduv and Raluca-Marinela Trașcă v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Vâlcea

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 20 March 2018 — Maria-Cristina Dospinescu, Filofteia-Camelia Ganea, Petre Sinca, Luminița-Maria Ioniță, Maria Burduv and Raluca-Marinela Trașcă v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Vâlcea

(Case C-205/18)

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Pitești

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Maria-Cristina Dospinescu, Filofteia-Camelia Ganea, Petre Sinca, Luminița-Maria Ioniță, Maria Burduv and Raluca-Marinela Trașcă

Respondent: Spitalul Județean de Urgență Vâlcea

Question referred

Must Articles 114(3), 151 and 153 TFEU, read in conjunction with Framework Directive 89/391/EEC ( 1 ) and the subsequent specific directives, be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing time limits and procedures which deny people access to justice for the purposes of having their workplaces classified as characterised by special conditions, with the result that newly-hired workers’ rights to safety and health at work, deriving from the assessment of those conditions in accordance with national legislation, are not recognised?

( 1 ) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 29 March 2018 — GRDF SA v Eni Gas & Power France SA, Direct énergie, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Procureur général près la Cour d’appel de Paris

(Case C-236/18)

(2018/C 190/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: GRDF SA

Respondents: Eni Gas & Power France SA, Direct énergie, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Procureur général près la Cour d’appel de Paris

Question referred

Is Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009, (1) and in particular Article 41(11) thereof, to be interpreted as requiring that a regulatory authority, when settling a dispute, must have power to issue a decision which applies to the whole of the period to which that dispute relates, regardless of the date on which that dispute arose between the parties, in particular by drawing the consequences of the non-conformity of a contract with the provisions of the directive by means of a decision taking effect as regards the whole of the contractual period?

(1) Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94).
1.

Is national legislation under which the guarantee given to the postal operator designated for the provision of a universal postal service entails it being the only entity authorised to distribute means of postage other than stamps contrary to Article 7(1) and Article 8 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service ( 1 ) (the Postal Directive), as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008? ( 2 )
2.

Must Article 20(5) and (6) [of Directive 2013/33] be interpreted as meaning that Member States, before taking a decision on the reduction or withdrawal of material reception conditions or on the imposition of sanctions, must, in the context of those decisions, lay down the measures necessary for guaranteeing the right to a dignified standard of living during the period of exclusion, or can those provisions be complied with by a system whereby, after the decision to reduce or withdraw the material reception conditions, an examination is carried out as to whether the person who is the subject of the decision enjoys a dignified living standard and, if necessary, remedial measures are taken at that point?
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Paragraph 1(c) of Annex II to Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area, to be interpreted as including the use of passenger platforms provided for in the second indent of Annex I to that directive within the notion of ‘use of the railway infrastructure’ referred to therein?
4.

Is Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that a right to property may be withdrawn, as having been directly or indirectly obtained by way of a criminal offence, on the sole ground of the discrepancy between the value of a person’s assets and his lawful earnings, in the case where there is no final criminal judgment finding that the person concerned committed the criminal offence in question?
2.

In view of the fact that, in accordance with Article 377 of the VAT Directive, Portugal chose to continue to exempt from VAT transactions carried out by hospitals not referred to in Article 132(1)(b) of that directive, that it granted such taxable persons the right to opt for taxation of those transactions under Article 391 of the directive, provided that they continue to be taxed for a minimum period of five years, and that it provides that they may become subject to the exemption scheme again only if they make an express declaration to that effect, does Article 391 and/or the principles of the protection of acquired rights and of legitimate expectations, equality and non-discrimination, neutrality and non-distortion of competition in relation to users and taxable persons which are bodies governed by public law, preclude the taxation and customs authority from imposing the exemption scheme before that period has elapsed, since it considers that the taxable person has started to provide services under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law?
Case C-223/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 March 2018 by Deichmann SE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2018 in Case T-68/16: Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office

Appeal brought on 27 March 2018 by Deichmann SE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2018 in Case T-68/16: Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-223/18 P)

Parties

Appellant: Deichmann SE (represented by: C. Onken, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office; Munich, SL

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the General Court of 17 January 2018 in case T-68/17;

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 4 December 2015 in case R 2345/2014-4;

— in the alternative refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

— order the respondent and the intervener to bear the costs both in relation to the proceedings at first instance and the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested decision infringes Articles 51 (1) (a) and 15 (1) CTMR (now Articles 58 (1) (a) and 18 (1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, hereinafter referred to as ‘EUTMR’) in several regards. In particular the General Court did not correctly determine the meaning of the term ‘the trade mark’ in Articles 51 (1) (a) and 15 (1) CTMR.

(1) First, the General Court misjudged the importance, and the legal consequences of, determining the type of mark concerned. It wrongly assumed that it did not matter whether the contested trademark was classified as a figurative mark or as a position mark. In fact, however, the distinction between different types of marks has a significant influence on their subject matter as well as on the way in which they are used. The use of the contested trademark as a figurative mark would differ considerably from the way in which it would be used if it was a position mark.

(2) Second, the General Court did not correctly determine the subject matter of the contested trademark, but regarded and treated the contested trade mark as a position mark. The contested mark is a figurative mark, since it has been applied for and registered as a figurative mark, and no description or disclaimer was entered that suggested otherwise. The mere use of broken lines does not make a figurative mark a position mark.

(3) As a consequence, the General Court incorrectly assumed that Munich S.L. showed genuine use of its mark by showing the sale of shoes, to the side of which two intersecting lines were applied. This kind of use could only account for the use of a position mark, but not for the use of a figurative mark like the contested one.

( 1 ) OJ 2017, L 154, p. 1.
2.

In so far as that legislation permits the applicable reference index to be chosen from those provided for, can national legislation like that applicable in the main proceedings (namely, inter alia and primarily, the Orden de 5 de mayo de 1994 sobre transparencia de las condiciones financieras de los préstamos hipotecarios (Order of 5 May 1994 on transparency of the financial terms of mortgage loans), Orden EHA/2899/2011, de 28 de octubre, de transparencia y protección del cliente de servicios bancarios (Order EHA/2899/2011 of 28 October on transparency and the protection of banking services customers), Circular 5/2012, de 27 de junio, del Banco de España, a entidades de crédito y proveedores de servicios de pago, sobre transparencia de los servicios bancarios y responsabilidad en la concesión de préstamos (Bank of Spain Notice 5/2012 of 27 June to credit institutions and payment services providers on the transparency of banking services and responsible lending, implementing [Ley] 10/2014, de 26 de junio, de ordenación, supervisión y solvencia de entidades de crédito (Law 10/2014 of 26 June on the organisation, supervision and solvency of credit institutions) or its predecessor, Article 48 of Ley 26/1988, de 29 de julio, sobre Disciplina e Intervención de las Entidades de Crédito (Law 26/1988 of 29 July on supervision and control of credit institutions)) be regarded as ‘mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions’ for the purpose of contracts for long-term mortgage loans at a variable interest rate, within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC? ( 1 )
Case C-278/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2018 — Manuel Jorge Sequeira Mesquita v Fazenda Pública

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2018 — Manuel Jorge Sequeira Mesquita v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-278/18)

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Manuel Jorge Sequeira Mesquita

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(l) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC ( 1 ) of 28 November 2006 relating to the exemption of transactions involving the leasing of immovable property be interpreted as meaning that such an exemption is applicable to a contract for the transfer of the use of rural properties comprising vineyards for agricultural purposes to a company whose corporate purpose is the activity of agricultural exploitation, entered into for a period of one year, automatically renewable for further periods of the same length and under which rent is paid at the end of each year?

( 1 ) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-363/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Association Organisation juive européenne, Société Vignoble PSAGOT Ltd v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Association Organisation juive européenne, Société Vignoble PSAGOT Ltd v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-363/18)

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Association Organisation juive européenne, Société Vignoble PSAGOT Ltd

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Question referred

Does EU law and in particular Regulation No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, ( 1 ) where indication of the origin of a product falling within the scope of that regulation is mandatory, require, for a product from a territory occupied by Israel since 1967, indication of that territory and an indication that the product comes from an Israeli settlement if that is the case? If not, do the provisions of the regulation, in particular those in Chapter VI thereof, allow a Member State to require those indications?

( 1 ) Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18).