ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Is Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13/EEC’) to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Paragraph 151j(1) of the Občianský zákonník (Civil Code) in conjunction with the other provisions of legislation at issue in the present case, which enables a creditor to enforce the fulfilment of unfair contract terms by enforcing a lien by the sale of immovable property despite the objections of the consumer and a dispute regarding the matter and without an assessment of the contract terms by a court or other independent tribunal ?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 14 November 2012 — Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH v Province of Salzburg

(Case C-514/12)

2013/C 63/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH

Defendant: Province of Salzburg

Question referred

Do Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 492/2011 (1) preclude national legislation (here, Paragraphs 53 and 54 of the Salzburger Landesvertragsbedienstetengesetz) under which, for the purposes of determining the effective date for advancement, a public employer takes into account all uninterrupted periods of service which its employees have completed with it, but takes into account, on an all-inclusive basis from a certain age, only a proportion of the periods of service which its employees have completed with other public or private employers whether within Austria or in other EU or EEA States?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to transpose Directive 2009/81/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC (2) and 2004/18/EC, (3) or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of those measures, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Nederland) lodged on 19 November 2012 — T.C. Briels and Others v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu

(Case C-521/12)

2013/C 55/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: T.C. Briels, M. Briels-Loermans, R.L.P. Buchholtz, Stichting A2-Platform Boxtel e.o.and Others, H.W.G. Cox, G.P.A. Damman, P.A.M. Goevaers and Others, J.H. van Haaren en L.S.P. Dijkman, R.A.H.M. Janssen, M.M. van Lanschot, J.E.A.M. Lelijveld and Others, A. Mes and Others, A.J.J. Michels, VOF Isphording and Others, M. Peijnenborg en S. Peijnenborg-van Oers, G. Oude Elferink, W. Punte en P.M. Punte-Cammaert, Stichting Reinier van Arkel, E. de Ridder, W.C.M.A.J.G. van Rijckevorsel en M. van Rijckevorsel-van Asch van Wijck, Vereniging tot Behoud van het Groene Hart van Brabant en Stichting Boom en Bosch, Stichting Overlast A2 Vught e.o., Streekraad Het Groene Woud en De Meijerij, A.C.M.W. Teulings en Stichting Bleijendijk, M. Tilman, Vereniging van Eigenaars Appartementengebouw De Heun I and Others, M.C.T. Veroude, E.J.A.M. Widlak, Van Roosmalen Sales BV and Others, M.A.A. van Kessel, Bricorama BV and Others

Defendant: Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu

Other parties to the proceedings: Burgemeester en Wethouders van Best, Burgemeester en Wethouders van Boxtel

Questions referred

1. Is the phrase ‘not adversely affect the integrity of the site’ in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora to be interpreted as meaning that where the project adversely affects the area of a protected natural habitat type within the site, the integrity of the site is not adversely affected if in the framework of the project an area of that natural habitat type of equal or similar size is created within that site?

2. If the answer to the first question is that the phrase ‘not adversely affect the integrity of the site’ is to be interpreted as meaning that the integrity of the Natura 2000 site is affected, is the creation of a new area of a natural habitat type then to be regarded in that case as a compensatory measure within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the directive?

(1) OJ L 206, p. 7.
4.

If Question 3 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, where a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has not been implemented, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective remuneration of those discriminated against at the highest pay step in their pay grade? Does the legal consequence of infringement of the prohibition of discrimination in that case follow from European primary and/or secondary law itself, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, or does the claim follow only from the point of view of failure to implement the rules of European law in accordance with the claim to State liability under European Union law?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais, SA v Fesih Kalhan

(Case C-565/12)

2013/C 38/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais, SA

Defendant: Fesih Kalhan

Question referred

Does the requirement for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties laid down in Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, (1) in the case of breaches on the part of creditors of the obligations set out in the directive, preclude the existence of rules that allow the creditor, which has been penalised by forfeiture of its entitlement to interest as provided for in the French legislation, to benefit, after the imposition of the penalty, from interest payable by operation of law at a statutory rate, that is increased by five percentage points two months after a court decision has become enforceable, on the sums that remain payable by the consumer?

(1) Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/13

Appeal brought on 24 December 2012 by Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission

(Case C-615/12 P)

2013/C 63/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (represented by: H. Karl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06, the case to be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant’s appeal is founded on breach of procedural requirements, their unlawful application having led to the action being dismissed as inadmissible, as a result of which the appellant’s interests have been adversely affected, and also infringement of European Union law by the General Court.

In its decision the General Court dismissed the application as inadmissible as it was said not to have been sufficiently reasoned having regard to the legal basis, and thus did not comply with Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. That is not reflected in the case-file. The requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure were applied arbitrarily and contrary to the purpose of the provision.

The General Court also failed to take any account at all, in relation to the question of merit in accordance with Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, of the further submissions in the appellant’s reply and of the arguments in its observations on the plea of inadmissibility, or took account of them solely in order to argue their inadequacy, and thereby contrary to the rules of procedure and disregarding all arguments refused to allow the application to be admitted.

By its decision to dismiss the application on the ground of inadmissibility the General Court took a decision that could have been taken in that form and challenged as such as long ago as 2007, and thereby infringed any procedural foreseeability, transparency and efficiency. Accordingly there has been no fair and balanced procedure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/9

Appeal brought on 20 August 2012 by Tibor Szarvas against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2012 in Case T-129/12 Tibor Szarvas v Hungary

(Case C-389/12 P)

2013/C 171/16

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Tibor Szarvas (represented by: M. Katona, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: Hungary

By order of 7 March 2013 the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to bear his own costs.
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is it appropriate to interpret Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as laying down a prohibition of unjustified dismissal or as doing so to the extent to which it requires that the reasons for dismissal appear clearly from the document bringing the legal relationship to an end and that the worker should be able to verify their truthfulness and relevance?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is the main establishment in the third country to be viewed as a taxable person not established in the Member State within the meaning of Article 196 of the Directive, (1) with the result that the purchaser is to be taxed for the transactions?
3.

Is it possible to infer good faith on the part of an applicant for a later trade mark from the situation in which the proprietor of an earlier trade mark concluded agreements with it, on the basis of which that proprietor consented to the publication of periodical printed material whose designation was similar to mark applied for by the later trade mark applicant, agreed with the registration of that printed material by the applicant for a later trade mark and offered that applicant support in its publication, but the agreements concerned nevertheless did not expressly regulate the issue of the intellectual property right?
—

set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it orders Nexans to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission in the proceedings before the General Court and order the Commission to pay Nexans’ costs for the proceedings before the General Court in an amount the Court sees fit,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 28 February 2013 — Guy Kleynen v Council of Ministers

(Case C-99/13)

2013/C 141/25

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Guy Kleynen

Defendant: Council of Ministers

Question referred

Must Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 36 and 41 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing and maintaining a system of higher taxation of the interest paid by non-resident banks through the application of a tax exemption or a lower tax rate solely to the interest paid by Belgian banks?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Quimper (France) lodged on 14 February 2013 — CA Consumer Finance v Francine Crouan, née Weber, Tual Crouan

(Case C-77/13)

2013/C 123/18

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Quimper

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CA Consumer Finance

Defendants: Francine Crouan, née Weber, Tual Crouan

Question referred

Does Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) preclude an interpretation of the national law which validates terms that unilaterally vary the rate of interest in credit agreements, leaving the reasons for the variation in the rate and the methods for calculating that rate to the discretion of the lender, where there are no valid reasons specified in the agreement, if those terms are consistent with wording established by legislation and the lender has, in implementing the agreement, satisfied the statutory requirements relating to the information which must be provided to the borrower?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 19 February 2013 — Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetarförbundet v Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetarförbundet, Facket för Service och Kommunikation (SEKO)

(Case C-83/13)

2013/C 114/42

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Arbetsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetarförbundet

Defendants: Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetarförbundet, Facket för Service och Kommunikation (SEKO)

Questions referred

Is the rule in the EEA Agreement on free movement of services, maritime transport services — which rule has an equivalent in the EC Treaty — applicable to a company with its head office in an EFTA State as regards its activity in the form of transport services to an EC Member State or an EFTA State using a vessel which is registered and flagged in another country outside the EC/EEA?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/25

Action brought on 6 May 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-248/13)

2013/C 171/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, J.-P. Keppenne and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration and pensions, the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Staff Regulations;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant submits that the Council unlawfully refrained from adopting the Commission’s proposal for a regulation adjusting the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union pursuant to Article 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, despite the fact that it is apparent from the mandatory terms of that article that the method for the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions is an automatic procedure which leaves the Council no discretion. The abovementioned article obliges the Council to adopt the Commission’s proposal before 31 December of the current year. The Commission complains that the Council merely noted that it had no qualified majority to adopt the Commission’s proposal concerning, firstly, the adjustment of salaries and, secondly, the correction coefficients provided for in Annex XI of the Staff Regulations. In the submission of the applicant, the Council has in fact, without any grounds, applied Article 10 of Annex XI, ignoring the Commission and Parliament’s prerogatives. By so doing, the Council has infringed not only the provisions referred to above but also the principle of institutional balance, while committing an misuse of powers.
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Commission Directive 2011/18/EU of 1 March 2011 (1) amending Annexes II, V and VI to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community, or in any event to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;
—

In the alternative, annul: (a) Article 9(1) in its entirety, and Article 9(2) in the terms set out in the fifth plea in law in support of this action; (b) Article 18(2) in its entirety, and all references in Regulation No 1257/2012 to the Unified Patent Court as the judicial regime for the EPUE [European patent with unitary effect] and as the source of law for the EPUE
2.

Lack of legal basis for Article 4 by regulating translation in the event of a dispute, which does not directly affect the language arrangements for the intellectual property right referred to in the second paragraph of Article 118 TFEU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X B.V.

(Case C-160/13)

2013/C 178/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: X B.V.

Question referred

Must Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT for which that provision provides does not apply to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses? If the answer is no, is the application of the exemption subject to the condition that the dental prostheses are supplied from abroad by a dentist and/or dental technician to a dentist or dental technician?

(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.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: (a) must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts? (b) are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law?
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/73/EC (1) 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 and with the second subparagraph of point 1(a) and points 1(b), (d), (f), (h) and (i) of Annex I to that directive, or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of those measures, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of that directive;
1.

What is the extent of the right to be heard laid down by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for an illegally staying third-country national in respect of whom a decision falls to be taken as to whether or not he is to be returned? In particular, does that right include the right to be put in a position to analyse the information relied on against him as regards his right of residence, to express his point of view, in writing or orally, with a sufficient period of reflection, and to enjoy the assistance of counsel of his own choosing?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/17

Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Hotel Concordia Srl, formerly Hotel Concordia Snc, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

(Case C-231/13 P)

2013/C 207/29

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Hotel Concordia Srl, formerly Hotel Concordia Snc (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

— Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly, — annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995; — in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).